Is Population growth a taboo subject?

[hellokeith]

A pretty good article that frames the pro's, con's, and controversies:

Salon.com

So, are you somehow complicit in the coming climate apocalypse if you bring one more child into the world? In fact, your question is more philosophical in nature and does not lend itself to a black-and-white analysis. The answer is both yes and no.

Actually I think it is less philosophical and more cut-and-dried. Americans, and especially lower-income Americans, need to voluntarily reduce the number of children they are having.

This is a two-fold solution:

1. Less environmental impact, less renewable resources used, less urban expansion, etc.
2. Will force our government in D.C. to fix the broken Social Security, Medicare, and welfare programs.

According to John Seager, president of Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth), the lack of dialogue on the matter is due to several factors. First is what he calls the "'illions' problem," the difficulty of grasping an issue of such enormity, and the difficulty of seeing how individual decisions can have an impact. Next is the "CIA problem," not the illegal-wiretapping CIA, but China, immigration and abortion, all of which are divisive and sensitive issues in our society. Finally, we live in a demographically fragmented world where the populations of most developed nations are trending downward, except for immigration, and where developing nations are experiencing uncontrolled population growth.

Anyone who knows me on these boards obviously knows I am a staunch opposer of abortion. But it should not come as a shock that population growth can easily be reduced or even turned around by voluntary measures - abstinence education for teens and birth control education for adults / married couples.

Another issue are the economic factors. Instead of the government paying for people's children in tax deductions / rebates, it should abolish these things and even accelerate the taxes per child, such that having 2 or less children is the preferred norm.

The average replacement rate is roughly 2.1 children per couple, one to replace each parent, and 0.1 to make up for childless couples and infant mortality. So any number of children that is fewer than 2.1 is simply a continuation of your genetic legacy. If your children are instilled with altruism and strong environmental values, their lives might actually represent a decrease in the environmental impact from your own lives.

And here lies a problem: If the "smart" people reduce the number of children they are having, will there be enough "smart" people to affect the general population in a positive-enough way as to procreate the message of how dangerous is population growth?

P.S. No I haven't changed my position regarding global xxxxing. I would however like to have clean water, clean air, and see the stars at night.

 

[nageov3t]

won't population growth just take care of itself via mass starvation?

 

[Rainsford]

Yeah, I don't think America is facing a population problem. If anything, we're facing a problem of not having ENOUGH kids being born today. Having a population where the average age is going up isn't any better than the average age going the other way.

Also, if we WERE facing a population problem, "abstinence education" is probably counterproductive. I don't care if Jesus himself came down from heaven and told you it was an awesome idea, there is not one bit of research among the hundreds of studies done on the topic that suggests abstinence education works...at all. In fact, the vast majority of research suggests it actually results in MORE pregnancy and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.

But I have to say, I find it extremely reassuring that the author of this fantastically insightful piece doesn't know the difference between the CIA (comical plots to assassinate foreign leaders) and the NSA (illegal wiretapping).

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: loki8481
won't population growth just take care of itself via mass starvation?

Starvation, Disease, and War are natures way of limiting the population growth so that we won't all die. The problem is humankind has become too good at avoiding and prolonging death as of late without reducing the size of offspring. You can be sure that when resources, land, food, etc. become more scarce war will instinctually become more common.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: nullzero

Originally posted by: loki8481
won't population growth just take care of itself via mass starvation?

Starvation, Disease, and War are natures way of limiting the population growth so that we won't all die. The problem is humankind has become too good at avoiding and prolonging death as of late without reducing the size of offspring. You can be sure that when resources, land, food, etc. become more scarce war will instinctually become more common.

Why is that a "problem"? There is no "natural" limit, only the limit imposed by our own ability to support ourselves. As our technology improves, that limit increases...I'm not sure what's wrong with that. And contrary to all the apocalyptic scenarios people are dreaming up, I see no reason that trend is going to reverse itself. Resources, land, food, etc are all things that have no unbreakable limit, all those things have been improved by technology over the years to support more people, I don't imagine that is going to change for quite a while now.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: nullzero

Originally posted by: loki8481
won't population growth just take care of itself via mass starvation?

