Is it necessarily a good thing to feed everyone?

That must explain why King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, with his unquestionably cushy life, has (cough) at least 17 children.

As I said, giving women control over their own bodies is part of the answer too.

Saudis are as patriarchal as it gets.

Gunga, I have nothing against aquaponics but ultimately it is a far more resource intensive approach to farming when you factor in construction of greenhouses, water filtration systems, etc., and is probably best suited to boutique items like organic Bibb lettuce. Imagine the infrastructure necessary to have greenhouses growing food for 9 billion people in greenhouses.

And even if you did pack the world's population into Texas, that only buys you a few years, as that population doubles, then quadruples, etc... unchecked. Besides which, it's a fallacy to think that scenario could work in any way without a fairy godmother who delivers food and energy to everyone. The reality is that you would need farms beyond Texas producing the food those people will eat... about as many or more farms as there are now. Those will be tended by farmers. The farmers will likely want Walmarts to shop at and hospitals to tend their wounds, and some restaurants to choose from. And then there are energy workers, water and sewage workers, their homes, their children's schools.... Oh yes, that's infrastructure. So the US Midwest looks pretty much like it does now under your scenario, as does much of the rest of the world.

And by the way, reversible temporary sterilization applied to everyone isn't eugenics, you should look up the term. Reversible temporary sterilization is "birth control" and birth control pills are also a form of reversible temporary sterilization.

If it were that simple, Kolyo, the US's population should have been pretty much steady since the 1960's when the women's rights and sexual revolutions began. However the truth is quite different. (Source data: US Census bureau)

Hawkeye,

Aren't you against Obamacare?

If the government mandated that you got a vasectomy you would be OK with that. You wouldn't feel that that would be an intrusion on your liberty. But if the government mandates you have health insurance, that is a problem?

This seems like a pretty big contradiction.

I think you are making Gunga's point. The people in Manhattan have 3 times the population density, and the people in Manhattan seem to be doing OK. Of course no one is actually suggesting we put everyone on Texas... it is just making the point the we have a lot of space.

A lot of that is due to immigration.

Of course, it isn't entirely as simple as I'm making it out to be. In general, however, countries with better social safety nets and more empowered women had lower fertility rates.

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

Some fertility rates by country:
-----------------------------------
Mali --- 6.86 (impoverished country, few rights for women)
Ireland --- 2.00 (decent safety net, I think, but strict abortion bans)
USA --- 1.97 (weak safety net, more access to abortion than Ireland)
Germany --- 1.42 (good safety net, first trimester abortions thoughout country)

I don't know what you mean by safety net. A fertility rate of under 2 means that the population is decreasing. Countries with very low fertility rates and no immigration are having problems. If you have too many retirees for the number of people of working age, it causes economic problems.

That's exactly the problems in Japan and Germany; their populations are aging without the necessary birth rates to support their social safety nets.

The GOP doesn't see any problems with population shrinkage, ecology, or discrimination against minorities and women. They still haven't realized that our country is the product of immigrants, and that's how we can continue to maintain our economy.

The people in Manhattan are NOT "doing OK"... on their own. They are not self sufficient with respect to anything: energy, water, food, raw materials... The city ceases to exist without these. So all of those Kansas towns, with their farms, farmers, churches, Walmarts, they are part of the supply chain that keeps NYC running. So are North Dakota fracked oilfields that are providing the energy, so are South American banana plantations, California orange groves, etc.

Interesting. So the people from Kansas towns are important. But the "women of Niger" aren't important. I wonder what the difference is between these two groups?

I am curious BananaBreath, have you had your vasectomy yet (or your tubes tied)?

I'm not sure why you post this as a given. Just propagating modern farming techniques around the world would do wonders for increasing crop yields. We probably waste enough food to easily feed the world. Heck, we're turning food into ethanol today.

Because most people consider having children a basic human right. Who is going to decide who can and can't have children? If the definition is that you have to be able to provide for them, who is going to define what "provide" means? We live in a society where childless parents are waiting years to adopt. Are you going to take children away from loving poor parents and give them to those who can support them?

As with the case with Banana Brain, many like BB see over population as a threat based on food supplies. The history of humanity has always been based on the region's ecology, economy, and the ability of the people to adapt to their environment. Most places have experienced famine; some migrated to other areas or those who stayed learned to recover.

Human society is a broad mix of have's and have not's. The majority on this planet earn less than $2 per day. With the different government forms that controls different countries, it's not possible to do anything that will improve their lives. Most people in North Korea are starving. It is estimated that for the seven year period preceding 2000, over a half million starved to death.

Imposter brain, have you ever even met anyone who has lived through a famine? No, I didn't think so, but I have. During the Great Chinese Famine of 1958-61, an estimated 20,000,000 to 45,000,000 people died in that country alone as a result of drought, poor weather and bad government policies. You have no idea what that's like and how excited and blessed you would have felt to have found even a sickly rat to eat had you lived through that.

The Chinese government, unlike you, learned from that experience and thus developed and implemented their national population-limiting strategies. You however have some vague notion that everyone on the planet has an intrinsic right to have as many babies as they care to squeeze out whether or not they have jobs, prospects, or any way to feed them, and you can't even think of a point at which your opinion would change; not with a world population of 9 billion, or 900 billion. Shame on you.

No, as an American born citizen, I've never experienced famine. That Mao killed millions of Chinese is not my fault or problem. Nor are the conditions in many countries today my problem. I have no power over tyrannical governments - past, present or future. I'm not responsible for what you suffered, and I have absolutely no guilt feelings about your famine. I also don't have any guilt about the holocaust, or the atomic bombing of Japan during WWII. I wasn't responsible for those things. Why should I have shame for somethings I'm not responsible for. Your attempts to shame me is laughable.
Go find someplace else to accuse people of crimes they never committed.

Your bb brain will get you nowhere.

Tiny imposter brain, if you could accurately read, which you obviously can't, you'd have realized that I didn't say I had lived through that famine, only that I've met people who have. And because your tiny brain can't see the relationship between misguided national food policies and famine, I was giving a recent example. There are a number of others, even some more recent. The parallel, which again, your imposter's brain can't grok, is that this nation's mistake is happening now, and the **** is starting to hit the fan with record droughts in the nation's two most productive farming regions, California and the Midwest. If you were actually a citizen, you'd know that in this country it is your RESPONSIBILITY to be informed and participate in creating policy and preventing catastrophes, it's called representative government, of the people, by the people, and for the people. If you don't like it, and don't want to participate, please leave.

I only skim over your posts, because it's not worth my time. As a matter of fact, you're now on my Ignore list.

That's the best news I've heard here yet.

Enough to eat, clean drinking water, shelter and retirement security hardly equate with a "cushy" life. You're an idiot, be we all already knew that. Look up the fertility rates for industrial nations and compare them to "third world" nations. As usual, you shoot your mouth off without any ammunition.

Whether I have or not is irrelevant in that I have no interest in having a baby with you.