population control

[flyingfish]

Also while I do think that we may continue to develop new techologies. I think it is foolish to think that there will always be a new techology that will bail us out so to speak and allow us to keep increasing our population. Not to mention I think quality of life is important to look at too. Sure maybe the earth could support 20 billion people if we all lived in horrible conditions. But if most of the people on the planet right now lived a lifestyle similar to that of lets say your average middle class American we would probably be in deep trouble real fast. And I donlt think thinking this way is pessimism I think it is realism.

That’s really one of my main points. Yes, we can have more people on the planet, but at the cost of a reduction in quality of life.

I find it interesting how people keep saying that other people’s horrid living conditions are a problem in distribution of resources rather than the total number of resources. How would you redistribute them? How many people today enjoy a first world lifestyle? 400 million in North America, another 600 in Europe, maybe another 500 million Asians are living as well as Westerners? (Guessing here, not looking these up). There are nearly 7 billion people on the earth, how are we supposed to “redistribute” to provide a first world lifestyle for the other, say 5 billion people? Do they say we should take from the gluttonous Americans and redistribute it to the poor Africans? Really? How much would you need to take from the ~2 billion who live well to give to the 5 billion who don’t? Where are the magical extra resources to provide everyone with a first world lifestyle?

 

[Janet1983]

Why do you hear (in the secular news and universities) people talking about population control and wanting to limit the population if at least here in the U.S. our pop. is not growing (I heard it’s only remaining stable due to immigration) and in Europe it’s actually declining?

Well it’s a little more complex. Yes the population in the US is rather stable and Europe indeed is declining. (Last time I saw some statistics in Germany about Germany it was an average of 1.3 children per couple… 2 is needed for stability.)
Then you turn around and look at Asia and Africa… they have a constant baby boom…
In the end however I do not believe that we have a problem with overpopulation. We just have a problem with spreading people out properly… There are over 80 million in Germany for example. Germans don’t think it’s crowded but in comparison to the world it would seem so…
In theory you could fit the world’s population of nearly 7 billion into the state of Texas (268,820 sq mi). If you accommodate people as densely as in Manila (Singapore) you could have about 29,993,860,320 live in Texas… that’s quite a few more than we actually have.
Well there’s enough room for resources, if we just learned to use them properly and not all hang around the same place. The world is large… if it gets too crowded where you are move.

 

[Ridgerunner]

To what extent though? If 10, 000 years ago there was only 1 million people on the entire planet, and 2000 years ago only 250 million worldwide how heavily could we have populated anything? It just doesn’t seem like those numbers of people would have been able to do significant damage to anything, considering that we didn’t even have technology.

I doubt anyone really knows how many people there were on the earth 10,000 years ago. For centuries people grossly underestimated how many there were in North America and South America. Those early estimates have come under very serious question only recently.

In my own area, for example, it was long thought Indians were just these small, roaming nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers. It has more recently been determined that there were large towns that subsisted for centuries. However, there aren’t many ways of knowing, because of the biodegradability of their materials. I know of one place, for example, where the cut of an old mill race, closely examined by an anthropoligist, disclosed the existence of a centuries-old town. Back in the 19th century, when the mill race was originally dug, nobody paid any attention to the evidence. The only way the anthropologist knew was by knowledgeably examining the styles of stone tools at various levels.

One of the problems in making such estimates, of course, is that pre-industrial people didn’t leave a whole lot behind that would remain for very long.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The example of Japan offering 3k dollars a year for a child isn’t much of an incentive, imagine they made it 30k a year for your second child. (Worth it, since the investment will pay off when the child grows up and starts working.)

This is an extremely doubtful proposition. This would be $540,000 (assuming no inflation) to raise a child to age 18. Meanwhile, the taxpayers who are paying for this are also going to be paying the pensions of 1 or 2 elderly at the same time. I cannot see this happening as a political matter.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wouldn’t worry that much about it. Those people might be fewer in numbers, but they’ll hold the power and will still be the academics and other professionals. For most of human history only a small percentage of population was able to do work that advanced all of humanity, most of the rest slaved away at menial work just to get by.

Not to mention that ideology doesn’t get passed down along with the genes, and the elites will always be able to pull the best and the brightest into the fold.

The pipedream of a liberal elitist, perhaps? Lots of people are already dissatisfied with being ruled by such people. There might be good reason to expect that a population made up of, say, Muslims, will put up with non-Muslim “elites” who push things like population control and gay rights onto their children, but I can’t think of one.

There is no particularly good reason to expect that the children and grandchildren of today’s “elites” will still be the “elites” among people who profoundly disagree with their philosophies.

