Ed Population Reduction?

[X]

Similar to Danish Dynamite's thread, but not quite.


Do you think there are too many people on this planet? Do you think that governments should encourage couples to have only one child between them, or even enforce it?

Such are the questions that currently occupy me.

It has occurred to me (courtesy of a thoroughly depressing but probably valuable course in cultural anthropology they make us engineering students take) that the sheer numbers of humans either is or will shortly overwhelm our ability to provide for the people (as a species).

In other words, our numbers do not appear to be sustainable.



My sister thinks I'm nuts (actually, the word she used was "[rule 10]ing stupid"), that there is no problem and everything will be fine.


But still, it nags at me.

I do not think I can justify having more than one child, if I have any at all.


Am I wrong? Is it all rose-coloured clouds?

Or should humanity limit its population, and if so, how do you think we should go about doing it?
I'd be prepared to say that most democratic governments would not survive an attempt to force couples to have only one child. But perhaps it could be encouraged, as large families once were. I don't know if that would even help, but it may.

I apologize if this has been hashed out here before.

 

[shadron]

China tried it, but, as you say, it wasn't popular, even in an oligarchy. Think, if you wall about some genrations of people without brothers sisters, cousins, aunt or uncles, nephews or nieces. I do suppose it's less birthdays to worry about.

 

[Francesca R]

Do you think there are too many people on this planet? Do you think that governments should encourage couples to have only one child between them, or even enforce it?

No and no. A lot of governments actually encourage adults to have children, and the financial breaks increase as you have more than two.

It has occurred to me (courtesy of a thoroughly depressing but probably valuable course in cultural anthropology they make us engineering students take) that the sheer numbers of humans either is or will shortly overwhelm our ability to provide for the people (as a species).

It has occurred to a lot of people, from Thomas Malthus through to Paul Erlich. And it is a scenario, but not the only one and probably not even a probable one.

In other words, our numbers do not appear to be sustainable.

What evidence are you using?

My sister thinks I'm nuts (actually, the word she used was "[rule 10]ing stupid"), that there is no problem and everything will be fine.

It is equally "nuts" to assume everything will be fine, as if by wishful thinking, or "the ingenuity of human kind will fix it up". A lot of people assume that, but it is not a given either.

I do not think I can justify having more than one child, if I have any at all.

I think I could justify having as many children as I wanted, although I don't have any. I even admire people who have three or four or five kids. I think they are doing something great. I have never understood animosity to people who have more than two kids.

Or should humanity limit its population, and if so, how do you think we should go about doing it?

At a concept level, it seems hugely superior to me to engineer conditions for a higher population to exist than to limit it. (Some Isaac Asimov essay is popping into my mind now, but I can't remember what it's called. Something about humans expanding to fill the galaxy and also becoming more "virtual" than physical at the same time . . . someone will know what I mean)

I'd be prepared to say that most democratic governments would not survive an attempt to force couples to have only one child. But perhaps it could be encouraged, as large families once were. I don't know if that would even help, but it may.

You do realise that more democratic governments are (financially) encouraging more children not less, correct? Fertility rates are well below replacement rate in Spain, Italy, Germany and Japan for example. The larger (closer at hand) socio-economic problem facing these countries is a putative decline in future wealth and an excessive burden on the working-age population to support increasing numbers of less productive elderly. That looms larger in the focus of politicians than does exhaustion or environmental endowments (but even then, not spectacularly large since it is a problem beyond most electoral time-frames)

 

[Madalch]

Redcution? Is that like execution or electrocution, only you're killing people with the colour red?

 

[Bikewer]

I agree that the population at present is likely too large, and will continue to grow larger.
They had the author of The Population Bomb on Science Friday a few weeks ago; if you recall that book published some ten years ago predicted dire results from the growth of the population.
Ira Flatow asked, "What happened? Your predictions seem to be off."
The fellow pointed out that all of his predictions were coming to pass, just somewhat more slowly.
We are in the middle of an "extinction event" that may rival any of the huge extinctions of pre-history. The death rate in third-world countries from disease and starvation is staggering. We are on the verge of wars being fought over water and other scarce resources in many places in the world..... One could go on and on.

However, there appears to be no solution whatever at this point. Some "developing" nations see a large population as their only resource. Humans are very strongly motivated to reproduce; it's a basic biological drive. Societies still have a strong positive reaction to large families....
I can't imagine any scheme that would result in limiting populations, save for world-wide prosperity. Prosperous folks in technologically-advanced countries tend to have fewer kids, as they are more assured of survival, and are also vastly expensive to raise.

Good luck with that....

 

[quarky]

death controls are the missing ingredient.
In my utopian fantasy, biological mathmeticians would determine the exit age.
Suppose it turned out to be 70 years old.
A system of social welfare would exist to make your last 5 years of life almost heavenly.
then you die.

