'Population control, a sad but undeniable truth

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

'Population control, a sad but undeniable truth that we all must accept someday.'

Since the US is said to be about 75% Christian and was founded on maximum freedom for its people, I doubt whether the US will ever come up with a population control plan. It would be too controversial and it goes against promoting life and personal freedoms.

And while I cannot deny the wisdom of promoting life and freedom, sometime we must accept the lesser of two evils if promoting life turns into being more destructive to life than 'not promoting' it.

It then becomes a decision whether to choose between the 'greater good for the whole' or the 'greater personal right for the individual'... and the whole be damned. (Whole meaning entire human population of our planet.)

For instance, on a farm if the plants are planted packed like sardines (or 'packed like sushi' as they say in Japan) the plants do not flourish.

In nature, trees that are overcrowded weed themselves out by nature's decree. But if man forced the trees to not weed out and forces crowding the trees may die from disease due to a forced and unsustainable growth plan.

So it goes with how our planet is evolving...a sad but exactly true statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

Now, I a not a tree hugger, green peace freak or communist. I drive dirt bikes, love 2 stroke 500cc thumpers, run jet skis and snowmobiles and could consume along with the best of em.

But I do respect and admire nature and most of all I respect and admire life and have had to 'mend my ways' so to speak once it sunk in how things were. And in the process I have given up a lot of personal desires for the greater good of the whole.

You see, the problem is not with the earth having enough land for all its people - the problem is with earth providing ad infinitum for all the needs the people crave.

The more people born, the more heat is produced from their life and all their cravings, As such, the warmer and more polluted the earth gets and the more energy they all use and the earths resources are depleted.

Fueling the problem of consumption is the games the Federal banks play with interest rates. They manage the economies in ways to fuel consumption to mask the real trend.

Our economy is not based on sustainable health - it is based low interest credit to encourage compulsive spending, debt, living a life of constant consumption with a 'disposable mentality' when it comes to durable goods.

All this consumption contributes to more and more global warming and the depletion of our natural resources. Then the governments juggle the numbers to make the inflation figures seem artificially low, so everyone's retirement portfolio will make them happy so they will continue to buy and consume more...and on it goes.

China and India are just starting to bloom with their demands for fossil fuels We haven't seen anything yet with the meteoric rise of gas, energy and over consumption.

In China the per capita car ownership rate is 40 car owners per 1000 persons. In India it is much lower, running 8 cars per 1000 people. As these two giants evolve more of their population will want cars...in India, they are making a $2500 car as well.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/percapita_car_o.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20394364/

But what can one say about the problem unless people just cut back reproducing?

Everyone has a desire to have some sex stimulation and through that stimulation comes more and more people.

And everyone has a desire to keep warm when it is cold or to keep cool in the heat or move about the earth and wear clothes. And it is from all those desires that global warming fueled through the expenditure of fossil fuels takes place.

But the sad reality is even if people cut back having babies, we are only delaying the inevitable and that alone will not fix the problem. It can be compared to men stuck underwater in a crippled submarine. The more they move around, the quicker they run out of air and die. The less they move, the longer they can live...but the end result is the same.

Now maybe some genius will come up with a replacement for petroleum, natural gas and coal to meet all out needs. But it is unrealistic to think we can grow enough corn to fuel all the trucks, airlines, cargo ships, cars and other needs we humans have in addition run all the power plants and factories, heat and cool our homes.

You see all our energy needs are met with non sustainable non renewable resources whether it be coal, petroleum, or natural gas. Even nuclear power is dependent on the mining of uranium and has limits as to how long the supply will last.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

But lets not project too far in the future and try to keep our minds on the problems at hand.

$10 a gallon gas in the future? What about $40 a gallon gas??

No doubt! All we have to do is look to history for the answer.

When I first took notice of gas prices in the early 70's gas was .22 cents a gallon.

No one would have thought that gas would take a 1360% rise in price in 3 1/2 decades.

In addition to cars and gasoline, tons of other products and industries are dependent on crude oil as a component for their products.

http://www.lmoga.com/refoutput.htm

I can see how life has degenerated in recent years and this is just the tip of the berg for things to come. I am not an alarmist as one lady accused me, but I would do humanity a disservice if I did not bring this topic up now an again for discussion.