 

[Ridgerunner]

how are we supposed to “redistribute” to provide a first world lifestyle for the other, say 5 billion people? Do they say we should take from the gluttonous Americans and redistribute it to the poor Africans? Really? How much would you need to take from the ~2 billion who live well to give to the 5 billion who don’t? Where are the magical extra resources to provide everyone with a first world lifestyle?

But see, you are assuming your premise. You are assuming there is not enough in the way of resources and talent in Africa to provide Africans with a better life, and that a better life can only be established through taking from some other population group.

Nobody on earth was as poor as were South Koreans shortly after the Korean War. Unlike Japan,it didn’t have any preexisting infrastructure in terms of material or education. Theirs is not exactly a resource-blessed place. Yet they are now First World. The only real explanation is that they have been reasonably well-governed for decades by a government that allowed people to actually be paid for their work and inventiveness, and encouraged education.

North Korea, whose people are just the same as those in the south, and with actually more natural resources than the south, lives terribly because it wastes the labor of its people in maintaining a numerous and oppressive elite, and wastes their talents.

Granted, South Korea has an even worse birth rate than North Korea (both well below replacement) and sooner or later, it will pay the price for it.

 

[flyingfish]

The pipedream of a liberal elitist, perhaps? Lots of people are already dissatisfied with being ruled by such people. There might be good reason to expect that a population made up of, say, Muslims, will put up with non-Muslim “elites” who push things like population control and gay rights onto their children, but I can’t think of one.

There is no particularly good reason to expect that the children and grandchildren of today’s “elites” will still be the “elites” among people who profoundly disagree with their philosophies.

My point is that beliefs don’t get passed along with genes. Remember, all this liberalism arose out of a very conservative society. As far as I know, the US is getting more and more liberal, with the numbers of people who don’t believe in God growing every year, and the proportion of Christians dropping (that’s not even talking about the kinds of people who identify as Christians, the percentage of Christians who actually attend church weekly is much smaller than the number of Christians).

If you were right, the opposite should be happening. But it’s not.

This is an extremely doubtful proposition. This would be $540,000 (assuming no inflation) to raise a child to age 18. Meanwhile, the taxpayers who are paying for this are also going to be paying the pensions of 1 or 2 elderly at the same time. I cannot see this happening as a political matter.

Why? It’s an investment for the taxpayers. If society was suffering from too few children, the very taxpayers would realize that unless there were more children they themselves would suffer the effects. It would be a completely selfish investment on the part of the taxpayer.

It’s not just about money either, having children disadvantages a woman professionally. Changes could be made in that area to ensure that mothers were not disadvantaged in their careers over single men, say, and you might see more women choosing to become mothers.

But see, you are assuming your premise. You are assuming there is not enough in the way of resources and talent in Africa to provide Africans with a better life, and that a better life can only be established through taking from some other population group.

I’m not saying governance does not play a part, it does. The only calculations I’ve seen that have attempted to find out if there are enough resources in the world to provide a first world lifestyle for all have been the biocapacity calculations I linked earlier.

If those are to be believed, there are 2 global hectares per person. The average American uses something like 10.

That is why I am “assuming my premise”, the only scientific approach to this issue I’ve seen says that there aren’t enough resources (given current technology) for everyone to live well. There would have to be something like 1.5 billion people on earth for everyone to live as an American.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why? It’s an investment for the taxpayers. If society was suffering from too few children, the very taxpayers would realize that unless there were more children they themselves would suffer the effects. It would be a completely selfish investment on the part of the taxpayer.

Not persuasive. If taxpayers were aware of it, and persuaded that they should “be selfish” as you say, they would be having more children now. But they aren’t, notwithstanding that problem is already upon us.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not saying governance does not play a part, it does. The only calculations I’ve seen that have attempted to find out if there are enough resources in the world to provide a first world lifestyle for all have been the biocapacity calculations I linked earlier.

If those are to be believed, there are 2 global hectares per person. The average American uses something like 10.

That is why I am “assuming my premise”, the only scientific approach to this issue I’ve seen says that there aren’t enough resources (given current technology) for everyone to live well. There would have to be something like 1.5 billion people on earth for everyone to live as an American.

Using “Global hectares” as a measurement represents pure opinion. Using Acres/person, and if one used the Chinese utilization as a measure, the U.S. could, all by itself, support 1.5 billion. The acres/person utilized in the U.S. must take into account that the U.S. exports food and uses a lot of “food” crops for non-food purposes.

