Sensible approaches to Overpopulation

[Rowan]

I’ve noticed that the issue of overpopulation has come up a few times on this forum and every time it seems that most ‘solutions’ proposed by members are humorous, fascistic or just silly. I have always maintained that the best approach (if, indeed, there is even an issue that needs a solution) would be to increase state pensions. So, I was quite amused to see the same suggestion given by one of my favourite journalists in his latest blog (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.); he also provides several other possible, sensible solutions. I was wondering if anyone here could add to the list of sensible solutions.

[Jakalwarrior]

Find a quick easy way to sterilize people that isn't complete or permenant. I was leaning towards immunization to sex protiens etc... Sterilize everyone at around age 12. To make a baby you have to pay and get artificial insemination (possibly the drugs that make your body accept transplants would work too?). Immunization to cocain, heroin, nicotine, etc.. offered free of charge also to decrease medical costs.

BTW, yes all of that is possible.

[Radamisto]

What overpopulation? Here in western Europe whole societies are dying out.

If you are really concerned about overpopulation, then first of all abstain from having children. Secondly, try to convince other people to do the same. By all means don't try to use institusionalised agression (i.e. government) to solve this "problem", for this constitues an act of agression agains other poeple's life, liberty and property.

[Aronnax]

The solution to overpopulation is easy, educate women and let them make their own reproductive decisions. The birthrate in nations where women have easy access to education and contraception are at or below replacement.

Draconian measures aren't necessary.

[Provoker]

My policy prescriptions to reducing overpopulation are as follows:

1) Encourage homosexuality. More homosexuals means less reproduction, this is a necessary truth. That the media is starting to have gay reality shows and more movies about gays like "Brokeback Mountain" is a good sign. Also, if the borderline gays become definitively gay it will increase efficiency for non-gays like myself. Girls may waste time on a borderline gay only to drop him once they find out the truth. This is incredibly inefficient. But if homosexuality and freedom of expression is encouraged and accepted in society the gay will have less reservations about expressing this. Also, a portion of these borderline cases end up choosing the non-gay way out of fear (perhaps of disappointing their families) and if this is more accepted they will be definitively gay thereby reducing reproduction.

2) Development. Higher income correlates with lower reproduction. In Africa, for example, having 5 or 7 children is an insurance policy because many die as babies and the mother needs children to survive to look after her when she's older. THis is how the pension system works in Third World countries. It's horrible. Statistically, wealthier families tend to have less children. Thus another solution to slowing down population growth is economic development. This is the most practical option, although as long as the North continues to exploit the Global South the problem will only get worse.

As the problem continues to get worse we are likely to see governments step in and impose restrictions on the amount of children a couple can have. Because this is not sustainable. People are growing exponentially but resources only reproduce arithmetically. WHat is happening is we're going to overshoot the earth's carrying capacity unless this is stopped. What happens when there is not enough resources and food to go around? In essence, create enough hunger and everyone becomes a criminal. There will be huge wars and conflicts over resources, which is already unfolding. Multinational corporations have clear cut forests that have trees over a thousand years old just to produce for export. Many fish stocks have been depleted from catching mass sums of fish faster than the fish can reproduce. The rainforest in the Andes is becoming destroyed by multinationals cutting deep gashes in the mountains for oil, slashing and burning to produce for export and leaving peasants landless. The situation is dire, and will only get worse and if you think this doesn't affect you you're wrong. People are emigrating to industrialized countries in search of a better life. THere are 30 million illegal immigrants in the US; there are asylum seekers in Britain and France using up the social services that are paid for by tax-payers, and countless other cases. THe point is population growth has a spill-over effect and if it gets worse people will migrate and assimilate into industrial societies and use up their resources. Severe scarcity leads to conflict and if global population continues growing the way it is it can only involve war, conflict, and suffering. Governments need to address this issue and adopt policies to manage it, such as put a cap on the amount of children one can have.

[taoista]

I think couples should have less children. 2, tops.

Plus, education and conscience on the whole family thing.

[Ool]

Actually the main problem of overpopulation is its roots and the effects of its roots.

Its roots are, people have to die, so they have to make more people to replace themselves. They have to compensate for hard times and huge casualties, so they have to be able to make many more people. Also competing with each other favors the winners of the competition in numbers.

But even the winners are eventually losers because ultimately it isn't they who survive. It is new people who will survive them. And in the end those people won't survive, either.

Future generations don't retain the personal memories that make us us. And that's the crux of it--no matter how many we become, ultimately it is nothing to everyone other than just a bunch of people who are not "me."

Any problem of overpopulation pales compared to the problem of individual mortality and of non-exchangability of our memories and identities. Even if overpopulation were under control, our main issue still wouldn't be resolved, and that's why people don't care to much...

[Tenacious B]

The government could mandate that we use food to fuel our vehicles rather than to fuel human lives.

[blueback]

Wow. Could have have spent more time apologizing for talking about solutions to overpopulation? Is it really that offensive?

Anyway, according to Beyond The Limits (30 year update) the reason we are facing an overpopulation problem (and it is a problem) is that the rest of the world is trying to industrialize. The first step in industrialization involves increasing life-spans. Things like clean drinking water, covered sewage, and access to medicine means that everyone lives longer. The problem is that things that decrease the birthrate, like women's lib, retirement accounts, and birth control all take at least two generations to catch on.

What that means is a population growth spurt for 50 years or so. It wasn't a big deal when only a few countries were doing it, but now that small, out of the way places like India and China are following America's lead it is becoming a real problem. Once they are done industrializing they'll start to have a falling population just like we do, but before that happens they are going to run up the total population above 10 billion.

That alone wouldn't really be a problem, except that we are going to peak in oil production pretty soon, which will mean less food and less energy for more people. People who are going to feel cheated because the party ended before they got a chance to hook-up.

