Would you support some sort of global initiative to slow population growth

[Ancalagon44]

Drones can solve this.

Build drones that can recognize women who have reached puberty. For those that have, shoot them with darts containing Depo Provera - the injectable female contraceptive.

Just make them have a 50% probability to fire and it will reduce the birth rate dramatically.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Education is the only thing that will save us. Sex ed to be specific. I don't know why so many young men and women refuse to use condoms or other forms of birth control when they are clearly not ready to have children. When you hear about 20 year old punks with multiple baby-mamas I want to personally kick them in the balls until they no longer work. Same for anyone who doesn't think it's in society's best interest to subsidize the availability of birth control. Not to mention good birth control education and availability would cut down on the need for abortions, which need to remain legal anyway.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426905/

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but in the first 20 or so posts I'm seeing no mention of the "right to life"ers. To me, they are in denial. It would be so helpful in dealing with this huge problem rationally if their effect could be neutralized.

I think some of the errors being made is that we're dealing with a global problem even though at a smaller level there's a reduction in the number of individuals. The US is pretty much flat and Canada who AFAIK doesn't have our conflicts are a bit higher but only to an insignificant degree. The biggest problem is with Africa which is a ticking bomb. More than half the population increase will be there. The main problem isn't contraception, it'd made available. It's not education, because that's hammered not because of the population but HIV. Simply put the people do not accept things culturally in much of Africa. Huge problem.

Genocide is the last thing we want.

Genocide is usually driven by ideology or religion. People don't need to engage in that for resources, they do so because it's "the right thing to do". War is a standard response to resource shortages, where killing whatever neighbor you happen to have is an option. It sucks regardless.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I will say the industrialized world like the US and Canada use far more resources on a per capita basis. The planet can’t support the rest of the world consuming at our rate and some serious cultural shifts on resource consumption n the first world needs to be underway. That’s not to give a free pass to runaway population growth in the third world though just to "make it fair".

 

[Paratus]

Problem with that though is the higher the income the more resources they use. That would need to be resolved, and not just energy but raw materials too. More lithium needed for batteries for instance. More plastic. More everything. And with wealth comes the demand for more meat which is horrible for the environment. It can definitely help in terms of growth rate but comes with its own set of issues.

The increased use of resources you and @Hyabusa Rider have been mentioning is misleading.

Rare Earths, minerals, etc that have already been ‘used’ are still here to be used again. We aren’t actually running out of any materials used in the construction of anything We are running out of known quantities or easily recoverable materials. Exploration will find more. Recycling will stretch what we already have.

As for power, I’ve shown in other threads, that you could run the entire world at 1st world levels on less Uranium per year than we mine now if we exclusively used breeder reactors. That’s one possible technical solution. There are others that don’t require nuclear.

It’s been argued that we already can grow enough food for the world and that it’s just a problem of distribution. Global GDP is currently enough to provide everyone with a reasonable quality of living.

• Global GDP using Purchase Power Parity was $107.5T in 2014
• Global Population 7.6B
• Family of 4 - $56.5K

None of this is a show stopper. What is is doing nothing and letting the population reach 10B+.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Doing a bit of looking into things the sustainable population (which ignores mineral shortages) is less than 2 billion for everyone to have a US/European standard of living. Considering that we're screwing things up environmentally, that may be too high a number.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The increased use of resources you and @Hyabusa Rider have been mentioning is misleading.

Rare Earths, minerals, etc that have already been ‘used’ are still here to be used again. We aren’t actually running out of any materials used in the construction of anything We are running out of known quantities or easily recoverable materials. Exploration will find more. Recycling will stretch what we already have.

As for power, I’ve shown in other threads, that you could run the entire world at 1st world levels on less Uranium per year than we mine now if we exclusively used breeder reactors. That’s one possible technical solution. There are others that don’t require nuclear.

It’s been argued that we already can grow enough food for the world and that it’s just a problem of distribution. Global GDP is currently enough to provide everyone with a reasonable quality of living.

