How big of an issue is overpopulation? What would you do about it?

[heyheybooboo]

'Third' World (I hate that term)
---------
Then don't use it, underdeveloped world works.

If I try to remember that I'll forget where I put my car keys and wallet :hmm:

Here is the UN World Population 2300 Report (pdf) from 2004.

It's a yawner, but the executive summary is quite interesting.

In these projections, world population peaks at 9.22 billion in 2075...

However, after reaching its maximum, world population declines slightly and then resumes increasing, slowly, to reach a level of 8.97 billion by 2300 ...

This pattern of rise, decline, and rise again results from assumptions about future trends in vital rates: that, country by country, fertility will fall below replacement level—though in some cases not for decades — and eventually return to replacement; and that, country by country, life expectancy will eventually follow a path of uninterrupted but slowing increase.

--

 

[BoberFett]

Seriously, I think we could. Just thinking out loud (not a tax professional or economist):

Give each person as they turn say 13 (which is around the time when they can have a part in producing babies), a <insert amount here, say, $4,000> tax credit for not having kids.

If/When they share in having one, they lose say $2500 of that credit. If they have a part in having a second one, they lose the final $1500.

If they share in having a 3rd, they get hit with a $1500 additional tax. 4th, $2500 additional tax. 5th, $4000 tax.

For those that don't work, however they receive compensation, will be reduced by the above amounts. Have more than one kid while on continuous aid (which wouldn't have to be continuous, just, for the large % of time between the two kids), forced sterilization, for whoever shares in a second baby while they're on continuous aid. This prevents people having a bunch of welfare babies.

Just brainstorming....we could for sure though make it so we could get the majority of folks who just feel like having kids think twice about having more than is really necessary.

Chuck

I'm not big on paying people to not have kids, that's counterproductive. I'd be all for removing child deductions and EIC, but it's political suicide. The "right" to have children in this country is in no way impeded by your inability to afford them. In fact, it's almost the inverse.

 

[chucky2]

People actually get tax breaks already to have kids????

 

[QuantumPion]

People actually get tax breaks already to have kids????

yeah, but you still have to like, feed them and stuff, so it's not like you come out ahead. ^_^

 

[Jaskalas]

I read everyone today could live in Florida and Florida could sustain them in scientific American once. They seemed to think no problem whatsoever.

I think environmental destruction is a separate issue.

Florida water shortage with a mere 18,537,969 people. I'll play nice and round up to 20 million people in Florida. To compare that to the planet's 6 billion. Assuming equal water demand per person, you'd need 300 TIMES the amount of water currently in Florida, to arrive at the current water shortages they face.

To say nothing of other resources, water alone is the problem.

To fit the world's population in the United States, you'd need 20 times the current water supply. Not possible no matter how you want to slice it. Our supply is strained as it is, with our current population. I'm willing to bet a mere 2x increase will break it.

 

[Exterous]

In these projections, world population peaks at 9.22 billion in 2075...

However, after reaching its maximum, world population declines slightly and then resumes increasing, slowly, to reach a level of 8.97 billion by 2300 ...

The year 2300? Come on - whats even the point? You might as well start pulling numbers out of your ass as who knows what is going to happen over the next 300 years

But - no I don't think over population is an issue. Most countries eventually end up slowing their growth dramatically

 

[Jaskalas]

I don't think it is overpopulated. If it becomes so technology will be built to deal with it.

Technological gimmicks are how we've come this far. At some point you stop pulling rabbits out of your hat.

 

[Jaskalas]

There have been alarmists about this since the 60's. FAIL.

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

It blows my mind to read here those who pretend infinite growth can be contained within a finite space. The question asked, what would you do about it? Bury head in sand, apparently.

 

[nageov3t]

It blows my mind to read here those who pretend infinite growth can be contained within a finite space. The question asked, what would you do about it? Bury head in sand, apparently.

why stress about a problem that will fix itself?

population increases, war/famine/disease strike, population decreases, problem solved.

 

[Jaskalas]

why stress about a problem that will fix itself?

population increases, war/famine/disease strike, population decreases, problem solved.

Economic depression solves itself, yet people still seem to care. You are describing something far worse and telling us not to care.

 

[shortylickens]

Kick out all the illegal aliens. They breed faster than anyone else.

 

[Svnla]

I am more worry about how we are going to find clean water for the fast growing population.

No water = no life, no substitution. Period.

I also remember a graph that showed the Earth population did not get to the first billion for thousands of years, and then it skyrocketed.