Starvation, Disease, and War are natures way of limiting the population growth so that we won't all die. The problem is humankind has become too good at avoiding and prolonging death as of late without reducing the size of offspring. You can be sure that when resources, land, food, etc. become more scarce war will instinctually become more common.

Why is that a "problem"? There is no "natural" limit, only the limit imposed by our own ability to support ourselves. As our technology improves, that limit increases...I'm not sure what's wrong with that. And contrary to all the apocalyptic scenarios people are dreaming up, I see no reason that trend is going to reverse itself. Resources, land, food, etc are all things that have no unbreakable limit, all those things have been improved by technology over the years to support more people, I don't imagine that is going to change for quite a while now.

Eventually it will cause a problem. Look at all the claims of war because of oil now. What happens when we literally do run out of oil. Someones gonna die because of it.

 

[JSt0rm]

I remember reading that the planet can support a max of 14 billion people or so and that is with no regard for any other species. This is the biggest problem facing the planet imho. We just need less of us. We need like 2 billion total. I talk about this a bit and I am not planning on having any children, thats not to say I don't enjoy that part of being human and it could happen I guess but you know

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: loki8481
won't population growth just take care of itself via mass starvation?

Don't forget disease and war.

*edit

Someone beat me to it, ah well.

 

[sandorski]

The First World doesn't have a Birthrate problem though. In fact most of their growth is due to Immigration, for most that is their only growth.

 

[summit]

if you can afford them, you should be able to have them.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: nullzero

Originally posted by: loki8481
won't population growth just take care of itself via mass starvation?

Starvation, Disease, and War are natures way of limiting the population growth so that we won't all die. The problem is humankind has become too good at avoiding and prolonging death as of late without reducing the size of offspring. You can be sure that when resources, land, food, etc. become more scarce war will instinctually become more common.

Why is that a "problem"? There is no "natural" limit, only the limit imposed by our own ability to support ourselves. As our technology improves, that limit increases...I'm not sure what's wrong with that. And contrary to all the apocalyptic scenarios people are dreaming up, I see no reason that trend is going to reverse itself. Resources, land, food, etc are all things that have no unbreakable limit, all those things have been improved by technology over the years to support more people, I don't imagine that is going to change for quite a while now.

Eventually it will cause a problem. Look at all the claims of war because of oil now. What happens when we literally do run out of oil. Someones gonna die because of it.

Personally I'd be far more worried about (fresh) water. People need something to drink in and bathe in, etc, and there's a pretty finite limit to how much water can be used (i.e. arrives due to the water cycle) at any one time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: nullzero

Originally posted by: loki8481
won't population growth just take care of itself via mass starvation?

Starvation, Disease, and War are natures way of limiting the population growth so that we won't all die. The problem is humankind has become too good at avoiding and prolonging death as of late without reducing the size of offspring. You can be sure that when resources, land, food, etc. become more scarce war will instinctually become more common.

Why is that a "problem"? There is no "natural" limit, only the limit imposed by our own ability to support ourselves. As our technology improves, that limit increases...I'm not sure what's wrong with that. And contrary to all the apocalyptic scenarios people are dreaming up, I see no reason that trend is going to reverse itself. Resources, land, food, etc are all things that have no unbreakable limit, all those things have been improved by technology over the years to support more people, I don't imagine that is going to change for quite a while now.

The problem is faith. Your assumption is that there is always a timely technological fix, a deux ex machina already there. You haven't factored in human stupidity and greed and most importantly short-sightedness.

I remember the Oil Crisis. If ever there was a red flag, it was then. Carter started some relatively small programs which Regan killed ASAP when he took over. Star Wars forever, but dealing with real problems? No way.

Now we find ourselves with dwindling oil and rising global standard of living expectations. Even if we could replace oil, it's a raw material for so many other things and that's not easily replaceable. Then we add several billion other people wanting the same standard of living. What happens to the finite resources? Where does the wood for homes come from? Well, we cut down the forrests for that already. Steel? We mined that. Plastic? We burned that in our cars.