 

[Calliso]

Using “Global hectares” as a measurement represents pure opinion. Using Acres/person, and if one used the Chinese utilization as a measure, the U.S. could, all by itself, support 1.5 billion. The acres/person utilized in the U.S. must take into account that the U.S. exports food and uses a lot of “food” crops for non-food purposes.

Well I think we also have to take into consideration other things as well. For instance diet. We could support a lot more people on a purely vegetarian diet. But that is unrealistic. Not to mention fossil fuels which are going to start running low eventually. Then regardless of whether or not you believe it is manmade or not there is also climate change to consider which will also affect certain areas ablity to farm and such.

 

[flyingfish]

Not persuasive. If taxpayers were aware of it, and persuaded that they should “be selfish” as you say, they would be having more children now. But they aren’t, notwithstanding that problem is already upon us.

No, right now it makes no sense to increase children when you can get better quality citizens through immigration.

Canada does this. In fact, I am myself an immigrant. The selection process for immigration is very high. Both my parents were among the highest educated people in the home country.

Countries that are experiencing population declines are nearly all first world nations, that should have no problems attracting the top citizens from worse countries to move.

This is only something you’d need to worry about once the whole world was in decline, or if you live in a country where immigrants are unwilling to come.

Using “Global hectares” as a measurement represents pure opinion. Using Acres/person, and if one used the Chinese utilization as a measure, the U.S. could, all by itself, support 1.5 billion. The acres/person utilized in the U.S. must take into account that the U.S. exports food and uses a lot of “food” crops for non-food purposes.

I linked a google scholar link with multiple papers justifying the use of this measurement. It’s not “pure opinion”, people have justifications for it (that you can choose to disagree with, but don’t diminish the work put in by scientists into the calculation).

The global hectare/person measure in the US as far as I have read, is purely what the average American uses for his lifestyle.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Well I think we also have to take into consideration other things as well. For instance diet. We could support a lot more people on a purely vegetarian diet. But that is unrealistic. Not to mention fossil fuels which are going to start running low eventually. Then regardless of whether or not you believe it is manmade or not there is also climate change to consider which will also affect certain areas ablity to farm and such.

I experienced the horrors of climate change myself just recently. One moment it was fine, the next moment there was a foot of snow.

Then it melted.

If only Al Gore could save me!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

No, right now it makes no sense to increase children when you can get better quality citizens through immigration.

.

Please explain your ideas further. How do you define ‘quality?’ And are you to be the sole arbiter of ‘citizen quality control?’

Once people have aborted and contracepted themselves out of existence, will you admit gorillas into your ‘quality immigration citizen’ program? Or will other species be eligible as well?

 

[flyingfish]

Please explain your ideas further. How do you define ‘quality?’ And are you to be the sole arbiter of ‘citizen quality control?’

Once people have aborted and contracepted themselves out of existence, will you admit gorillas into your ‘quality immigration citizen’ program? Or will other species be eligible as well?

By quality I only meant things like education, hardworkingness, health etc. You can select for those things in immigration, but you can’t really control the kind of people that get born if you increase birth rate. (In practice, highly educated people tend to have smaller families, so you even end up with an opposite effect.)

You can choose to only take in highly educated people with successful careers, high IQ, good health that you know will be productive citizens as opposed to say be on welfare, unable to work, sick on disability etc. Plus, there are simply facts of biological differences in abilities. When your own citizens are born you’re more likely to see average, when you have people from all over the world clamoring to live in your country you can only select the best and thereby increase the overall productivity/education/hardworkingness of your country, as well as improve the gene pool.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well I think we also have to take into consideration other things as well. For instance diet. We could support a lot more people on a purely vegetarian diet. But that is unrealistic. Not to mention fossil fuels which are going to start running low eventually. Then regardless of whether or not you believe it is manmade or not there is also climate change to consider which will also affect certain areas ablity to farm and such.

I don’t think you can demonstrate that we can feed more people on a purely vegetarian diet, given that about 1/3 of the land mass will only grow grass, which people can’t digest. That’s why people in the great plains and the Eurasian steppes have livestock that can turn grass into protein. Add to that the fact that not all grain crops are human consumeable, but are fed to animals.

Of course fossil fuels will eventually run low, including the untapped offshore and arctic oilfields, the untapped gas fields in the U.S., the essentially untapped oil and gas in the South China Sea, the untapped shale oil in the west and the untapped “methane ice” in the arctic and on the sea floors. Well, and I guess uranium could be considered a “fossil fuel” of sorts inasmuch as it has been decaying in the ground a long time. It willl be awhile before it all runs out.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I linked a google scholar link with multiple papers justifying the use of this measurement. It’s not “pure opinion”, people have justifications for it (that you can choose to disagree with, but don’t diminish the work put in by scientists into the calculation).