See my post

"Your sanity is my sanity and my sanity is your sanity."

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=628.0

When you bring up population control the talk naturally turns to China and India.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2872/is_1_27/ai_71563390

And population control alone is a controversial subject to discuss

..."when you get beyond the mythology and seriously examine the one-child policy, it is clear the policy is not viable even if one can stomach the horrendous human rights violations it entails."

From:

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/countries-of-the-world/asia/china/chinas-one-child-policy/

But in reality, there is no such thing as 'opinionated' - 'provocative' 'controversial' subjects.

These are only subjective and prejudicial states of mind. Such 'mind blocks' may bother one, but do not bother another. As such, all problems related to 'controversial subjects' such as this are problems created in the mind...the mind of ego based, prejudicial man.

My own opinion is this:

Since the US enjoys so much freedom, be it freedom of religion or freedom of personal liberty, I doubt whether anything will ever be done with this topic and we will just keep growing with our population and our insatiable demands.

Any president would do doubt have little success in getting anything done with population control. We can hear the cries now...Communist!...Atheist!...Baby Killer....Hitler!!!!

So the best thing for the president to do would be to put it before the public every 3 years in a national election to get America's verdict on the subject. Then at least the president could say he tried, but the people of the US prefer to thumb their noses at the rest of the world and the vote is in...we will do as we like.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

When we can understand that all humans are interdependent and not independent of one another, we come to realize that we all share the same breath.

If anyone is against population control and has no other viable alternative to offer other than Communist!...Atheist!...Baby Killer....Hitler! - when they are asked what can be done to **slow down global warming - slow down over consumption - slow down the destruction of the human race that hell bent on growing at an unsustainable pace - they should respond:

"I just don't care...that is someone else's problem not mine."

Now, I don't claim to have the magic bullet to fix all our woes. I'm just a simple philosopher not a scientist or genius. All I can do is to bring the problem to the forefront and ask that we all work in a more healthier direction that the one we have been headed in.

(**It seems global warming can't be fixed, it can only be slowed down...too many people on earth to fix it...to many demands...too many cravings...best we can do is to slow it down)

Take care,

V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,540 • Replies: 41

No top replies

There are two separate issues.... population and consumption.

The population problem has known solutions that are proven to work.

1. Education (especially of women). There is a very strong inverse correlation between education and family size.

2. Birth control. The more available, affordable, and socially acceptable birth control is in a society. The smaller family sizes there will be.

Currently the wealthy countries are have low fertility rates.

Women need to have 2.1 children to sustain the current population level anything less then this, and the population declines.

The current fertility rate for the world is 2.55. For the US it is about 2. For several countries including England, France, Germany and Italy, it is well below 2.

The countries with the highest fertility rates (having 6.5 - 7.5 children per woman) are poor and war-torn countries... including Afghanistan (7.07) and countries from sub-Saharan Africa.

The solution is not difficult to understand. Fight poverty, work for peace, spend money on providing education. The US should do a lot more in these areas.

The good news is that world wide fertility rates are going down as a trend. The current population growth rate is much much slower than was predicted even 10 or 15 years ago.

0 Replies

eb - we also have to incorporate immigration into the equation. Those coming here are doing so primarily for economic reasons because their homeland is more impoverished than the US. They tend to have higher birthrates, no? After a generation that may be or may not be leveled.

0 Replies

Are you teasing me K? Wink

0 Replies

Ha! A little, I admit.

0 Replies

I tend to separate immigration from population issues... at least as we are talking about global population.

I think that dealing with poverty is a very important part of slowing population growth. I strongly suspect (although I don't have the numbers right now) that immigrants have a lower birthrate than people from the same countries who don't immigrate. But I think this is a second order effect.

People coming to the US are given access to birth control and (in spite of the best efforts of Republicans) once you enter the US society you get a pro-birth-control message. We also have a culture of womens rights... from legal protection to services that also helps lower fertility rates.