[brad]

The solution to overpopulation is easy, educate women and let them make their own reproductive decisions. The birthrate in nations where women have easy access to education and contraception are at or below replacement.

Draconian measures aren't necessary.

Free, accessible education.

Free, accessible contraception to women AND men.

[Antares]

The method of encouraging couples to have less children most often backfires. The median age of the entire society will rise. A report on the Chinese newspaper states that it's now 1 young person to 4 old people. This is a problem indeed. And I don't support the notion of taxing people who wants to have more children. This would make it so that only the rich could have more children than needed; a social imbalance.

[Rowan]

Find a quick easy way to sterilize people that isn't complete or permenant. I was leaning towards immunization to sex protiens etc... Sterilize everyone at around age 12. To make a baby you have to pay and get artificial insemination (possibly the drugs that make your body accept transplants would work too?). Immunization to cocain, heroin, nicotine, etc.. offered free of charge also to decrease medical costs.

BTW, yes all of that is possible.

Yes it’s possible, but I don’t think it is likely that many free electorates would allow their government to do it; so it is not probable. Furthermore, it is clearly a radical and invasive solution; given all the more considered and less disturbing solutions I don’t see why such an extreme measure needs to be implemented.

What overpopulation? Here in western Europe whole societies are dying out.

I think you bring up a good point; that overpopulation, if it is an issue, is a region by region issue. I also live in Western Europe and am well aware of the falling birth rate; although ‘dying out’ is altogether too hyperbolic.

If you are really concerned about overpopulation, then first of all abstain from having children. Secondly, try to convince other people to do the same.

If there were a problem I doubt a few Europeans abstaining from having children would be an effective solution.

By all means don't try to use institusionalised agression (i.e. government) to solve this "problem", for this constitues an act of agression agains other poeple's life, liberty and property.

State pensions? Sex education? Decreasing infant mortality with better government funded hospitals? Only a Libertarian could regard such measures as institutionalised aggression.


The solution to overpopulation is easy, educate women and let them make their own reproductive decisions. The birthrate in nations where women have easy access to education and contraception are at or below replacement.

Draconian measures aren't necessary.

I couldn’t agree more; although I think there are other non-draconian measures that can be used alongside educating women, such as state pensions. The article I linked to in the opening post also talks about educating women and protecting their equality.

1) Encourage homosexuality. More homosexuals means less reproduction, this is a necessary truth. That the media is starting to have gay reality shows and more movies about gays like "Brokeback Mountain" is a good sign. Also, if the borderline gays become definitively gay it will increase efficiency for non-gays like myself. Girls may waste time on a borderline gay only to drop him once they find out the truth. This is incredibly inefficient. But if homosexuality and freedom of expression is encouraged and accepted in society the gay will have less reservations about expressing this. Also, a portion of these borderline cases end up choosing the non-gay way out of fear (perhaps of disappointing their families) and if this is more accepted they will be definitively gay thereby reducing reproduction.

I certainly think it is a good idea to make homosexuality more acceptable and thereby remove coercive pressures on homosexuals that push them towards having unsatisfactory heterosexual relationships. However, I’m not sure how big an impact this will have on demographics; a lot of people would need to be homosexual for it to be noticeable. Also, whilst I think artistic films, like Brokeback Mountain, are a great way to portray homosexuality positively, gay reality shows seem to mostly reinforce bizarre stereotypes that I think cause confusion and ignorance.

2) Development. Higher income correlates with lower reproduction. In Africa, for example, having 5 or 7 children is an insurance policy because many die as babies and the mother needs children to survive to look after her when she's older. THis is how the pension system works in Third World countries. It's horrible. Statistically, wealthier families tend to have less children. Thus another solution to slowing down population growth is economic development. This is the most practical option, although as long as the North continues to exploit the Global South the problem will only get worse.

In the long run I think this is a great solution. In the meantime I think undeveloped countries need help setting up non-draconian measures that will allow them to control their population; like the education of women and state pensions. This will also help them to develop.

Anyway, according to Beyond The Limits (30 year update) the reason we are facing an overpopulation problem (and it is a problem) is that the rest of the world is trying to industrialize. The first step in industrialization involves increasing life-spans. Things like clean drinking water, covered sewage, and access to medicine means that everyone lives longer. The problem is that things that decrease the birthrate, like women's lib, retirement accounts, and birth control all take at least two generations to catch on.

Which is why, in my opinion, underdeveloped countries need help setting up and maintaining some of these things.

That alone wouldn't really be a problem, except that we are going to peak in oil production pretty soon, which will mean less food and less energy for more people. People who are going to feel cheated because the party ended before they got a chance to hook-up.

This is an interesting point that warrants its own debate; suffice to say, for now, that I am not entirely convinced peak oil is as imminent as many claim. However, this is an inevitable problem that needs tackling with new technologies that allow us alternative ways of acquiring energy.

The method of encouraging couples to have less children most often backfires. The median age of the entire society will rise. A report on the Chinese newspaper states that it's now 1 young person to 4 old people. This is a problem indeed. And I don't support the notion of taxing people who wants to have more children. This would make it so that only the rich could have more children than needed; a social imbalance.

Indeed, heavy handed draconian policies are usually too simplistic and result in new problems. If there is an overpopulation problem that last thing we want is to solve it only to discover that we have created a massive under-population problem; that is why flexible and measured solutions are required.

[Ool]

[...] A report on the Chinese newspaper states that it's now 1 young person to 4 old people. This is a problem indeed. [...]

Why? No more lawns to trespass across without being yelled at...?





Ool added to this post, 6 minutes and 43 seconds later...

This is an interesting point that warrants its own debate; suffice to say, for now, that I am not entirely convinced peak oil is as imminent as many claim. However, this is an inevitable problem that needs tackling with new technologies that allow us alternative ways of acquiring energy.