• Global GDP using Purchase Power Parity was $107.5T in 2014
• Global Population 7.6B
• Family of 4 - $56.5K

None of this is a show stopper. What is is doing nothing and letting the population reach 10B+.

I haven't found a scientific report that shows the New Scientist piece to be far off. That huge resources are there for the taking is a bit of a leap of faith. Certainly in some instances, but betting the farm? I wouldn't go there.

We might be able to make up some shortcomings with mining metallic asteroids, but even if everything were to be found the economically viable commercial of large quantities is a daydream for the foreseeable future, unless you get that M-Drive up and running with greater thrust than believed to exist.

Technology may provide an out, but that's faith, not science to say it will when resources are consumed at an ever increasing rate.

 

[Paratus]

Doing a bit of looking into things the sustainable population (which ignores mineral shortages) is less than 2 billion for everyone to have a US/European standard of living. Considering that we're screwing things up environmentally, that may be too high a number.

Not sure where you got that 2B number but it sounds like bs.

 

[Thebobo]

Yes, overpopulation is a problem now. But our idiot leaders want growth so they can get richer. I don't know how but we should not be incentivising people to have more children. Someone can do the math and figure what it would take to keep a steady population maybe even smaller in some places.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not sure where you got that 2B number but it sounds like bs.

That number is based on humanity reaching the same level of consumption as the first world but globally. If we're talking just feeding people and nothing more then the most common estimate is 8 billion.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support

 

[UglyCasanova]

Not sure where you got that 2B number but it sounds like bs.

It might be but why do you think that

 

[momeNt]

The main global initiatives are being actively campaigned against by many of the common plebs of the world.

War with China/Russia/Iran is the only way to secure a long term future for the surviving members of the world. Humans as a species are too competitive to allow it to be any other way.

 

[soulcougher73]

I would be for something as this is going to become a serious issue. Maybe monetary incentive to not have children at all. Voluntary sterilization for money. I dont really have the answers, but it is a huge issue. Like probably the biggest this world faces yuge.

Humans are like compound interest. The longer it goes the larger and faster it grows.

 

[nOOky]

Most likely population control will happen through a natural event such as a flu strain resistant to treatment. Nature will correct itself, and humans will flourish after, but repeat the same old same old again. There is a lot of interesting reading out there about the Black Death plague and the Renaissance etc. as well as the flu and WWI.

 

[soulcougher73]

Just because the population rate of growth is decreasing does not mean the population is also decreasing. In fast the numbers are the opposite. Rate of growth down, yet still more people. So really the rate of growth is not all that important in this case. Were trying to reduce the number of actual people. Some of the problem is life spans, as we live longer today being alive for multiple generations below them. Even with a slower rate of growth were still more populous. Unless you can get to the point were people just dont have children or flat out genocide i dont think well see our actual population get smaller.

Like i said were like compound interest or the stock market. Even with slower rates of returns your still getting a return, thus growing.

 

[Paratus]

That number is based on humanity reaching the same level of consumption as the first world but globally. If we're talking just feeding people and nothing more then the most common estimate is 8 billion.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support

It’s all about the assumptions. From the article, 2B was a worst case. In the same paragraph they mention a study that says 1024B! These are both outliers. They may be ‘correct’ per their assumptions but they really are nothing more than bounding cases and have a very very small chance of reflecting reality.

Depending on which 1st world countries you base your assumption on you get a very different outcome.

KWH/ per person is good proxy for resource usage of each country:

• Iceland: 53,800 kWh
• Norway: 23,000 kWh
• Canada: 15,500 kWh
• Finland: 15,200 kWh
• US: 12,900 kWh
• Denmark: 5,800 kWh
• Spain: 5,600 kWh
• Italy: 5,000 kWh (they’ve dropped 10% since I looked at these stats a couple of years ago)
• European Union: 5,900 kWh
• North America:13,200 kWh

So depending on which countries you use or even average together as being the “first world” can drastically change amount of resources we assume will be needed for the third world.