A spirituality, of sorts would evolve, so that the death ceremony would be optomistic; good; sane; responsible.

Endless loopholes and exceptions would exist...if someone died at 30, his extra years could be bought or traded to someone else that wanted to live longer.

 

[Beerina]

Similar to Danish Dynamite's thread, but not quite.


Do you think there are too many people on this planet?

No. There's a reason Julian Simon named his book The Ultimate Resource: People, Materials, and Environment.

In a free society, the more the better.

Why? Because there's all the more people inventing things, including solutions to problems. To say nothing of the advantages of production of scale.

"Oh no! Overpopulation!" should be left on the ash heap of history alongside snake oil, psychics, religion, and other frauds.

 

[TMiguel]

This is a very serious issue, and many are trying to discredit it. People think that over population is when you can’t put more people on the dry surface of the earth, they forget about everything else. The human species puts the environment pressure very high, and it wouldn’t be the first time some species in history had a population boom just to end up starving itself to extinction.
People forget that we also need to eat, what we eat also needs to eat, also needs to reproduce in order to maintain a stable population (even after we eat them, and whatever our food is eating). We currently are not even able to sustain the world’s human population and much less to support a 1/10 of the rest of the population if not for the amazing amount of dedicated infrastructure just to develop food.
And this is just for food, we need air, habitation, sanitation, etc…
Adding the fact that a big chunk of the planet is not capable to support any of this, things don’t look so good for us.
People think that we will eventually work it out. The problem is that such people are dethatched for the real world and forget that some one has to put an enormous amount of effort, time, resources to come up whit such a solution, and that is if we can work it out by the time we need it or even if there is a solution for all that (which you have no guarantee of). If a solution comes along good, but we are only delaying the problem, and what we can not afford to do is to wait for a “hero to come along to get ourselves out of the tracks before the train hits us”.

The way we currently have to work thing out is not pretty, nor good for anyone, but it’s the only thing we got. For now we live along whit to much to worry, but a time shall come where you have to face the problem.

 

[Amapola]

In all these scenarios, most people (not all, though) don't say anything about water. I live in the mountain west in the US and there is just not enough water. In the west we see that agricultural interests are slowly losing to development interests... water that has for generations been traditionally used for farming is now being sent to population centers. Well, that's a good stop-gap measure, maybe, but you can't just keep doing that. That's not sustainable.

You can come up with better ways to grow food or ways to fit more people in less space, but unless the issue of water is addressed I would not see that as a very good long-term solution. At the coasts, desalination could be used. But the interior of the continents would not be helped much by that.

 

[Iconoclast08]

TMiguel is correct. While I don't necessarily buy into the Sierra Club/Population Bomb version of the inevitable "standing room only" reality, this is not an issue that should just be ignored or disparaged with the typical "woo-woo-woo-snake-oil-religion-Bigfoot-la-la-la" knee-jerk, crippled B.S. response of this lazy, dismissive ilk:

"Oh no! Overpopulation!" should be left on the ash heap of history alongside snake oil, psychics, religion, and other frauds.

Well, unless this is just being flippant, I am skeptical of your extreme skepticism.

There is a reasonable middle-ground between this type of laziness and the alarmist "Earth is a sinking lifeboat" hysteria on the old Johnny Carson shows. While it is certainly a legitimate point that human technological innovativeness may help reduce environmental stress, it is disingenuous and naive to think that this will perpetually offset population increases and the concomitant increases in consumption per capita per se. Agricultural techniques aren't cheap, and widespread pollution, land desertification, and water contamination doesn't make the struggle any easier.

I think there is enough uncertainty here to be skeptical of overly dismissive claims that overpopulation "just isn't a problem, 'nuff said".

 

[Francesca R]

Why? Because there's all the more people inventing things, including solutions to problems. To say nothing of the advantages of production of scale.

But to think that technological progress will save, or even has saved, populations every time, is to believe in something with quasi-religious faith.

Such faith is better on the ash heap of history, next to the extinct societies that already prove how deluded it is.

 

[technoextreme]

In all these scenarios, most people (not all, though) don't say anything about water. I live in the mountain west in the US and there is just not enough water. In the west we see that agricultural interests are slowly losing to development interests... water that has for generations been traditionally used for farming is now being sent to population centers. Well, that's a good stop-gap measure, maybe, but you can't just keep doing that. That's not sustainable.

You can come up with better ways to grow food or ways to fit more people in less space, but unless the issue of water is addressed I would not see that as a very good long-term solution. At the coasts, desalination could be used. But the interior of the continents would not be helped much by that.

True a lot of farmers in that area use flood irrigation in that area which is a freaking horrible way to farm.

Such faith is better on the ash heap of history, next to the extinct societies that already prove how deluded it is.

