Global Overpopulation: The gorrila in the room?

[ddrueding]

Sources for info and discussion:

Wikipedia: Population Growth
US Census Bureau: International Database

With all the talk of global warming and food shortages, I have yet to hear talk of this as the source of our problems, but I suspect that it is.

Even if we are able to cut our emissions per person in half, what happens when the population doubles?

Even if we are able to produce enough food to feed everyone this minute, how many more will be born by the time you finish reading this sentence?

If the global population had never exceeded 3 Billion, would global warming or an energy shortage have been nearly as bad? It seems every global issue is made massively worse with a larger population.

What are the solutions? It seems like we have developed to the point where "natural" means could (and would) be controlled (plague, natural disaster, even meteor strike?). Even man made ones like global war seem very unlikely.

That would leave us with regulated/government solutions.

Either the solution could be implemented on a per country or global basis. If individual countries tried to do it, that would cause inequalities as some policies were more effective than others. A global agreement is highly unlikely considering how controversial such an idea is.

Any thoughts? Is this what will cause the destruction of humanity? How long to you think we have? The current projection is 9 Billion by 2042, can the world sustain that?

 

[Will Rickards]

let's start the culling tomorrow.

 

[Stereodude]

The solution is more food, not conservation of people or calories.

 

[ddrueding]

The solution is more food, not conservation of people or calories.

Assuming an unlimited supply of food, what do you do about the pollution? About urban sprawl's effect on natural habitats? Traffic? The common denominator is people.

 

[ddrueding]

let's start the culling tomorrow.

Open to suggestions.

 

[LunarMist]

http://www.amazon.com/White-Plague-Frank-Herbert/dp/0399127216

 

[mubs]

The solution is more food, not conservation of people or calories.

The solution is not more food, it is less people. I am not advocating "culling", but birth control in whatever form takes your fancy - self-restraint, condoms, pills, etc. Multiplying like rabbits will take us to doomsday fast. Think potable water, food, bare necessities, and the pollution dd is talking about.

 

[ddrueding]

http://www.amazon.com/White-Plague-Frank-Herbert/dp/0399127216

No. Less women is not what we need. Less people in general while giving those left a reason to live

 

[ddrueding]

The solution is not more food, it is less people. I am not advocating "culling", but birth control in whatever form takes your fancy - self-restraint, condoms, pills, etc. Multiplying like rabbits will take us to doomsday fast. Think potable water, food, bare necessities, and the pollution dd is talking about.

I agree that not having more people is better than killing people, but this is a more slippery slope. I can't imagine a socially acceptable way to restrict people's ability to have children. And if it is optional, the ignorant and poor will outpopulate those that are needed to support them!

 

[Stereodude]

And if it is optional, the ignorant and poor will outpopulate those that are needed to support them!

You mean like now?

 

[Fushigi]

For starters, let people have control over their own destiny (you know, be closer to a 'land of the free') and making suicide (assisted or solo) legal.

A more controversial suggestion is to make (reversible) birth control mandatory in order to receive welfare or other forms of government aid. In all seriousness, the last thing that people on assistance need are more mouths to feed. And the last thing society needs is to have to support that mouth.

Going along with the threads on conservation, the best way to conserve resources is to die. Your consumption and the heat you naturally radiate ceases (after decomposition, anyway).

 

[Stereodude]

Is there any actual evidence that the earth is incapable of supporting an ever increasing population?

 

[ddrueding]

Is there any actual evidence that the earth is incapable of supporting an ever increasing population?

You mean other than a fixed amount of land, water, and air?

 

[Stereodude]

You mean other than a fixed amount of land, water, and air?

Yeah because that alone doesn't prove squat.

 

[jtr1962]

In essence supporting a person takes neither air nor water nor food because all of those can be recycled indefinitely given an arbitrarily advanced technology and a certain amount of energy. Energy is really the only external input life of any sort requires. On a global scale, that's exactly what has been happening over last few billion years. Earth didn't magically develop new resources. Each type of life, power by solar energy, used the existing resources. Given that, if we were to cover the entire earth's land surface with mile high towers devoted to either agriculture or residences, and powered all of this with thousands of fusion power plants, and recycled literally everything, then I'm sure the Earth could support 1 trillion people, if not more. Granted, the entire land area would be as densely populated as Manhattan, but it is at least possible.

Now the way we're living now, burning stuff for energy (how primitive is that in 2008?), recycling a fraction of what we use, and wasting tons of land for roads, suburban sprawl, etc., I'd say the Earth already has more people on it than it can reasonably support. It's all a matter of how you want to live, and what technology you have available. We could build nuclear power plants right now, go for denser living where walking/public transit are the primary modes of transport, return suburban sprawl to farmland, etc., and maybe 20 or 30 billion people will be no problem.