The global hectare/person measure in the US as far as I have read, is purely what the average American uses for his lifestyle.

Sort of like the scientific research at East Anglia, perhaps?

It’s pretty theoretical stuff. Here’s what it’s supposed to mean:

"When the term ‘global hectare per person’ is used, it refers to the amount of biologically productive land and water available per person on the planet.

The global hectare is a useful measure of biocapacity, as it can convert things like human dietary requirements into a physical area, and this can be used to show how many people a certain region of the earth can sustain with current technologies and agricultural methods."

Land and water. In my part of the country, we get four feet of rain per year on average. Most of it flows into streams and into the Mississippi River. There is, therefore, a significant mismatch between the land and the water. Since the Mississippi is “biologically productive” (as is the Gulf) it gets spread around among the planet’s people (or at least those in the U.S.) but it doesn’t mean a thing when it comes to food production.

“Current technoligies and agricultural methods”. So they are counting the productivity of the farmer in the Missouri Valley with his gigantic tractor and 3,000 acres of fencrow-to-fencerow hybrid crops, as well as the African farmer who digs in the ground with a stick to plant a tenth of an acre of sorghum in land that the Missouri Valley farmer could get a lot more out of.

 

[tjm190]

Population growth is not a problem here, although people aren’t always so keen on the government being forced to provide for couples that have a half dozen or more kids that they can’t provide for.

The problem generally occurs in LDCs/developing countries- people in these countries are generally much more likely to use inefficient methods for farming or grazing that can quickly wear out there local environments, resulting in once fertile land going sour or in extreme cases desertification.

 

[mjs1987]

My point is that beliefs don’t get passed along with genes.

This is not true if you believe Richard Dawkins and other scientists. For them, memes are how beliefs are formed, evolved and passed on. It requires heredity in order for it to work since without heredity, memes cannot evolve.

 

[mjs1987]

The main reason I am concerned about overpopulation is that large populations in some areas of the world are destroying habitats for other species, driving them to extinction. It would be really sad if for example chimps or gorillas went extinct because too many people cut down jungles or killed them for food/money. There are so many people, but once those species are gone they’re gone forever.

Why would it be sad if chimps and gorillas went extinct? Isnt that how evolution works? If chimps and gorillas cannot adapt to human encroachment then arent they not fit to pass on their genes and survive? Wouldnt it be a good thing to get rid of animals that cannot adapt? Other animals adapt just fine to human civilization. If these creatures cannot do the same, doesnt it not show nature in action? They are threatened by humans and can adapt or fight yet they do neither. You can make an argument that the quicker they die the better since we can use the land all the endangered species are on to benefit mankind instead of creatures that would care less if it was us that was near death. Just remember that if we were threatened with extinction, no ape or any living creature under just about any circumstances will feel sorry for us humans. So what is so important about preserving genetically inferior animals that slow human progress? Because they look cute? Seems like a silly reason to curtail our own populations and to stop survival of the fittest in nature.

 

[flyingfish]

This is not true if you believe Richard Dawkins and other scientists. For them, memes are how beliefs are formed, evolved and passed on. It requires heredity in order for it to work since without heredity, memes cannot evolve.

A meme is just a word for some set of cultural beliefs, practices, ideas. People use the analogy of biological evolution, to talk about how beliefs are passed on, how they compete with each other etc. (So say, a religion with a mandate to go out and spread the word might fare better in the long run that a religion without such a mandate, and after a time you might find the world dominated by such religions.)

Beliefs are not passed through biological genes. Your parents’ beliefs matter to an extent, and they will try to pass them on to you (especially if their beliefs contain within them the direction to instruct children likewise), but an individual will also “inherit” the beliefs of the culture they’re raised in (which for modern people includes the internet).

Sort of like the scientific research at East Anglia, perhaps

I don’t understand why you are so hostile to this measurement, except that it doesn’t coincide with your beliefs that it’s possible given today’s technology to provide everyone with a first world lifestyle if only governance was better.

I mean, the only “measure” of biocapacity that I’ve ever seen from the other side has been dividing the surface area of the State of Texas by the surface area occupied by a human being, which is just laughable and I want to pull my hair out every time someone mentions how many people can fit into Texas.

It’s not an absolute measure, since it assumes current technology (but that can cut both ways, we might end up improving technology and increasing biocapacity, but we might also run out of fossil fuels before we come up with better or even viable alternatives, so it would decrease.)