Name the societies because I can't even think of any societies that would fit your basis of reality. All I can think of is the exact converse of your opinion. There have been more times in history where a lack of understanding of science killed off huge globs of humanity. Which society are you talking about?

 

[Bikewer]

Perhaps the technological revolution envisioned in the thoroughly tongue-in-cheek sci-fi book, The Great Explosion.
A lunatic inventor accidentally invents a cheap, reliable FTL drive.

Soon, all the loonies, cults, splinter groups, ethnic minorities, and so forth take off into space in search of "their" perfect planet.

100 years later, the Earth sends out an ambassadorial mission to touch bases with her scattered children. Hilarity ensues....

 

[X]

Cool! I created a controversial topic! This should be a good thread.



I should probably clarify that my point is more along the lines of what Amapola and TMiguel have commented.

That is to say, resources are finite, and somewhere along the way we won't be able to sustain our numbers.

Hence, by overpopulation, I am referring to numbers greater than can be handled by the Earths resources.

One has to look at all the resources and land use necessary to sustain our way of life.

Overfishing is one example of a very current problem. Why is it a problem? Too much demand.
in this case, sacrifices will have to be made.
But just try getting the individual fishermen to see it that way. A few may, but most will not. Nobody views their particular impact as being large enough to warrant action. But the combined effect of thousands of such small impacts makes for collapsing fish stocks.

Sure, science and technology help, but for how long? And at what cost?

Do you really want to put faith in it "finding a way"?


And I am well aware of government encouragements to have more kids.
The question I asked (or was trying to ask) was should humanity make an effort to curb its population growth? Possibly with the help of government endorsement (either passive or active).


For the record: I have no animosity toward people with large families. I just don't think I can personally justify adding to the net population.

 

[technoextreme]

That is to say, resources are finite, and somewhere along the way we won't be able to sustain our numbers.

Hence, by overpopulation, I am referring to numbers greater than can be handled by the Earths resources.

Argument from ignorance? What your claiming could happen must happen really soon because no one says that the population is going to keep on increasing. I read that it's going to stop growing in a few years from now.

 

[Tapio]

What we eat affects our planet

People forget that we also need to eat, what we eat also needs to eat, also needs to reproduce in order to maintain a stable population (even after we eat them, and whatever our food is eating). We currently are not even able to sustain the world’s human population and much less to support a 1/10 of the rest of the population if not for the amazing amount of dedicated infrastructure just to develop food.
And this is just for food, we need air, habitation, sanitation, etc…
Adding the fact that a big chunk of the planet is not capable to support any of this, things don’t look so good for us.

Yaa...sounds pretty pessimistic to me, but that's okay. I often find the strength to search for new innovations and solutions, propelled by such thinking.

Anyway, it seems to me you haven't thoroughly thought of what you write on eating. I, for example (and dozens of people I know), haven't eaten the skin, flesh, bone, guts, blood etc. of ANY edible animal for many years, and I'm not about to start doing so as long as I live (unless I'm, due to some catastrophe, forced to hunt just to stay alive). This is also the way we're growing our kids (three under three-year-olds). Of course, when they get older, they can choose to become vegans, omnivores, fruitarians or whatever they like (first needing to prove it to be the better alternative).

Here's one compilation on the physical side of vegetarianism (I've been, and will be examining various other resources as well. This was the most concise one (though there's quite a few points I'd like to see cross-checked) I found at the moment):

That text being solely concentrated on the medical side of it, there's naturally nothing about one of the main reasons why so many people (who have the choice) choose to live "free of meat".

To us vegetarians, one of the most horrendously absurd ways we humans choose to make our life (as a whole) on Earth endangered, is the mass-production of livestock. There's been talk about the sustainability of our planet here, there's been talk about water also.

Check these figures out.

I think for someone who believes in a "brighter" tomorrow, and doing in their own life what they would prefer others to be doing also, this might give a booster of some kind. I'm not even going to start on birds and fish and what's happening on that end of the abuse...still have to get some sleep tonight.

Also a phrase from the UN touches the subject.

So what's all this got to do with overpopulation? Most of you probably get it, but I'll stress the point. I don't think we can stop people from reproducing fast enough. There'll be lots more of us, and the more there are of us, the more how we live affects our environment.

The more we support unsustainable ways of living, the more (lots of more's, eh?) likely we'll end up with a disaster that'll make all the pain in the world today look like a pleasant ride on a bike. One of the most unsustainable ways of living is our (well, not all of ours) overconsumption of meat. Drastically controlling our hedonistic, carnivorous ways may help in giving humankind a second (if not gazillionth) chance.

Vegetarianism (or omnivorism with reduced meat consumption) isn't going to do the trick all by itself, but it looks like one of the most important steps we, as a collective must take, if we're to leave something more to our kids than just a f...ked up world to live fast, and die young in.