Interestingly, as countries get developed, the overpopulation problem seems to go away on its own. The main places where there are too many people for the local land to feed are third world countries. Europe, Japan, and the US (if you discount immigration) all have either zero or negative population growth. Even China's population will stabilize in a few decades. Once a country develops, the need to have many offspring to work the farm or support you in your old age diminishes. Having children becomes entirely optional. Enough people don't have them to offset those couples who might have more than two. The problem remains that per capita a person in a developed country uses way more resources than one in an undeveloped one, but technology plus small lifestyle changes can reduce that considerably without greatly impacting quality of life.

All that being said, I feel that there should be some requirements before allowing anyone to bear offspring. The problem in developed countries is most of the people bearing offsrpring tend to be lower socioeconomic class. Those are really the last people you want to procreate as they tend to drag down the rest of society with them. Witness the urban decay during the 1970s-1990s from a welfare system which essentially paid uneducated people to have babies. I also feel that the tax code shouldn't favor couples with children. Perhaps you can avoid draconian birth control measures by simply creating a tax disincentive (i.e. no deductions, higher marginal rates) to have children. It would even be fair in that it would avoid spreading the cost of raising someone else's children on taxpayers who don't plan to have any of their own.

Another thing to note is religion often encourages procreation. Not sure of any answer to that. Banning religion hasn't worked in the past. Perhaps not allowing religious proselytizing to non-adults would eventually cause religion to become mostly irrelevant within a few generations. My guess is in order to become "believers" most people need to be exposed to religious dogma early and often. Getting rid of organized religion tends to get rid of a lot of the problems it causes besides overpopulation, like people flying planes into skyscrapers. Sorry to any believers here. I'll admit religion has done good things like create beautiful cathedrals. On balance however, it's done more harm than good.

 

[mubs]

Another thing to note is religion often encourages procreation. Not sure of any answer to that. Banning religion hasn't worked in the past. Perhaps not allowing religious proselytizing to non-adults would eventually cause religion to become mostly irrelevant within a few generations. My guess is in order to become "believers" most people need to be exposed to religious dogma early and often. Getting rid of organized religion tends to get rid of a lot of the problems it causes besides overpopulation, like people flying planes into skyscrapers. Sorry to any believers here. I'll admit religion has done good things like create beautiful cathedrals. On balance however, it's done more harm than good.

AFAIK, every religion says to go forth and multiply. I think this is because in the olden days infant mortality was high and life expectancy was low, and societies were more secure and successful when they had a minimum mass. Today the situation is reverse, so there is no need to multiply, but it is happening anyway.

 

[sechs]

jtr1962 is giving me a "Connections" moment. Where's James Burke when you need him?

 

[e_dawg]

I think India needs to step up their efforts here. China long ago implemented a one child policy. While controversial and causing problems of its own, it has arguably been effective. While China's population growth has been controlled as a result, India's is still a bit of a runaway train, on pace to overtake China's population in 2-3 decades by most projections. If the most populous nations in the world don't do their part, it's rather futile to talk about a few million here and there in other countries.

http://www.prb.org/Reports/2007/IndiaProjections.aspx

 

[ddrueding]

I agree e_dawg.

I also agree with JTR that, in theory, given enough technology and money to implement it, and enough political will to see it done, we could have a global population in the tens of billions.

But I really wouldn't want to be there. In order for people to live that densely, massive structure would need to be enforced on the whole of civilization. Insane degrees of burden and control from building codes to speed limits, noise and light pollution to consumption and vocation.

I also just don't see it happening. Which governments will be able to take that kind of control? China could, the US might (if it keeps slipping), could India?

 

[mubs]

India did. During the infamous Emergency days of the mid-seventies, Sanjay Gandhi undertook a campaign to sterilize people (mainly through vasectomies). His mother, Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister and had declared the Emergency to silence dissent and critics. Sanjay's idea in principle was correct. In practice there apparently was forced sterilization. This led to such an enormous backlash from the public that the whole idea was abandoned. This then became such a sensitive issue that every politician since has put a light year between themselves and any mention of population control.

I may not be exact in what I said above, but the substance is correct.

A more passive approach has been in place for several decades.

At one time India was the world's largest manufacturer of condoms (perhaps still is). They were not given out free, but sold for a very, very low price for a pack of 3. There is a joke about women social workers going into villages and showing the womenfolk how condoms should be used. The demonstration was done by putting the condom over a thumb. However birth rates didn't fall, and puzzled social workers went back and asked if the condoms were being used, and the answer was yes. Upon further probing it was found that the women were wearing the condoms over one of their thumbs when having sex!

Slogans were introduced; "We two, ours two" earlier, and now it is "We two, ours one".

Sadly, none of these will make the difference that is necessary. Some people stoically say nature will take care of the problem by introducing a deadly disease, or by staging a great catastrophe. That's wishful thinking.

