how to control population

The other link is British....feel better?

The CIA world factbook, available online, has recent fertility data for every country in the world.

Oh no little girls are being slaughtered!!!!!! Does anyone care? No. Everyone opens thier paper, turns on the TV, watches an article on the mass killing of little girls for 2 minutes and then get up to, purchase some beer from the local liquor store in preperation for friday night sports, have a shower go to bed and then wake up in the morning with a hangover, watch more TV. I think people dont really care about this. Its all to easy to "harp" on (can u hear the violins) about it on this site just to "feel" as if your making some kind of difference. I also believe you overestimate the empathy of the modern day human being.



Only one night?! OMG you must really feel strongly against this vile treachery to give up an entire night!!! This is exactly what im talking about, nobody actually takes action, we mearly lose sleep. Why is this? Have we been conditioned to not care, or is it the dreaded "its not us" syndrome.

And on the whole over-population issue, it is but unsolvable. Any policy, rule or any other form of enforcment upon the people will not work in reducing humanities rampant procreation. The effort needed to reduce this planetary stress is an individual one. Each and every one of us has to realise that the foot of humanity is out growing the shoe of the earth and with out this realisation we will be left with a rotting core of what the earth used to be, forget your cars and televisions and think wars over resources and chaos on the streets.

I didn't felt that bad. I was just thinking how your goverment propagandizes you against China, invoking the violation of human rights, and the same time they murder many people in Iraq and live much more without home and relatives.

Hey thanks georgeob1 - I just put that in my favorites. I'll start reading later, kinda busy today.

Ellinas - sorry, communication barrier :wink: I was just being glib when I asked "feeling better?"

glib (glĭb) definition.
Performed with a natural, offhand ease: glib conversation.
Showing little thought, preparation, or concern: a glib response to a complex question.

In other words I wasn't being serious.

anyway....getting back to the orginal question...How could one convince someone it's in their own best interests, and the interest of their part of the world, to have less children? The world education comes up...But what exactly would someone teach?

Population problems
we don't have to worry about population growth problems. Look back in history. A plague will hit that will kill millions, and we'll rebuild from their.

Make sure everyone has enough to eat, access to medical care, and decent housing an clothing. Women in the industrial world have fertility rates far below that of women in the third world. Do the math . . .

Right...but how are they do get access to this?

How about we put some serious effort into getting off this rock. When the issue really gets to be a major problem, I expect we will.

'course, only (some) humans think that they need to control their population instead of letting nature do her own purge....which she will do eventually anyway.

There's a GREAT novel about this by Barry B. Longyear called "Sea of Glass". Should be compulsory reading.

Good point about nature taking its course Eorl.

I'm personally can't say I want to "control" population, especially in countries where the average childbearing rate is at or slightly above replacement rate. In, as Set pointed out, in industrialized countries.

I see the need to be "concerned" about population growth in countries where the average woman is having 5, 6 or even more children each.

Yes, the infant mortality rates are high in those countries also, in general. It's the human suffering, the children dying, that is the point.

We can't go to an overpopulated country and ship a bunch of people out to an underpopulated country, unless of course they want to go....then, (ahem), would the host country want them?

Pinpointing countries like, for instance, Somolia. They want more children for various reasons. In reality, their quality of life would improve for their kids if they had less of them.

How to educate a people though to have less, when again, you are laughed at down at the community well when you "only" have 3 kids.

As far as getting off this rock? Who would be chosen to go? Europeans and North Americans, where there isn't a problem.

Didn't read all the responses, but Bush seems to be doing a good job at controling the population!

Mmmm! I don't think he is out of first gear yet, either.

I dont think so Chai. The idea is they need to keep having children in order for a few strong ones to survive. They still obey survival of the fittest to some extent.
We dont, but were rich and have medicine. And fresh water, sanitation and food. If they tried to make do with as many kids as us they wouldn't exist anymore.


Yeah, but living on Mars would suck. I reckon when the world gets too crowded thats when the wars will start.

Not to mention that there's currently no way of protecting astronauts from cosmic radiation over such a long journey. They'll either die from cancer or get so much cancer, they'll die on Mars.

Re: how to control population



Posters above seem to not to have taken this in the spirit of the intended "philosophical exercise".

e.g.

1. If there is a "self" that has this "problem" then killing of that "self" is indeed a "solution". This argument can develop either into a discussion of altuistic suicide, or one of the committee nature of "self" in which one of the members is dropped.

2. There may be other "selves" as (advocated by Capra et el) who see attempts at "control" as anthropocentric nonsense. For example, from the standpoint of the "gaia hypothesis" the earth will "sort itself out", but this may of course be to the detriment of the species homo sapiens.

Arguments about varities of social engineering seem to have been extensively covered by Star Trek !

Sodent Green!