And always keep in mind that there's a lot of energy out there to be aquired. Two billion times more sunlight is wasted into deep space than shines on this planet. 2,000,000,000 times. And even that two billionth on this Earth is more in raw energy than our economy needs. We know about the unused energy out there. We just never felt a need to go for it because the compressed algae gunk was so easy...

Peak oil isn't just imminent, we're probably already past it. It's the peak. It doesn't mean we've run out. It means we're on top...

[Antares]

Why? No more lawns to trespass across without being yelled at...?

No, but it's a huge burden on the younger generation, for sure. I, being one of them, do emphasize.

For example, if I have physically weak parents and no siblings, I will have to take care of them alone. If my husband's an only child as well, we'd have four old people on our shoulders. Older people are less physically able than younger people. My grandfather, for one, cannot walk without support; cannot even bathe himself (he has Parkinsons). Fortunately, my family is wealthy enough to hire a domestic aid for him who takes care of him almost 24/7. But for the less well-off families it'd be the foster homes, and if they can't afford that, they're screwed.

I'm from a developing country, which by now I'm sure most of you know. Old people here develop sickness someway or the other and taking care of them is tedious; but we still must do it. Now imagine less young people and even more old people.

[Rowan]

And always keep in mind that there's a lot of energy out there to be aquired. Two billion times more sunlight is wasted into deep space than shines on this planet. 2,000,000,000 times. And even that two billionth on this Earth is more in raw energy than our economy needs. We know about the unused energy out there. We just never felt a need to go for it because the compressed algae gunk was so easy...

Indeed; the sooner we can utilise this untapped energy the better.


Peak oil isn't just imminent, we're probably already past it. It's the peak. It doesn't mean we've run out. It means we're on top...

According to Wikipedia ‘Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum production is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline.’ I’m not going to claim to be an expert on the subject, but I’m somewhat less than convinced that we have entered the phase of terminal decline in production.

[Motor Jax]

we could let the machines take over

you know how much energy the human body can produce?

we can be harvested, and just stay plugged into the Matrix


ah, there i go j/king again...

but seriously, i think we are and have been on both a moral and social decline for, at least, the past 20-30 years.


things are just heating up, and it seems that ball is just rolling faster and faster downhill

it could be another 20-50-100 years before it reaches bottom

who knows? but it sure feels like we are on the downward slope this time

[blueback]

According to Wikipedia ‘Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum production is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline.’ I’m not going to claim to be an expert on the subject, but I’m somewhat less than convinced that we have entered the phase of terminal decline in production.

Few people think we've peaked. If you look at oil production over the last few years it has leveled off, but it hasn't obviously declined yet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The hard part is that we won't know exactly when the peak will be until several years past it.

However, the thing about peak oil that people don't get, and that makes it so important, is that it is going to be sooner than later. You see, we are using oil at a steadily increasing rate. If there are 10 barrels of oil in the ground, then we've used up 5 barrels in the last 100-150 years. However, because of the increase in our rate of consuption we will use up the next 5 barrels of oil in the next 10 years. That means that new discoveries won't affect when the peak happens significantly. If we discover a new Gahwar field it might delay the peak for a year or two. We would have to discover as much oil as has already been pumped out of the ground just to postpone the peak by 10 years. Then, we'll have to find twice as much oil to put off the peak by another 10 years, etc.

So, when you talk about overpopulation, you are also talking about peak oil. The Green Revolution allowed the world population to grow from 2 billion to +6 billion and it happened only because of fossil fuel based fertilizers and machinery. When the fissil fuels run out, so will the food. Organic farming can't sustain 7 billion people. . .at least not at current rates of food consumption.

At its heart, the overpopulation problem is an energy problem. Life requires energy to maintain it, when a population starts to run into the boundaries of its environment it runs out of energy. No boundaries means no problem with population size. The real conceptual issue is that the human race has never actually reached the limits of its environment before, so it's a totally new idea. If well educated people have a hard time grasping it, let alone admitting it, then how can anyone expect a dirt-farmer in Africa to get it?

The human race has been struggling against Nature for so long now it's all we know. I think the next 100 years is going to be characterized not by a struggle against Nature (capital N) but by a struggle against our own nature. Evolution programmed us to care about little else besides expanding our numbers. However, it also gifted us with a rational brain that is capable of making other decisions. The next century will be a struggle againts our own subconscious motivation to breed and breed and breed. The only way we will stabilize is if we can voluntarily limit our own consumption and numbers to keep them within what the planet can support. If we can't overcome our own drives we will just boom and bust in a depressing cycle.

[Mogura]

Japan had an overpopulation problem for a number of years, but the tide has reversed. The birthrate has declined dramatically over the past decade as a result of 1) extremely expensive land prices (who wants to raise a family in a rabbit hutch?), 2) overwork (working 12-14 hours a day decreases sperm count, not to mention sex drive), and 3) a generation of spoiled brats who are adverse to taking on any responsibility whatsoever--many still live at home with their parents well into their 30's and 40's; those that don't are on economic outpatient care.

The root of it all is 1. Corporations and the Japanese government in collusion to drive up and maintain a high level of land value. They didn't need to result to medical or political policies to reduce the population. Economics is the most powerful force there is...

[Snowdragon]

1.contraception: you don't hear about food riots on countries that allow and embrace birth control.
2.educating women: the more educated a woman is, the less likely she'll depend on her husband (and will produce fewer children).

[Ool]

1.contraception: you don't hear about food riots on countries that allow and embrace birth control.
2.educating women: the more educated a woman is, the less likely she'll depend on her husband (and will produce fewer children).

The problem with curbing overpopulation on an individual level is always that those who fall through the cracks of the system of population control are those who will eventually outbreed those who don’t, meaning natural selection favors those who defy the system.

So you may educate and liberate women, but the result will be that naturally stupid and meek women enthralled by dominant men are going to be the ones bearing the most daughters.

Why do you think there is such hostility against contraception and family planning among huge parts of the population? Some of it has to do with the fact that those with a tendency to oppose such methods have already outbred those who do not, ever since the introduction of the pill and the widespread availability of condoms, no more than two generations ago.