At some point our needs will outstrip our cleverness.

We won't automatically become extinct because if there are wars for resources there will probably be survivors, and as the population falls things can be recycled, but many things are gone forever, and a scarred planet the result.

Do not rely on human wisdom to solve all problems.

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: nullzero

Originally posted by: loki8481
won't population growth just take care of itself via mass starvation?

Starvation, Disease, and War are natures way of limiting the population growth so that we won't all die. The problem is humankind has become too good at avoiding and prolonging death as of late without reducing the size of offspring. You can be sure that when resources, land, food, etc. become more scarce war will instinctually become more common.

Why is that a "problem"? There is no "natural" limit, only the limit imposed by our own ability to support ourselves. As our technology improves, that limit increases...I'm not sure what's wrong with that. And contrary to all the apocalyptic scenarios people are dreaming up, I see no reason that trend is going to reverse itself. Resources, land, food, etc are all things that have no unbreakable limit, all those things have been improved by technology over the years to support more people, I don't imagine that is going to change for quite a while now.

Eventually it will cause a problem. Look at all the claims of war because of oil now. What happens when we literally do run out of oil. Someones gonna die because of it.

Personally I'd be far more worried about (fresh) water. People need something to drink in and bathe in, etc, and there's a pretty finite limit to how much water can be used (i.e. arrives due to the water cycle) at any one time.

Bingo.

But I don't think we will be able to avoid anything. I can't fathom a successful way of keeping people from having kids - other than obscene draconian methods

Besides, don't most economic models require large population influxes to sustain large economic growth? (Or at least a large, untapped labor source) If so, that only adds another incentive to not deal with the problem

 

[Thump553]

Lower-income Americans use more environmental resources than other Americans?? I'd like to see some data to support that far-fetched assertion. It seems to be purely a criteria based on the OP's political agenda, not any environmental facts.

Social Security, etc. are distinctly different issues than the environment.

And as far as population growth being a taboo subject, not hardly. It has been a central topic of discussion among so-called liberal thought since well before the invention of Earth Day. A very significant problem is that there are major religious institutions (Catholic Church, LDS/Mormons, among others) that make unbridled population growth a central component of their religious beliefs.

 

[Moonbeam]

What I think is taboo is the sterilization of the stupid in lieu of Darwinian selection.

 

[piasabird]

In terms of social security, we need a higher rate of population growth to keep the system from collapsing. From this point of view more immigration might be benneficial. We should just tax illegals at a higher rate.

 

[PingSpike]

We can not have more kids, but then the people that so unwisely mass reproduced will overwhelm us with their superior numbers in a final desperate attack to steal our resources. They won't just say "Whoops! We had to many kids! I guess its time to die now, you other guys are so smart! GG!"

Its sort of like in Children of Men...refugees just overwhelming one nation thats barely holding on after another.

 

[Foxery]

It's not usually discussed in Western culture, because we not only assume that we can grow forever and pay to keep it practical, but growth is considered a good and normal progression. China has a child tax because the government is strong and strict enough to impose such things on its citizens; there would be riots if anyone suggested it in Europe or America.

Good idea? Yes. Have you *seen* the living conditions in New Dehli, Beijing, Tokyo? How about in Los Angeles or Miami? Never mind all the starving areas of Africa. But all of the above just keep on reproducing.

You should realize that our instinct to breed always (on a large scale, not your personal views) outweighs our ability to reason, and the short term drive for sex overcomes foresight. You're more than welcome to skip children of your own, but there are plenty of other people willing to have 5 to make up for it.

 

[piasabird]

Outsourcing work to countries where people breed like rats promotes overpopulation.

 

[magomago]

China's child tax is becoming weaker, and I learned the other day that there are talks of removing it simply because no one thinks that if it was removed they would have another population boom in the cities(although they had to revise peak population estimates from 1.3 billion to 1.6 billlion...since we are already at 1.3 billion But to give them credit, without population controls they estimated they would have peaked at around 2.3 billion people). The life styles of the cities simply isn't conducive to having 5-6 children (Small apartments, little privacy, no economic incentive for multiplie children). The countryside can be considered another story, but even where people outright ignore the quotas of the government, they are most likely on their own without too much gov assistance in the first place.