On the other hand (just an observation) if they had less children, there would be more food to give each one, and more medicine for each one too.

Interesting, I'll have to look into this.

hmmm....found this, no statistics, but some interesting points.

Chapter 11. Why Large Families Today?

Return to F.E.

In a previous chapter we discussed at length some of the reasons that made large families the rule in past years, and the fact that some of these pressures still remain today, especially in some of the Third World countries. Yet it is difficult to explain the need to maintain small families even in some of the more highly educated and skilled communities. The facts are extremely complex and touch on some of the personal beliefs and philosophies that make this subject extremely difficult to discuss with many people.

There is the traditional and common saying that "our future lies with our children", and this is certainly true. However when we consider this phrase more carefully we have to agree that if our future is to be prosperous, it refers more to the education and ability of our offspring than to their number. In many of the Third World countries we see so many children who will grow into adults without the benefit of good health, education or the development of any skills. They have not helped to improve the lot of the country as a whole, in fact in many places they have placed an enormous drain on severely limited resources, that has pulled down the living standards of everyone. It is fascinating to see that in general when education and health standards are improved the number of children in the family almost inevitably decreases.

In spite of this, in many societies there is still the traditional belief that there is something wrong with a family which does not produce a large number of children. There is also the point that in many countries the size of the family reflects on the virility of the male. One family, here in the USA, had twenty children, of which 18 grew into adults. The husband, now an old man, was extremely proud of his performance and frequently mentioned how wonderful it was to have so many sons and daughters. In private, his wife told me that the family would have been very much smaller if he had been the one who had been forced to give birth but their religion forbad the use of any form of contraception.

There is also the "cuddly" factor of babies of both humans and other animals, that nature has built into our society, in order to enhance their chance of survival. Nature makes almost all the young animals extremely attractive to us, we all "Oh" and "Ahh" when we hold a tiny kitten or puppy in our hands and the same feelings wash over us when we see a small child. In our desire to enjoy these very attractive little creatures both animal and human, we frequently ignore the fact that they very quickly grow out of this delightful age. The new baby is just as likely to develop into a Hitler as a Mother Teresa? We often hear favorable comments on how lucky the parents are when the number of children in a family increases, with little or no thought as to their cumulative effect on our society as a whole. Consider the efforts that are made to spay and neuter stray cats and dogs to reduce their numbers and avoid the subsequent cruelty caused by too large a population of these animals. Yet we congratulate ourselves when this growth occurs in the human race.

The reasons why people in our major societies today want large families defy practical discussion. During a conversation regarding family size, one lady explained that she wanted four children, she and her husband could afford them and gave as the reason that she simply liked to have a lot of children around her. Another family initially had two daughters but ended up with a total of five children because the husband was determined to continue having children until they produced a son. These at least were planned births and all the children were well brought up, cared for and educated. However the parents could not comprehend that in having more than two children they were demanding more than their fair share of the world's resources. At a meeting of environmental activists, one woman could not understand the outburst of laughter when she stood up to support a particular proposition and used the following words. "We must do something to stop all this pollution. I have seven children and I want them to have a clean and natural environment when they grow up".

Society as a whole generally admires and congratulates the parents of large families, without truly considering their eventual effect on the standard of life of the world as a whole. Parents with one or two children re frequently asked when they are going to have more children. This is doubtless the philosophy that remains from the days past when an increasing population guaranteed prosperity and the labor force that was necessary for the growing industries. This philosophy will be extremely difficult to change, although it is very easy to recognize that it no longer applies today. Consider the many unwanted children who are born because of accident or carelessness, and suffer a miserable childhood often leading to a less than happy life. This becomes very obvious when visiting some of the Third World countries. The hundreds of small children to be seen, lacking food, clothing and medical care, who will grow up with little or no education, can do nothing to lift up their families, indeed they will only drag the population further into poverty and starvation.

We also have the various religious factions that view large families as the requisite way of life demanded by their spiritual leaders. When I have discussed the problems of overpopulation with some of these people I have been told not to worry, God will take care of things in spite of the ever increasing problems that we see today. We have all heard the phrase "Be fruitful and multiply", and when this was written it was very obviously one of the duties of the faithful. But that was centuries ago when the death rate among infants was extremely high and the world's population was a small percentage of what it is today. During the intervening years the population of the world has increased so enormously that from any reasoned viewpoint this phrase is now totally ridiculous. Indeed if we honestly look at the facts today, for the sake of us all, it is our duty to minimize the impact of the growing world population by keeping our families within the limits that will not overburden our rapidly diminishing resources.