It will be even worse in two or three generations from now. Nature views contraception as censorship and routes around it…

[SirJac]

The problem with curbing overpopulation on an individual level is always that those who fall through the cracks of the system of population control are those who will eventually outbreed those who don’t, meaning natural selection favors those who defy the system.

So you may educate and liberate women, but the result will be that naturally stupid and meek women enthralled by dominant men are going to be the ones bearing the most daughters.

Why do you think there is such hostility against contraception and family planning among huge parts of the population? Some of it has to do with the fact that those with a tendency to oppose such methods have already outbred those who do not, ever since the introduction of the pill and the widespread availability of condoms, no more than two generations ago

That is true in the industrial world, but for the undeveloped and developing world there are other pressures that make birth control more attractive. After all these are the regions that have the highest birth rate and the least disposable income. The more children you have, the more mouths you have to feed and if you don't got alot of money to begin with so the money that can be saved to increase your family's standard of living is a powerful incentive to take steps to stop more mouths joining your family.

Additional population control in the developed world isn't really required because most countries are around the 2.2 children/family birth rate that is required for sustainability. Instead efforts need to be put in place in the countries that are far above the 2.2 children/family, and those nations are an the position that birth control would actually benifit the average standard of living and the general economy greatly.

Sure in the long run natural selection would benifit those who breed like rabbits, but we have so many people that would willingly use birth control if they were educated in its use and it was made available to them. We can put on some serious breaks on our population growth with just voluntary birth control in the undeveloped and developing world that it may not even be necessary to use enforcement to target those who go against population control to get us down to 2.2 children/family world wide.

And if we cannot get enough people to willingly reduce the number of children they have, then rather then taking drastic action all we really need to do is apply a suitable disincentive to deter people from having large families. A simple, flexible and effective solution would simply be an increased tax rate for families with more then three children. If the cost of an additional children beyond three is high enough to offset the benifits or desires for large families, then people will have the incentive to have smaller families. It won't be a popular option, but any disinsentive or enforcement against large families won't be popular to begin with and I'm more preferential towards solutions that make large families unattractive rather then against the law.

[thod]

What are all these pussy solutions.

We all become gay? well you can become gay, I am fine the way I am.

Free university education and clean drinking water for the third world? Not on my tax bill, let the lazy good for nothings do it themselves.

What to do we want with all these third world people? Nothing thats what, what have they ever given the world except tropical diseases and spear throwing contests.

I should be allowed to breed, then my family and neighbors then my country. There ain't enough space for all of us. Its us or them, and its going to be them.

Terminator robots, that what we need, they go in and rip their genitals off. Ha lets you breed now.

[SirJac]

^^^ Well we can always just do nothing and let mother nature do what she does best, restore balance to the equilibrium. If we keep breeding exponenetially, then mother nature will start killing people off exponentially. Weapon of choice? Starvation.

[Ool]

That is true in the industrial world, but for the undeveloped and developing world there are other pressures that make birth control more attractive. After all these are the regions that have the highest birth rate and the least disposable income. The more children you have, the more mouths you have to feed and if you don't got alot of money to begin with so the money that can be saved to increase your family's standard of living is a powerful incentive to take steps to stop more mouths joining your family.

That would be true if the a) the children weren’t a lot cheaper in places where you don’t have to save up for their college tuition, b) the children weren’t viewed as a retirement provision, meaning the larger a clan you have the more likely there is someone to take care of you at your old age, and c) a high child mortality means that the more children you have the more likely some of them are to survive.

Additional population control in the developed world isn't really required because most countries are around the 2.2 children/family birth rate that is required for sustainability. Instead efforts need to be put in place in the countries that are far above the 2.2 children/family, and those nations are an the position that birth control would actually benifit the average standard of living and the general economy greatly.

The number of children isn’t the only problem but also the quality of children being born. I’m not even saying that it is mostly dumb people having lots of children, who are then more likely to be dumb children. But the people who do progenate excessively tend to either not be able to deal with birth control and family planning or they have a propensity to be unwilling to deal with it. And those people will, slowly but surely, outbreed those who are caught by the grid of modern methods of population control. And that means the next generation will be harder to catch by that grid.

It isn’t just a question of an average of two children replacing and average of two old people. It is also a question of how those two new people, from the new generation, are subtly different from those from the old one. Numbers and statistics don’t take natural selection into account.

Sure in the long run natural selection would benifit those who breed like rabbits, but we have so many people that would willingly use birth control if they were educated in its use and it was made available to them. We can put on some serious breaks on our population growth with just voluntary birth control in the undeveloped and developing world that it may not even be necessary to use enforcement to target those who go against population control to get us down to 2.2 children/family world wide.

And even if we went for enforcement, the question is, would it work? That’s a lot of people to control, and giving a central agency that much power can also serve to diminish our quality of life in other respects.

And if we cannot get enough people to willingly reduce the number of children they have, then rather then taking drastic action all we really need to do is apply a suitable disincentive to deter people from having large families. A simple, flexible and effective solution would simply be an increased tax rate for families with more then three children.

Ah, but that would hurt the children, whom many would consider innocent victims of their parents’ “irresponsibility,” so that would be hard to push through. Even if it were pushed through it might only start a vicious cycle pushing those people into a lower class status and making it more likely to turn them into criminals and rebels against the system, evading outside control altogether.

If the cost of an additional children beyond three is high enough to offset the benifits or desires for large families, then people will have the incentive to have smaller families. It won't be a popular option, but any disinsentive or enforcement against large families won't be popular to begin with and I'm more preferential towards solutions that make large families unattractive rather then against the law.

There is no way of ever solving this problem, let alone solving it humanely. First of all, the whole natural ground rules, that old people have to die, their whole identity to vanish so that other people take over, is a system that isn’t humane. The fact that your offspring are individual entities, who not only aren’t you but aren’t each other, either, and are therefore in competition with each other, is also a recipe for misery.