So on a global perspective, the phenomenon of immigration from poor countries to wealthy ones probably lowers fertility rates (with the caveat that I haven't dug up the numbers yet to support this).

Interestingly, in many wealthy countries, there is now the problem of population loss. To sustain a population, you need to have 2.1 children per woman (the .1 is for deaths).

Most of Europe from England (with a fertility rate of 1.7) to Spain (1.29) and man other countries like Japan (1.27) have rates that are too low to sustain a population (or an economy). These countries will depend on immigration or will go through a painful contraction (imagine what happens when there are more retirees than workers).

0 Replies

Even Italy has a birth rate lower than 2/woman - and a high emmigration rate as well.

Should we separate the issues if the question (what I gathered from the poster above though I didn't read the whole tirade) is about shared resources? Maybe I should reread the post - in full. If the discussion is about global resources, than immigration is a moot point.

eb - I'm not saying that immigration is bad, you know that right?

0 Replies

Canadians are just not having babies the way they used to. Statistics Canada has released new numbers that show that Canada's birth rate has fallen to its lowest level ever recorded.

In 2002, 328,802 babies were born, down 1.5 per cent from the previous year, and down 25.4 per cent in the last 10 years alone. The rate dropped to 10.5 live births for every 1,000 population, "the lowest since vital statistics began to be produced nationally in 1921," the agency said Monday.

From: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1082386025485_10//

~~~

The average birth rate in Canada is about 1.5 children per woman, a rate that has been below the replacement level since the 1970s.

From:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=777eb89b-4a99-49cf-bc12-a045da03b406

~~~

There was also a recent article about low Canadian immigrant birth rate but I can't find it. It's at about 2 children per family.

0 Replies

LittleK, you took the words right out of my mouth.

When I was going through public school back in the 60s and early 70s "ZPG", or "Zero Population Growth" was the cause equivalent to Global Warming today. From what I've seen among our family and close friends, we're actually averaging a little below two children per family, and the Census results I've seen agree that the U.S. as a whole, excluding immigration, is either at or very close to ZPG.

The issue of how immigration, both legal and undocumented, effects resource consumption, is one that should be more fully examined.

0 Replies

Ah geez.

0 Replies

Is "ah geez" good or bad?

0 Replies

I don't know! It depends on what you're eluding to, Jim.

0 Replies

I guess I'm completely lost here.

This is a thread about population control. I do not believe humanity can keep on increasing its population forever. I do believe that we are on a non-sustainable path, and there has to be a point where our population stabilizes.

What's so "ah geez" about this?

0 Replies

I'm sorry Jim. I made assumptions and I don't even know you. I guess the aw geez was my bad reaction to your comments about immigration and resources. My assumption was that you might believe that immigration was a bad thing due to limited resources at the intake country. And, that you might use my words to support your claim that this is a reason why immigration should be curtailed.

My apologies for making assumptions!

0 Replies

No apology needed, and thank you for your courtesy.

I realize that legal immigration is a benefit to both the United States, and also to the countries the legal immigrants come from. I am against illegal immigration. For 15 years I worked for the state oil company in Saudi Arabia. I had a legal work permit (called an "Iqama"), and I went through Saudi Customs and Immigration every time I entered and left the Kingdom. If the Saudis have the desire and ability to work such a system, why can't we? I am not a hypochrite - I would like to see the legal immigrants to the United States follow the immigration rules we have, just as I followed the rules when I worked overseas.

But this is a population control thread. I am for the concept of population control. We cannot increase our population forever. I am concerned that immigration to the United States is causing our population to increase.

0 Replies

I have seen the "educate them and they will reduce their prodigious breeding habits" idea bandied about before. The enduring question is, how long will it take to educate them enough to slow or stop the exponential generational growth?

Over the past twenty years I have read various reports and studies concerning the population explosion on this planet. A few, usually the most scarey ones, stick with me:

1) A UN study, probably 10 years ago, concluded that given the amount of producing land at the time and the number of people on this earth, even if all the food were equally divided and handed out, it would not be enough to adequately feed all. (How the indices have changed over time, I don't know.)