Notice many of the high energy use first world countries are far north and use quite a bit of power for heating. Italy uses 2X - 10X less. Most of the 3rd world countries are closer to being Italy than Canada.

As for having “faith” there are resources around it’s anything but.

Massive amount of rare earths and other resources found off of Japan.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/global-trove-rare-earth-metals-found-japans-deep-sea-mud

$1T treasure trove of mineral wealth found in Afghanistan
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-rebuilding-reconstruction-gold-a7904301.html

Studies on recovery of lithium from seawater
http://marketbusinessnews.com/lithi...er-steps-closer-new-extraction-method/174275/

These are not easy to get at but as they exist they are subject to market forces. If the demand is there it will eventually become profitable to recover them. The same way there’s plenty of oil in the ground it’s just a matter of at what price is it reasonable to recover.

It might be but why do you think that

See above

 

[Atreus21]

Let’s say some sort of agreement passed amongst all nations on Earth where free access to birth control and abortions given plus some sort of policy like China's previous one. Maybe two children instead of one (no abortions after the sex is determined unless there is a deformity of life threatening condition to prevent the killing of females) and if you just have one and then sterilized you get a monetary bonus.

Overpopulation is going to drive us to this point eventually anyways and I don’t think it wise to bank on another green revolution to save us. Unfortunately we’ve become addicted to the ponzu schemes of continued growth to fund ourselves so adopting this is going to be very painful to the global economy. There will have to be a cultural shift in many countries to do more multigenerational families under one roof type living rather to help support the elderly.

Anyways do you think population growth is something that humanity needs to be concerned about and if so what solutions would you pursue.

No. As living conditions improve birthrates go down.

The idiocy of Malthus and his disciples just never dies.

 

[soulcougher73]

No. As living conditions improve birthrates go down.

The idiocy of Malthus and his disciples just never dies.

And people live longer life spans as living conditions improve. Unless we can breed slower than we are dying off which is unlikely to happen then we will always grow our numbers. Assuming no genocide or meteor strikes and things like that culling some of the population.

 

[Muse]

Like i said were like compound interest or the stock market. Even with slower rates of returns your still getting a return, thus growing.

Well, money doesn't die, people do. The population will go down when the death rate > birth rate.

 

[Paladin3]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426905/

I don't mind if folks read the "good" book, but sure would like them to pick up a science book once in a while too. Abstinence only education is a cruel joke. The guilt religion associates with sex has caused more harm to mankind than maybe even war.

 

[soulcougher73]

Well, money doesn't die, people do. The population will go down when the death rate > birth rate.

Right, but i dont see that happening as we live longer and longer lives. I doubt people are going to stop screwing so...

 

[Paladin3]

Right, but i dont see that happening as we live longer and longer lives. I doubt people are going to stop screwing so...

Screw all you want, but wrap that little wrangler if you aren't ready for kids. Yo, yo! Jimmy hats all 'round!

 

[Amused]

Yes, however I must qualify that:

I support higher education and prosperity programs worldwide. By doing so, the birth rate will slow all by itself.

History and statistics prove this without a shadow of a doubt. When a country reaches a certain level of prosperity and education, birth rates drop.

Lifting everyone up helps us all. Keeping countries and continents in third world status to exploit their resources has negative long term effects. Doing the opposite has positive long term effects.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I don't mind if folks read the "good" book, but sure would like them to pick up a science book once in a while too. Abstinence only education is a cruel joke. The guilt religion associates with sex has caused more harm to mankind than maybe even war.

Agreed.

 

[mect]

Nope. We're ALREADY past sustainability.

You need to take this graph in context. It doesn't mean that we will run out of metals since use does not actually destroy the metal. Rather, the point of the figure is that we will deplete mineral reserves and need to think eliminating metal waste and instead have products designed from inception around recycling of rare components. This will be easier than the alternative of mining our land fills. Here's a good read on the subject.
https://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8723sci1.html