Our genes aren’t the same things as us. What is good for them isn’t always good for us. Overpopulation may actually be a boon for our genetic development, but for the individuals carrying those genes it sucks.

The only real solution to this overpopulation problem is to learn to control our genetic markup as well as the contents of our minds, so we can propagate our consciousnesses the same way our genes propagate today, while our genetic basis is manipulable to suit our consciousnesses’ needs best. Whether or how that will ever be achieved I don’t know…

Otherwise no solution to the overpopulation problem, even if it worked temporarily, will ever be a solution to the human condition underlying it in the first place…





Ool added to this post, 461 minutes and 38 seconds later...

I think this Onion throw-away gag headline sums it up quite nicely:

U.N. REPORTS GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS THREATENING GLOBAL OVERPOPULATION CRISIS

[Mozzes]

It's essentially an energy problem and there are already 2 viable solutions - solar energy and hydroponics.

A greater investment in solar energy will eventually occur. It's abundant. It's clean. We're not dependent on the goodwill of foreign powers to have access to it. And it's not going anywhere for another couple of billion years.

Hydroponics is a real no-brainer. It allows us to grow food in land that would normally not support it. We could grow corn and wheat in the desert or mangoes and coconuts at the North Pole (theoretically, at least - there's no particular reason to want to do so). We don't even need land - plants could be grown in orbit or at sea. Hydroponics require as little as 5% of the water necessary to grow plants in soil. Herbicides and pesticides are virtually unnecessary. We have greater control over watering, salts, and pH. Plants can be protected from frosts, more easily protected from droughts, and any variety of any plant can be produced all year.

There are less than 1,000 acres of commercial hydroponics in America, but it's a technology that has already caught on in some parts of the world, particularly the middle east (Israel has nearly 30,000 acres of commercial hydroponics and the UAE has also heavily invested in it). It's a technology whose time will come when people realize its profitability far outweighs the initial investment.

I'm also quite surprised at how strongly some people oppose helping the third world modernize. It's self-interested altruism. I mean, really, do we really want to see the 4 or 5 billion people attempting to modernize this century make all the common mistakes? It's the same principles as with Chernobyl and volcanoes - these developing countries, their air pollution, the trash they throw into the oceans, all their shit lands on our doorstep eventually. We don't live in a vacuum no matter how much we like to think otherwise - what one nation does affects the world. We should be interested in showing these developing countries the right path if only to protect ourselves.

[SirJac]

That would be true if the a) the children weren’t a lot cheaper in places where you don’t have to save up for their college tuition, b) the children weren’t viewed as a retirement provision, meaning the larger a clan you have the more likely there is someone to take care of you at your old age, and c) a high child mortality means that the more children you have the more likely some of them are to survive.

An individual consumes twice the number of resources before they enter the work force then they consume after they leave it on average. For every child they choose not to have, the resources saved can support 2 elderly. Even more if they invest their savings wisely and allow it to grow until they are no longer able to work. Population control would also offset child mortality rates naturally as more resources are being distributed to less people so care that is needed will be more accessible.



The number of children isn’t the only problem but also the quality of children being born. I’m not even saying that it is mostly dumb people having lots of children, who are then more likely to be dumb children. But the people who do progenate excessively tend to either not be able to deal with birth control and family planning or they have a propensity to be unwilling to deal with it. And those people will, slowly but surely, outbreed those who are caught by the grid of modern methods of population control. And that means the next generation will be harder to catch by that grid.

A long term issue that can be addressed after the fact. The immediate consequences of over population are a far more pressing issue and must be addressed first with the time we have available before mother nature solves our problems for us.

It isn’t just a question of an average of two children replacing and average of two old people. It is also a question of how those two new people, from the new generation, are subtly different from those from the old one. Numbers and statistics don’t take natural selection into account.

Natural selection is broken in human beings. Its efficiency depended on the survival of the fittest and superior genes being passed on while weak ones die off. That no longer applies to humanity since the primary advantages in successfully passing your genes on are not genetic anymore. The weak don’t die before they can pass on their genes anymore and poverty is not genetic.



And even if we went for enforcement, the question is, would it work? That’s a lot of people to control, and giving a central agency that much power can also serve to diminish our quality of life in other respects.

Of course it would not work 100%. Anyone that expects enforcement to be 100% effective is delusional. People still steal, cheat, lie and kill even with enforcement. Even if its only 80% effective, that will be enough for it to serve its purpose. Will it diminish the quality of life in some aspects, probably but it’s still a far better alternative then doing nothing.


Ah, but that would hurt the children, whom many would consider innocent victims of their parents’ “irresponsibility,” so that would be hard to push through. Even if it were pushed through it might only start a vicious cycle pushing those people into a lower class status and making it more likely to turn them into criminals and rebels against the system, evading outside control altogether.

Still better then the alternative of doing nothing. Also, the reduced population control will distribute resources to less people so that the relative level of poverty will actually be much higher then it would be with unchecked population control. Sure they may rebel, but it will be minor compared to the food riots that will result from no action. You can’t compare the effects of a solution to the world that we know now because it’s not sustainable. You have to compare the possible downside of any solution to the crisis that will result for doing nothing and enforced population control is a better option from any angle.



There is no way of ever solving this problem, let alone solving it humanely. First of all, the whole natural ground rules, that old people have to die, their whole identity to vanish so that other people take over, is a system that isn’t humane. The fact that your offspring are individual entities, who not only aren’t you but aren’t each other, either, and are therefore in competition with each other, is also a recipe for misery.

Failure to find a perfect solution is not an excuse for inaction. Everyone may not like the solution, but choosing to do nothing is the worst possible thing we can do. Inaction is still a choice and we are still fully responsible for the consequences of that choice.