The real "solution" needs to come through a variety of means, with these only being cherry picked as to what I can think of

*Firstly - as other posters echoed - we ALREADY in the "first world" don't have that many kids, and without our immigration our populations would be declining. Countries that have incredibly strict immigration quotas - a la Japan - are decreasing. Foxery - how do you cite a place like Tokyo? Japan already has negative population growth.

*"Modernizing" (however we should carefully define this) will decrease the population simply because the new lifestyle doesn't promote children. If you are poor, your children become economic capital such that they support you. they become the types of goods you can produce. Those with a different lifestyle have their own forms of this economic capital, and thus their incentive is about producing fewer children. This holds true especially if you are a farmer with little to no mechanization because all labor then comes from a human.

*Technology will help us. But as Hayabusa Rider pointed out , we CANNOT rely on this. To allow a fire to burn a house down, all the while saying "the firemen will come" isn't going to help if there isn't any firemen in the entire region. Technology let us leap over fears of overpopulation and mass starvation in the 1970s, but we can't necessarily rely its going to happen again. If anything, planning for current technologies that exist is what should be done. We shouldn't necessarily forecast technologies that are still in research. We can't be AMD in the late 90s computer slump who plowed forward; its better to act as intel in this type of case

*Giving aid to countries isn't necessarily going to help them NOT be hungry by filling them with more food. We assisted India in increasing ag output and guess what happened? Population boom and even MORE people are now hungry. The real solution will be to let them develop to a point that having as many children isn't the desired factor.

* we have NO right to dictate who can or can't have children. If you want to have 6 children - you have every right to have six children regardless of if you are in America or in Africa.

* Lastly - this ISN'T a short term solution by any means. The fact that the only real proven method of having people voluntarily wanting less children is to a life style that does not promote it. Other methods we could institute, such as spreading a plague, causing starvation, and engaging in war is unethical imo. We've already seen the devastating effects of them in history and there is no reason we shouldn't pursue an alternative amount...especially considering the scale it would have to be preformed on.

* Oh and second to last...no one is still really sure exactly what should be done. We should still discuss it in order to gain a better understanding and become aware, but we need to hesitate at actually controlling the population and dictating who can or can't have children.

 

[Throckmorton]

The biggest factor, one of my geology professors said, was availability of energy. The more you depend on children to labor on your farm, rather than tractors, the more children you are going to have to ensure a comfortable old age.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What I think is taboo is the sterilization of the stupid in lieu of Darwinian selection.

I thought of doing that when I was a freshmen in high school. I still don't have a problem with it.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What I think is taboo is the sterilization of the stupid in lieu of Darwinian selection.

I thought of doing that when I was a freshmen in high school. I still don't have a problem with it.

There is a difference between you choosing to sterilize yourself, and the government forcing you to undergo mandatory sterilization regardless of your own opinion

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What I think is taboo is the sterilization of the stupid in lieu of Darwinian selection.

I thought of doing that when I was a freshmen in high school. I still don't have a problem with it.

There is a difference between you choosing to sterilize yourself, and the government forcing you to undergo mandatory sterilization regardless of your own opinion

Oh, I know that it's completely wrong for the Government to do, but I really hate stupid people. I'd never actually want it to happen, but I probably wouldn't protest to hard if it did. The world has to end eventually anyways.

 

[jandrews]

Well, one large problem is by having more kids people can get more benefits and free money. I am 26, dont ever want kids myself. Yet for some reason the guy who has 8 kids would get 8 1500 dollar tax credits from the government (or more). I can understand tax breaks to help families support their kids but if kids are being treated badly without the tax credit the parents are just going to spend that money elsewhere anyway. I imagine this problem will never be solved by peaceful or reasonable means. People have the opinion that they will have as many kids as they want and no one can tell them otherwise.