Thanks for your time.

 

[my_wan]

Some quick math tells me that if we moved the entire population of the Earth to Texas we would all have about 1134 square feet or 105 square meters apiece. That's about half the average house size in the US. In principle with highrise apartments, hydroponics buildings etc. it could be managed such that we could all live in Texas alone. Although in principle population can be the culprit in the future it is now an issue of poor resource management. We are simply too economically dependent on resources that are irreplaceable beyond a certain level of use.

There has always been some level of friction between population and available resources. Even tribal societies required large areas to hunt and gather raw materials. When the tribes size exceeded a certain point it was necessary to migrate throughout the year to a varying extent. The industrial revolution lifted traditional constraints and we are just now beginning to recognize that we are once again coming up against those constraints. These constraints are a norm of all life that we humans got a temporary reprieve from at an unknown environmental cost. We are still a long ways from hitting any limit.

The present "green" movement may thus far be based as much on ideology as usable data but it is the start of a direction that the future will absolutely require. I don't think the resource friction is getting any better from this point forward but that's life. We will continue to progress.

 

[technoextreme]

Yaa...sounds pretty pessimistic to me, but that's okay. I often find the strength to search for new innovations and solutions, propelled by such thinking.

Anyway, it seems to me you haven't thoroughly thought of what you write on eating. I, for example (and dozens of people I know), haven't eaten the skin, flesh, bone, guts, blood etc. of ANY edible animal for many years, and I'm not about to start doing so as long as I live (unless I'm, due to some catastrophe, forced to hunt just to stay alive). This is also the way we're growing our kids (three under three-year-olds). Of course, when they get older, they can choose to become vegans, omnivores, fruitarians or whatever they like (first needing to prove it to be the better alternative).

Here's one compilation on the physical side of vegetarianism (I've been, and will be examining various other resources as well. This was the most concise one (though there's quite a few points I'd like to see cross-checked) I found at the moment):

That text being solely concentrated on the medical side of it, there's naturally nothing about one of the main reasons why so many people (who have the choice) choose to live "free of meat".

To us vegetarians, one of the most horrendously absurd ways we humans choose to make our life (as a whole) on Earth endangered, is the mass-production of livestock. There's been talk about the sustainability of our planet here, there's been talk about water also.

Check these figures out.

I think for someone who believes in a "brighter" tomorrow, and doing in their own life what they would prefer others to be doing also, this might give a booster of some kind. I'm not even going to start on birds and fish and what's happening on that end of the abuse...still have to get some sleep tonight.

Also a phrase from the UN touches the subject.

So what's all this got to do with overpopulation? Most of you probably get it, but I'll stress the point. I don't think we can stop people from reproducing fast enough. There'll be lots more of us, and the more there are of us, the more how we live affects our environment.

The more we support unsustainable ways of living, the more (lots of more's, eh?) likely we'll end up with a disaster that'll make all the pain in the world today look like a pleasant ride on a bike. One of the most unsustainable ways of living is our (well, not all of ours) overconsumption of meat. Drastically controlling our hedonistic, carnivorous ways may help in giving humankind a second (if not gazillionth) chance.

Actually, that's not true. Farming is just as destructive to the environment than eating meat is.

The present "green" movement may thus far be based as much on ideology as usable data but it is the start of a direction that the future will absolutely require. I don't think the resource friction is getting any better from this point forward but that's life. We will continue to progress.

True. I honestly hate calling it the "green" movement because it tends to get it associated with oddball people.

So what's all this got to do with overpopulation? Most of you probably get it, but I'll stress the point. I don't think we can stop people from reproducing fast enough. There'll be lots more of us, and the more there are of us, the more how we live affects our environment.

It's really quite ironic that you are quoting an organization that estimates that worldwide population growth will stop within our lifetimes.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Perhaps the technological revolution envisioned in the thoroughly tongue-in-cheek sci-fi book, The Great Explosion.
A lunatic inventor accidentally invents a cheap, reliable FTL drive.

Soon, all the loonies, cults, splinter groups, ethnic minorities, and so forth take off into space in search of "their" perfect planet.

100 years later, the Earth sends out an ambassadorial mission to touch bases with her scattered children. Hilarity ensues....

Sounds interesting enough that I just put in an interlibrary loan request for it.

 

[my_wan]

True. I honestly hate calling it the "green" movement because it tends to get it associated with oddball people.

"Oddball people" tend to throw fear at an issue and say, "OMG, it all has to be fixed this week for all eternity or else we are doomed, how could people be so dumb". Never mind that it was unfathomable to the people that resolved the past problems that they would be blamed for the problems the solutions eventually caused. The fact is no matter how thoroughly we fix the problem now the future will resurrect it. Oddballs have no relevance with respect to the legitimacy of the issues or the solutions.