Our genes aren’t the same things as us. What is good for them isn’t always good for us. Overpopulation may actually be a boon for our genetic development, but for the individuals carrying those genes it sucks..

Genetic evolution is a trend that results from billions of interactions, like supply and demand is a trend that results from billions of interactions. But the forces that allow genetic evolution in other species to work normally no longer affect the human race and so our natural evolution is broken. It is very likely that the majority of human evolution over the next thousand years is going to be artificial in nature and may be the only way that humanity can continue to progress since natural forces no longer create a survival of the fittest effect on our gene pool.


The only real solution to this overpopulation problem is to learn to control our genetic markup as well as the contents of our minds, so we can propagate our consciousnesses the same way our genes propagate today, while our genetic basis is manipulable to suit our consciousnesses’ needs best. Whether or how that will ever be achieved I don’t know...

Otherwise no solution to the overpopulation problem, even if it worked temporarily, will ever be a solution to the human condition underlying it in the first place….

One step at a time. We don’t need to know how to fix all of our problems, we just need to prioritise and take care of the most pressing issues first. Once we buy ourselves some time we can look at addressing our long term problems. We need to solve the problems facing this generation so that the next generation doesn’t suffer for it and has the best shot at solving the issues that will face them.

[Aronnax]

An individual consumes twice the number of resources before they enter the work force then they consume after they leave it on average. For every child they choose not to have, the resources saved can support 2 elderly. Even more if they invest their savings wisely and allow it to grow until they are no longer able to work. Population control would also offset child mortality rates naturally as more resources are being distributed to less people so care that is needed will be more accessible.


Some quick points about this statement:

the 2:1 resource ratio for children vs the elderly is for the developed world. In the developing world if you feed a child for about 8 years they become a source of labor, they enter your work force. The high cost of children in that 2:1 ration assumes that you send them to school for 13+ years rather than have them watch your cattle herds or work the fields.

Investment structure in the undeveloped world is radically different than the developed world. Currency doesn't work the same way, agricultural commodities are frequently the primary means of savings and they have a shelf life. Children are frequently the retirement plan e.g. the kids will take care of me when I'm too old to work.


Natural selection is broken in human beings. Its efficiency depended on the survival of the fittest and superior genes being passed on while weak ones die off. That no longer applies to humanity since the primary advantages in successfully passing your genes on are not genetic anymore. The weak don’t die before they can pass on their genes anymore and poverty is not genetic.


You're assuming natural selection has a direction, it doesn't. It simply promotes whatever characteristics enhance your chances of reproduction. It may not give you the results you desire but that doesn't make it "broken". In the developing world medicine isn't as prevalent as you'd assume, plenty of the sickly die off. You don't run into problems until you're looking at the developed world but the developed world doesn't really have a problem with growth.


Of course it would not work 100%. Anyone that expects enforcement to be 100% effective is delusional. People still steal, cheat, lie and kill even with enforcement. Even if its only 80% effective, that will be enough for it to serve its purpose. Will it diminish the quality of life in some aspects, probably but it’s still a far better alternative then doing nothing.

Most nations will tell any outsider who tried to impose a form of structured population control to piss off so it'd work about 0% of the time. I can only think of 1 place in the world where people would be willing to accept that decree from their leadership and that's because Confucianistic thought is ingrained in the culture. Yes, I'm talking about China and they already have a form of enforced population control. The rest of the developing world will want nothing to do with your suggestion.



Still better then the alternative of doing nothing. Also, the reduced population control will distribute resources to less people so that the relative level of poverty will actually be much higher then it would be with unchecked population control. Sure they may rebel, but it will be minor compared to the food riots that will result from no action. You can’t compare the effects of a solution to the world that we know now because it’s not sustainable. You have to compare the possible downside of any solution to the crisis that will result for doing nothing and enforced population control is a better option from any angle.

Where is this global Government coming from that's going to crack down on the developing nation's birth rate? The developing nations for the most part have self rule and that's derived from the consent of the governed. If their leadership starts mucking around with graduated tax systems that oppresses the lifestyle they've lived for centuries that consent disappears and the leadership will too.

Rationally speaking yes, food riots are bad but population control is for other families, other tribes, other nations, not mine. Let them get weak, we need people to farm our fields and to fight for our cattle.

You can't force the masses to do anything, you have to persuade them. The best way is to work subtly through free birth control and setting up education to move them away from a physical agrarian society. You have to change the culture because population growth is a cultural issue, not a legal one.

[Noehelia]

An individual consumes twice the number of resources before they enter the work force then they consume after they leave it on average. For every child they choose not to have, the resources saved can support 2 elderly. Even more if they invest their savings wisely and allow it to grow until they are no longer able to work. Population control would also offset child mortality rates naturally as more resources are being distributed to less people so care that is needed will be more accessible.




Where did you read something like this? I tried to find info on the internet but i couldn't, plus I have different opinion.

[thod]

Genetically engineer an new disease that leaves people sterile that is spread by mosquitoes. That way it hits the people that are causing the problem and cant afford the drugs to prevent it.

[Yay]

The only thing that seems to stabilize population is feminism.

Women in the work place seems to equal less children.

[SirJac]

Some quick points about this statement:

the 2:1 resource ratio for children vs the elderly is for the developed world. In the developing world if you feed a child for about 8 years they become a source of labor, they enter your work force. The high cost of children in that 2:1 ration assumes that you send them to school for 13+ years rather than have them watch your cattle herds or work the fields.

Investment structure in the undeveloped world is radically different than the developed world. Currency doesn't work the same way, agricultural commodities are frequently the primary means of savings and they have a shelf life. Children are frequently the retirement plan e.g. the kids will take care of me when I'm too old to work.

That is true, the developing world would probably be closer to a 1:1 ratio of resources consumed, which is still enough if they were educated in how to allocate them to maximize benifit. If given access to the open market, then many more possibilities open up.