What to do? Increase cropland, or better the yield on available land! Will require cutting the forests and swamplands and the increased use of fertilizers and anti rodent/insect chemicals. OOOOOOPS! (Won't sit well with the Greens, nor the global warming adherents.)

2) At various times I have seen reports that suggest that the known oil reserves will run out. (Now that will change with each new discovery.) The most "hits" I have noted fall between 2020 and 2050. That was, of course, before some of the "have not" Nations decided that "a car in every garage" is not too bad a political and economical goal.

3) I saw a report just last Summer ('06) that stated that the world demand for oil had outstripped the world's production capacity. The figure given was 87 million barrels a day. That, of course, equates to higher prices for oil as the bidding gets heated. That, of course, changes over time, but let's just say it is a close run thing right now.

4) Global warming adherents attribute the effect to human population in the pursuit of an industrialized life. We could ban further industrialization, but that would thwart the desires of the entire population of the earth, for whom "pursuit of a better life" seems almost instinct.

5) Lastly, I have read in the past various scenarios where the entire wealth of the earth was distributed equally amongst the population of the world. (Communist manisfesto?) The resultant "quality of life" would not be something your average European, North American, or industrialized countries along the Pacific Rim would willingly tolerate.

What does that leave us? A reduction of overall population on this earth. I think a round billion might be sustainable for some time. How to get there, I have no idea.

Personaly, I have long believed that the last great war this world will face will the the "Haves" against the "Have Nots". This in response to the mere quest for survival in a severely pressured world of limited resources. I suspect the "Jihadists" to be but the forerunner of more and more of "the poor" trying to bring an end to the "Great Satan", the prosperous Western Civilization. (It just happens to be wrapped in a cloak of Religeous righteousness just now.) It might be sooner than we think.

Halfback

0 Replies

Halfback,

You are turing up your nose at a measurable fact.

We are already slowing population growth through education, social work and development.

Fertility rates have declined over the past few decades.This isn't a theoretical exercise... countries are lowering fertility rates (education being one method) and the worldwide fertility rate has been measurably reduced. The only exceptions to this trend are countries with deep poverty and social problems... especially Afganistan and sub-Saharan Africa.

In fact the current trend of a declining fertility rate indicates that global population will stabilize at 9 or 10 billion after which the population will stop increasing (these calculations depend on the rate of change of the fertility rate not changing which of course is a big assumption, but the math is correct).

The decline in fertility rates in developed and developing countries... and on a global scale... is undeniable.

0 Replies

I would also point out that your eschatological musings aren't new.

People have been making such predications of a final battle for thousands of years. So far, none have been correct.

0 Replies

but don't you believe it...
i'm not sure there are many undeniable truths.

i'm not even sure there are many truths. there are a lot of conclusions, but scientific thinking (or a look back at all scientific thinking through its history) would suggest that the world can always change in the way it looks to us, as long as we continue to look for truth. i'm always scared of people that say "this is just how it is!" and i notice how often they are found to be mistaken.

0 Replies

I'm all for enforced population control as long as it focuses on those nations with growing population and not the ones that have established.equilibrium or are in decline. In other words the dirty scrabbling Third World countries and not the US, Canada or most of Europe. A good way to win the War on Terror.

Of course the notion is untenable. Who can or would even try to enforce global population control? War would either have to come before such an effort or would certainly follow.

Any sort of voluntary effort organized by, say, the UN would almost assuredly require all nations to sustain at least the same degree of "pain," and more likely ther argument would run to "consumer nations" being required to bear an even great degree. In any case, the developing nation would either deliberately cheat or be incaple of coming through on their goals.

Regardless, it's not something we mortals will ever need to directly address.

As EB has pointed out there are plenty of nations where population growth has been stabilized or is in decline. I just read an article today which indicates China is one of them.

The ones still booming will either naturally mature to a point of stability or decline, or they will conquer the world. Within the confines of their own territory, they cannot sustain population growth for long. Either starvation or pestilence will thin the herd, or violence will.

It's really difficult to imagine how humanity can clear the earth the way a swarm of locust can clear a field. Too many intervening causalities would prevent it.

Apocalypptic population growth is a bogey-man.

0 Replies

'Population control, a sad but undeniable truth

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know