 

[chucky2]

yeah, but you still have to like, feed them and stuff, so it's not like you come out ahead. ^_^

Yeah, but, the gov didn't tell someone to have kids. They wanted them, should be up to them to feed them and stuff, not have the gov help fund that.

Chuck

 

[ahenkel]

interesting interview on the Daily Show with Fred Pearce, talking about why the population is shrinking.

http://vodpod.com/watch/3472064-the-daily-show-fred-pearce-on-population-growth

 

[Zebo]

Economic depression solves itself, yet people still seem to care. You are describing something far worse and telling us not to care.

The difference is if I'm hit my a nuke I'm no more or less the wiser. Vs - scratching out a 5 year existence in a post apocalyptic hell economic collapse would bring.

 

[Zebo]

It blows my mind to read here those who pretend infinite growth can be contained within a finite space. The question asked, what would you do about it? Bury head in sand, apparently.

You worry too much are you a discredited Sanford Biology Chair by chance?

Saudi used to have 12-20 children today they have 2-3
USA used to have 4-10 today we are barely replacing dying stock
Europe and Japan is not.

See a trend?

 

[Cogman]

You worry too much are you a discredited Sanford Biology Chair by chance?

Saudi used to have 12-20 children today they have 2-3
USA used to have 4-10 today we are barely replacing dying stock
Europe and Japan is not.

See a trend?

This. We still have a LOT of land, and a lot of water. If we get to the point of having too big of a population, starvation will set in, and things will correct themselves. The rich will live, the poor will starve. Most likely birthing rates will decrease and death rates increase.

It is all very natural and something we are quite a ways from. I know the extremest view is to say "The curve is exponential!" the realist view sees it as more of an s-shaped curve.

Either way, this is not the thing that will kill humanity or society. We have A LOT of unused space. Heck alaska has a population density of ~1 person per sqr mile. New jersey has ~1000 people per square mile. That means alaska would have to have ~1000x more people living there before it becomes as crowded as jersey, and there are still farmland in new jersey.

To put numbers on it. Alaska would have to have 698,473,000 people living there before it becomes crowded. That's double the current US population for one state! That's not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[chucky2]

But it takes many years/decades/centuries/whatever for those water tables to form doesn't it? (I truly don't know, but that's my guess)

If we deplete them, and have say double the population we have now when they get depleted, exactly a.) where is the water needed for 600M people going to come from and b.) it will be needed the moment it's depleted, not centuries down the road.

Shouldn't we be worried and limiting ourselves now so as to not have the problem in the future?

Chuck

 

[Cogman]

But it takes many years/decades/centuries/whatever for those water tables to form doesn't it? (I truly don't know, but that's my guess)

If we deplete them, and have say double the population we have now when they get depleted, exactly a.) where is the water needed for 600M people going to come from and b.) it will be needed the moment it's depleted, not centuries down the road.

Shouldn't we be worried and limiting ourselves now so as to not have the problem in the future?

Chuck

There is A LOT of fresh water out there. There is also several methods, if we get desperate, to distill salt water. 3% of the earths water supply is fresh water. With oceanic water, we have a pretty much limitless supply.

 

[nobodyknows]

You worry too much are you a discredited Sanford Biology Chair by chance?

Saudi used to have 12-20 children today they have 2-3
USA used to have 4-10 today we are barely replacing dying stock
Europe and Japan is not.

See a trend?

Yet the USA's population still manages to increase by 10 - 14% yearly?

 

[Anarchist420]

Look at this: http://www.infowars.com/the-move-to-depopulate-the-planet/ I think there is a move to depopulate the planet.

 

[bfdd]

It blows my mind to read here those who pretend infinite growth can be contained within a finite space. The question asked, what would you do about it? Bury head in sand, apparently.

Ah I'm not saying over population can't be a problem, I'm saying currently and for awhile we should be ok. I do agree with your above post, water is a huge issue. We need to make big waves(lol) when it comes to cleaning sea water so we don't have to worry about that.

 

[IronWing]

We can control population at the front end via contraception/birth control or at the back end via war, disease, and starvation. One is cheaper and less unpleasant.

 

[Infohawk]

interesting interview on the Daily Show with Fred Pearce, talking about why the population is shrinking.

http://vodpod.com/watch/3472064-the-daily-show-fred-pearce-on-population-growth

Interesting. Thanks. I hope this guy is right.

 

[Infohawk]

It blows my mind to read here those who pretend infinite growth can be contained within a finite space. The question asked, what would you do about it? Bury head in sand, apparently.

I agree to the extent it seems like some people think we can sustain infinite population growth. There has to be a limit somewhere for what the Earth can sustain. Maybe it's 7 billion, maybe it's 50 billion, but it can't be infinite.