You're assuming natural selection has a direction, it doesn't. It simply promotes whatever characteristics enhance your chances of reproduction. It may not give you the results you desire but that doesn't make it "broken". In the developing world medicine isn't as prevalent as you'd assume, plenty of the sickly die off. You don't run into problems until you're looking at the developed world but the developed world doesn't really have a problem with growth.

The effects of population control on human evolution should only consider the positive benifits associated with natural selection that would be lost when doing cost/benifit analysis. If natural evolution does not give tangible benifits to humanity anymore, then it shouldn't be considered a drawback of population control. In which case, yes natural selection is broken in the sense of furthering human progress. It still has an effect, but it can easily be neutral or even harmful for the progression of the human race.

Most nations will tell any outsider who tried to impose a form of structured population control to piss off so it'd work about 0% of the time. I can only think of 1 place in the world where people would be willing to accept that decree from their leadership and that's because Confucianistic thought is ingrained in the culture. Yes, I'm talking about China and they already have a form of enforced population control. The rest of the developing world will want nothing to do with your suggestion.

Where is this global Government coming from that's going to crack down on the developing nation's birth rate? The developing nations for the most part have self rule and that's derived from the consent of the governed. If their leadership starts mucking around with graduated tax systems that oppresses the lifestyle they've lived for centuries that consent disappears and the leadership will too.

I expect that and I don't think it will be feasible until after the first big wave of mass starvation. I think it's a lesson that will have to be learned the hard way before people are willing to commit to controling our growth.

Rationally speaking yes, food riots are bad but population control is for other families, other tribes, other nations, not mine. Let them get weak, we need people to farm our fields and to fight for our cattle.

You can't force the masses to do anything, you have to persuade them. The best way is to work subtly through free birth control and setting up education to move them away from a physical agrarian society. You have to change the culture because population growth is a cultural issue, not a legal one.

Laws are simply a means to an end and once people reaslise just how important population control is, then it becomes aviable method to reach that goal. Mother nature will be quite persuasive I think. I'm hoping that we only have to learn the hard way once before we get the message. Still, I agree that free birth control and education are the best methods that we have available to us to curb our growth that can be implimented immediately.

Where did you read something like this? I tried to find info on the internet but i couldn't, plus I have different opinion.

If you assume that a person will consume the same number of resources per year regardless of of age, then it's simply a matter of counting the number of years it takes for a person to become part of the labor force and comparing it to the average number of years a person lives after leaving the labor force. Actual resources consumed can vary, but it tends to work out to about 2:1 for developed countries and 1:1 for developing countries.

[Lemmiwinks]

Mr. Swift had an interesting idea a few hundred years ago, but I guess most people wouldn't go for that.

So I propose - more wars. That'll do it. The world has plenty of wars on deck that are just waiting to break out - India and Pakistan; China and Taiwan; European civil wars as the Muslim populations continue to increase (arguably France is already there); Israel and the U.S. versus the entire Middle East (also arguably already happening).

So cheer up folks! Never underestimate man's ability to self-destruct!

I even have a idea for a slogan that can be put bumper stickers, buttons, and even t-shirts:

"Make war, not love"

[Synamon]

I had an interesting discussion with a friend about this and it boiled down to an economic problem as much as a social one. I favor the arguments presented here that it's really an energy crisis. Supporting human beings on this planet boils down to energy. Social engineering is great for philosophical debate but I can't get too excited worrying about which people are causing the population explosion, we all contribute, even by doing nothing more than consuming precious resources.

We've been living through an energy bubble for decades, the energy crisis of the 70's was a mere blip. Oil, gas, and other raw materials have been artificially cheap. Energy is used for everything we do, including food, in some ways, especially food. We've been having a party with all the cheap oil for so long we neglected to notice that we aren't making any more dinosaurs. Petrochemical energy is finite. That is indisputable and yet only baby steps have been taken to replace it because it was just so cheap. Very little has been done to increase the efficiency of food production. As Frickles mentioned there are better less resource intensive ways to grow food that we are not taking advantage of. In the same vein there are lots of other energy sources available and we even already have the technology for many of them but none of these are cheap. Water is another issue, but again there is technology, it is just a lot more expensive than drilling a well.

Eventually economics and scarcity will bring these technologies into play. I can't begin to imagine how the cost of supporting life will be borne. I suspect it will be paid for with human lives, and a lot of them. Lemmiwinks tongue in cheek suggestion of wars is likely right on target. The value of a human life will certainly change. We have the technology (or will), but the policies that go with them will surely lag. It is going to be a crowded and bumpy ride.

[Noehelia]

If you assume that a person will consume the same number of resources per year regardless of of age, then it's simply a matter of counting the number of years it takes for a person to become part of the labor force and comparing it to the average number of years a person lives after leaving the labor force. Actual resources consumed can vary, but it tends to work out to about 2:1 for developed countries and 1:1 for developing countries.

Oh, I assume the opposite, that elders cost more money than young people because of the treatment for diseases of aging.

[Ool]

Oh, I assume the opposite, that elders cost more money than young people because of the treatment for diseases of aging.

Requiring more money isn't the same as requiring more non-renewable resources...

[Noehelia]

Requiring more money isn't the same as requiring more non-renewable resources...

How did the word non-renewable come up? Can you say for sure that young people require more non-renewable resources than elders?

We are talking about consumption. At this point the industry for elders is the most prominent as they live longer than before and they have so many needs to cover from medicines, to monitoring and treatment machines, to treatments in hospitals, to different lifestyle that promotes recreation for elders, acquiring a second house to spend their last years, traveling and so on. All these cost more money to society, energy and materials are spend and so on.

Besides that, is consumption really lower when people do not have children? The part of income that would be spent on children won't it be used on products for personal use anyway?

[GrimWizard]

2 words people.......

Moon Base

It's definitely time to start colonizing.

[bricklayer]

Genocide.