Many of us may find the idea of deliberately limiting our family as intrusive and extremely difficult to accept, but the alternative is much worse and cannot even be considered. Of course we will have to assure our population that the lack of a large family will not affect their standard of life when they become old and possibly infirm and this will involve some kind of universal care program for the elderly. We have been told by some so called "experts" that we need a growing population to pay for this care for the elderly although it is obvious that the population cannot continue to grow for ever. There are in fact other method to solve this problem that have been effectively applied to a reducing population. Once this fear of old age no longer exists then there is no longer any practical reason for wanting a large family except the very personal and private desire to be surrounded with our children. But in producing a larger than replacement size family we reduce the standard of living for every other family in the world. We are not advancing our civilization by having more children, we are merely grabbing more than our fair share of the dwindling resources of the world.

In other words, we will have to control the natural desire to produce more children so that we can maintain the stable level of population that the world can effectively support. We hear of the tremendous cost of the medical resources that are used to attempt to produce a child when the normal process fails. We see cases of post menopausal women demanding artificial implantation of fertilized eggs, we hear of the use of surrogate fathers and mothers. Yet the world is full of orphans and other unfortunate children who need a home, parents and the love and support they can give. These artificial attempts to produce a child are surely the epitome of selfishness, especially when our world is already overpopulated.

There then comes the concern that some groups, be they for purposes of religion, politics, race or merely the desire for power, will pressure their people to have large families so as to exceed the population of other groups, and thus take control of a particular society. One small religious enclave in New Jersey proudly declared that they guided their followers to have at least 18 children in each family. We have seen this occur in the past, and to some extent it continues today especially among some religions. This is probably the most difficult aspect of the entire problem and suggests that we will be unable to solve the problems of overpopulation and limited world resources until we can obtain worldwide agreement.

If world agreement cannot be found, then the only alternative is for those countries that manage to control their population to put up the walls around their borders and strictly regulate the flow of immigrants. It is only natural for people in the less well organized countries to wish to live in a place that offers a good standard of life. But uncontrolled immigration will eventually bring all countries down to the same level. Surely it becomes the responsibility of each country to stabilize their population growth and provide the lifestyle their people desire. It can hardly be considered fair for a country that does not control its population to permit its people to flood into a country that has managed to limit its rate of population growth. However if the world population continues to grow at the present rate, the flood of people may be such that even well guarded boundaries will not keep them out.

There appears to be no logical reasons therefore, other than selfish desires, for producing large families today. However we have to recognize that the old emotions and the natural feelings demand very strict self-control if we are to maintain a stable population in the world. This requires education and publicity to assist in the struggle, and possibly incentives in some form or other to reward those who voluntarily limit their families. Perhaps as a start we should offer the standard income tax reduction for the first child born into a family, which should be reduced by half for the second but then becomes a tax increase for the third child increasing further for each additional child.

The best solution as per population control that comes to mind, outside of the obvious need for increased education, increased material wealth, and increased freedoms (all of which tend to reduce the reproductive cycle) is a dramatic increase in human life span such that one's reproductive actions today, will have definitive repercussions to the individual in question some centuries later.

For example: consider a woman who lives for 500 years versus a series of women each living for 75 years and the obvious total progeny differential.

Remember the implications of exponential versus linear.
Remember the implications of expected versus actual.

I doubt any single answer here will be decisive.
Let's pass them one by one.

Child limit - Hard to implement world wide, since invariably some countries would protest that it would be detrimental for them to implement such a thing. Countries with a low birth percentage for instance, coupled with a large(r) elderly sector. Besides, Chai Tea has made some valid points in her own post as well.

An annual performance review? - Ooh golly, I wanna be the reviewer

Education, prosperity and rights for women - Education may be hard in itself, but prosperity is almost impossible. The people in poor countries usually stay poor due to corrupt governent, lack of good investment opportunities, wars, famine, etc. Rights for women is a point best reserved for another topic.

MAke everyone a homosexual? Hmm- Better perhaps to make everybody a eunuch. easier

Legalize cannabilism - We'd need a few cookbooks with original human beef recipes in them as well. Otherwise, it's not even worth considering

Development of modern economies - see the crit on prosperity (three above)

Plagues will evolve - I think they will as well, but with the rapid development of medicine, it would probably be countered before it killed too many. Besides, with much more popular awareness about the nature of sickness and the way it spreads, many people will take reasonable to good protective measures, thereby slowing or stalling the spreading of the disease.

Getting of this rock - Aye. But the prospect of a succesful operation of that kind in the foreseeable future may well be a pipe dream.

Bush as population control - Hmm... Wars 'help' significantly of course, since they usually cut a wide path through fertile men and women. But to suggest it as a good population control device? Nope, would never do that.


Actually, I reckon several factors outside of our control will become population checks - A climate change perhaps, caused by global warming and rising water levels (which coincidentally will also create massive floods, forcing the ofttimes highly populated coastal areas of country to become unliveable, forcing the people further inland, which will lead to
wars.
Next to that, diseases will become rife and start spreading, killing many before cures can be found.

The prospect frankly frightens me...