Meanwhile the pressure on everything - housing, schooling, infrastructure, water, medical care - is immense.

China has won this battle. There are some definite disadvantages to a democracy, and India fully suffers from these.

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks for the insight, mubs. That certainly sounds like a problem. I don't think any government-mandated population control will be effective unless it involves forced sterilization (which will have the problem described by mubs) or forced abortions (which won't go over well, either).

 

[timwhit]

How about strong financial incentives not to have kid.

In the US you get a tax deduction if you have kids. How about making people pay more taxes if they have kids instead of less.

 

[ddrueding]

How about strong financial incentives not to have kid.

In the US you get a tax deduction if you have kids. How about making people pay more taxes if they have kids instead of less.

A wonderful idea. Except that poor people are able to evade all taxes completely, so it wouldn't be a disincentive.

 

[timwhit]

A wonderful idea. Except that poor people are able to evade all taxes completely, so it wouldn't be a disincentive.

That all depends on how you structure the tax law. If you say that you will have to pay extra no matter your income level it would be more effective with people that pay little or no taxes.

The main problem I see is that most governments have no incentive to reduce their population at this point. A great way to increase GDP is to increase your population. Also, when you are relying on future generations to pay for social services of current generations reducing population will cause massive budget shortfalls. Think of baby boomers retiring and the current social security/medicare deficit compounding several times.

 

[ddrueding]

That all depends on how you structure the tax law. If you say that you will have to pay extra no matter your income level it would be more effective with people that pay little or no taxes.

The main problem I see is that most governments have no incentive to reduce their population at this point. A great way to increase GDP is to increase your population. Also, when you are relying on future generations to pay for social services of current generations reducing population will cause massive budget shortfalls. Think of baby boomers retiring and the current social security/medicare deficit compounding several times.

Taxing poor people doesn't work because the government is giving them money to start with. Would we take some of that money back? Sterilization before receiving welfare seems like the only way, but even I don't like the idea, and I'm a cold-hearted bastard.

 

[e_dawg]

RE: condoms, I'm not so sure that promoting a barrier method of contraception that the male has to use is an effective form of birth control in these countries. The men usually don't want to use it, and the women usually aren't able to force them to.

I think a long-acting contraceptive that the female is responsible for will be much more effective. Barrier methods are limited in their successfulness because men don't like using them. Short-acting medication like "the pill" is unlikely to work because women need to get the prescriptions and take them every day. Compliance is going to be a problem.

IMO, the best candidates for use are:

1. Mirena - an IUD that takes 5 minutes to insert at the doctor's office and can last up to 5 years.

2. Depo-Provera - an injectable "depot" that releases progestin for 3 months.

3. Nuvaring - a ring that is inserted like a diaphragm but does not physically block sperm like a diaphragm. It's just a ring that sits around the cervix and releases estrogen and progestin for 3 weeks.

Choices 1 and 2 can lend itself to government oversight and incentive programs if that's the route they want to go.

 

[ddrueding]

That sounds like a good idea, e_dawg. Non-permanence makes it much easier to swallow.

 

[time]

Really poor choice of words, Dave.

 

[ddrueding]

Really poor choice of words, Dave.

Ugh...good point. I was really tired.

 

[Chewy509]

2. Depo-Provera - an injectable "depot" that releases progestin for 3 months.

This is what my wife was on, when we became pregnant. (We fell pregnant mid-cycle as well).

The only contraception that is fool-proof is not doing it all, (expect for permanent sterilisation ).

But back OT: Australia is in the midst of a baby promotion (which has been going on for a few years now), where each couple receive a lump sum AU$4000 payment to assist with having children. Elin and I have talked about a second child, but for the moment are holding off... (for many reasons).

But I read many years ago in the "nexus" magazine, that some studies have found that the ideal human population was around 1AD - 500AD, taking into account how wasteful we truly are. Now fast forward 2000 years and we are at the start of an energy and general resource crisis, yet no major world government (except maybe the Chinese) have actually thought about a plan that is longer than the period that the current Government is in place.

 

[time]

This is what my wife was on, when we became pregnant. (We fell pregnant mid-cycle as well).

So who's the father?

Have you seen that Schwarzenegge-DeVito film? Not sure that's what they mean by emancipation ...

... no major world government (except maybe the Chinese) have actually thought about a plan that is longer than the period that the current Government is in place

Wow, good point.

 

[Chewy509]

So who's the father?

Have you seen that Schwarzenegge-DeVito film? Not sure that's what they mean by emancipation ...

Sorry, it's something my wife used to say, that "we" were both pregnant even though all I did was have 2secs on fun, and she got the 9 months of morning sickness ... oops, I mean pregnancy ...

I did share in most aspects of the pregnancy, including trying all the cravings. (Hint: pickles and cheese twisties do NOT go with Ice Cream).