No, just kidding. If every couple were to limit themselves to two children. Then there ya go.

[MysString]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here, here!


I had to do it. :anxious:

[SevenOfSpades]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Haha, brilliant.

[Homini Lupus]

There are many different problems discusse here, I'll sum up my point of view.

A) We die. I don't think it's really a problem, at least from the point of view of the society, because our deaths create room for new ideas and new people to solve problems in innovative ways; and your ideas can survive the only way possible: evolve. New people studies and understands old ideas and finds new ones. For the developement of ideas, I think the death of individuals is a blessing.

B) Resources: reducing population growth is not a solution, it only delays the problem. We can only find alternatives to the resources we are using. It will likely happen as long as those "old" resources become more expensive than the alternatives. It also means that we are going to produce less, at least on the short-medium run.

C) Old people: this is an actual problem; old people say that they deserve health care because they paid their pensions but the problem is that, when i put money away i'm basically letting investors to use it, here and now. New generations create new wealth; and in many western countries old generations have not created enough new human material to replace dying one. The solution may be immigrants, but it's not an easy solution.

Problem of security: western countries have less and less manpower to be ready for a war. They can rely on massive "hardware", but the risks of a similar strategy are not irrelevant.

In the end, my idea is that we should find ways to increase production rather than reduce our population.

[thod]

In the end, my idea is that we should find ways to increase production rather than reduce our population.

That doesn't work. They just increase again until the new limit is hit. Any solution will be ignored by those to whom it is disadvantageous so it has to be by force. If you tell a tribesman you are going to cut his balls off because he has too many kids he will resist you with a gun. If you lower his living standards by tax etc he will ignore it and still have the kids. All you are going to do is reduce the babies in the educated, high living standard countries. The real problem is the third world, they are building armies of immigrants that will take over via numbers. Our defense has to be to eliminate their numbers.

[Noehelia]

That doesn't work. They just increase again until the new limit is hit. Any solution will be ignored by those to whom it is disadvantageous so it has to be by force. If you tell a tribesman you are going to cut his balls off because he has too many kids he will resist you with a gun. If you lower his living standards by tax etc he will ignore it and still have the kids. All you are going to do is reduce the babies in the educated, high living standard countries. The real problem is the third world, they are building armies of immigrants that will take over via numbers. Our defense has to be to eliminate their numbers.

The problem is not overpopulation yet, it is the consumption of the resources by the developed world. The educated, high living standard countries are the ones that consume more than the unprivileged countries although the latter are the majority. For example in this data (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) you can see that USA is consuming at least 3 times more oil than China who has 4 times its population.





Noehelia added to this post, 32 minutes and 11 seconds later...

I just made some calculations based on that data sheet and population by country.
USA consumes the amount of oil that the countries from 19th place of the board until 206th place consume all together. These 187 countries together have population of approximately 2,700,000,000 which is 9 times more than the US population.

[Lemmiwinks]

2 words people.......

Moon Base

It's definitely time to start colonizing.

Here's two words:

Logan's Run

And two more:

Soylent Green

[GrimWizard]

Here's two words:

Logan's Run

And two more:

Soylent Green

While Both are Excellent Movies, Soylent Green didn't really solve overpopulation since they still had it. Logan's Run solved the problem a little too well forcing stagnent growth.

It would probably be easier to just spread to other planets draining the galaxy of resources as we go, like a virus or plague.

[Pirate1650]

I came up with a few different scinarios.

1. Either we continue to develop land and technology and find new places to live like the ocean or space in the same comfortable rate we've been going at where it will never be a problem.

2. Land and food will become so expensive it will start to take care of itself when people literally can't afford to have children or maybe even feed themselves.

3. Zombies.

[Shakyamuni]

I see overpopulation as another manifestation of equilibrium. Basically we have two options.

1.) We let nature take its natural course without interfering. The problem will take care of itself, but we obviously won't like the solutions. Anarchy, war, disease, etc. Eventually it will become economically unfeasible.

2.) We meddle with the system and put up population barriers such as birth control, population caps, increasing the cost of food by growing biofuels and thereby starving the 3rd world to death, etc.

I view population the same way as I view economics. In the early 1900s the system was essentially unregulated and thus you got serious boom and bust cycles. Governments later stepped in and started fiddling with factors such as interest rates/spending programs to reduce the severity of the natural equilibration of the economic system. Population should be viewed from a similar standpoint. Unfortunately all the civil rights people will step in and exclaim you are violating my rights etc.

[void]

I propose two solutions. And/or them as needed:

1) Terraform Mars and ship off our convicts to the planet. If history is any indication, the Martian (as in homo sapiens on Mars) population will live long and prosper.

2) Take the warning labels off everything. This works doubly as an excellent intelligence filter.

[Beery Swine]

Find a quick easy way to sterilize people that isn't complete or permenant. I was leaning towards immunization to sex protiens etc... Sterilize everyone at around age 12. To make a baby you have to pay and get artificial insemination (possibly the drugs that make your body accept transplants would work too?). Immunization to cocain, heroin, nicotine, etc.. offered free of charge also to decrease medical costs.

BTW, yes all of that is possible.

Tel me where to sign! I'll just add in my rhyme:

If it goes down the throat,
no kids to suppo't.

[zibber]

Either start on systematic mass murder (genocide sounds like you're specifically targeting certain groups, I'm talking across-the-spectrum carnage) and start reversing, respectively, the industrial revolution and the agricultural revolution, or let things take their own path. Or be a pussy and work on some middle-of-the-road solution, which is somehow less appealing than speculating about how badly we are doomed anyway.

[void]

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Not even the movie's producers could have predicted the utility of this quote.

[GrimWizard]

2. Land and food will become so expensive it will start to take care of itself when people literally can't afford to have children or maybe even feed themselves.


Ah, so like how it is right now? Nope doesn't work, People are still having babies and eating. I guess we are going to have to hope for the Zombies on this one...