World population control?

[theletch1]

So, I was reading the thread in the Locker Room about the Arkansas couple that has 18 kids and noticed a post by a member stating something along the lines of increasing population and dwindling resources on the planet. That got me to thinking...

The population of the world is growing at an exponetial rate and many resources aren't renewable. Many of the ones that are renewable aren't being renewed. How do we find a balance? Should the world as a whole attempt to curb it's usage? Sure. Will it? Probably not. So, the next question is population. Should the world enact a one child policy like China's? What do ya'll think of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement? What's a good world population number?

 

[Cryozombie]

This is gonna sound weird...

But I think the answer is a Cyberpunk-esque cybersex implant. I think if people could feel like they were having sex without having sex, people would have less sex, and therefore we would have less people.

Does that make any kind of sense?

 

[Flying Crane]

This is gonna sound weird...

But I think the answer is a Cyberpunk-esque cybersex implant. I think if people could feel like they were having sex without having sex, people would have less sex, and therefore we would have less people.

Does that make any kind of sense?

They already have that. it's called Masturbation, and it unfortunately doesn't seem to stop people from having more babies.

 

[BrandonLucas]

Regulating the number of people we bring into the world isn't the answer, IMO. It would be just as easy to regulate the amount of consumption of resources.

The problem isn't the number of people in the world, the problem is the amount of lack of control the people who live here exhibit.

If we were to only allow a couple to have one child, then what about those of us with mulitples on the way or already here? There's too many problems with going that route, I think.

Why can't we just regulate how much gas a person can use in their vehicle per week...making it reasonable, of course....how much energy people are permitted to use in their home per week...things like that?

 

[Tez3]

In some countries the birth rate is going down while in others it''s increasing. The problem is the worlds population isn't spread equally among countries. In countries where the infant mortality is high and families need as many children as possible to help support the family you won't persuade them to have less children.
In America, UK and Europe people didn't stop having large families until child heathcare improved to ensure the survival of children to adulthood.
In Victorian times large families were the norm, a family would have 18 children quite commonly but the difference was then that not all of them lived to become adults.

 

[Cryozombie]

They already have that. it's called Masturbation, and it unfortunately doesn't seem to stop people from having more babies.

Nah man, its not the same.

 

[Flying Crane]

Nah man, its not the same.

that actually seems to be the whole point.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

What do ya'll think of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement?

I am, for all practical intents and purposes, pretty much unofficially part of it already.

Should the world enact a one child policy like China's?

It, or something very like it is coming, like it or not. get ready.

 

[tellner]

There's a simple, reliable, pretty much pain-free way of reducing population growth. It's worked every single time it's been permitted. Here's the procedure:

1. Give women civil rights
2. Educate girls
3. Make small loans for home businesses available to women
4. Universal vaccination and clean water so more of their children survive
5. Give women the choice to delay marriage and child-bearing and to limit the number of children they have
6. Incentives for delaying marriage until the mid-twenties

If women have no alternatives except bearing large numbers of children, that is what they will do. If they have economic opportunities, even fairly modest ones, they will have fewer children and start their families later. Education is key. Access to capital which they control is non-negotiable.

Meditate on The Demographic Transition

 

[Twin Fist]

this does make sense

 

[Big Don]

1. Give women the choice to delay marriage and child-bearing and to limit the number of children they have

1. As the woman's age increases the odds of birth defects increase, past 40 it is something like 50-50... Choice is fine, but, there are consequences to every choice.

   [*]Incentives for delaying marriage until the mid-twenties

I was actually offered one and was too dumb at 19 to take it...
damn damn damn!

 

[MBuzzy]

Basically, my entire opinion on the matter is dictated by one of the greatest and most influential articles ever written: "The Tragedy of the Commons." (this is the Cliff's Notes version....or I guess Spark Notes now)

 

[Rich Parsons]

Basically, my entire opinion on the matter is dictated by one of the greatest and most influential articles ever written: "The Tragedy of the Commons." (this is the Cliff's Notes version....or I guess Spark Notes now)

I believe it is Rhodium that is a by product of Platinum mining, and is very rare that was under similar constraints. The Auto industry and others that used this element for catalytic reasons, got together and formed a consortium to make sure that no one group or person would try to control the market and possible destroy product at the same time.

 

[Rich Parsons]

So, I was reading the thread in the Locker Room about the Arkansas couple that has 18 kids and noticed a post by a member stating something along the lines of increasing population and dwindling resources on the planet. That got me to thinking...

The population of the world is growing at an exponetial rate and many resources aren't renewable. Many of the ones that are renewable aren't being renewed. How do we find a balance? Should the world as a whole attempt to curb it's usage? Sure. Will it? Probably not. So, the next question is population. Should the world enact a one child policy like China's? What do ya'll think of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement? What's a good world population number?

I have no kids.

1,2,3,4,5, ... 5 of my immediate friends who are 40 or older have no kids. Some chose to raise other people's kids with a woman, while others are either single or have no kids in their marriage by choice, not for a medical reason.

I guess I would 6. I can add more when I think of those I know through Martial Arts adn see only a couple of times a year.


There are issues with China's implementation. There are a lot of babies, in orphanages, that have some medical concern or are female. A male is required to carry on the family name in their culture.


I agree that education is the best way to get people aware of the issue. With education comes Women's rights, and with those rights come opportunities for them in the career fields other than primary care giver. (* No matter how noble that being a primary care giver that might be, I support people having a choice in their life and the education to make the choice. *) Helath care and quality of life goes up, as well when the population growth goes down. (* not always in the cases of small communiteis dying out *)

 

[chrispillertkd]

People may want to read Jacqueline Kasun's The War on Population before investing a lot of time on trying to solve the "problem" of population growth.

Pax,

Chris

 

[tellner]

Don, we're not talking about delaying childbirth from 25 to 45 years. It's more on the order of delaying from 18 to 25 or in some countries from 12 to 20.

The chance of birth defects certainly does go up with age although not as high as you have been told.

Tez, the distribution is interesting. A lot of Asia went through the D.T. in our lifetime. The countries that are still in the high-birth, low-death section are largely in Africa and Latin America. The real anomalies are almost all resource-rich Muslim countries. They lowered the death rate, but female emancipation and economic power has been suppressed. And they haven't really developed modern economies, so female participation in the paid workforce still lags.

MBuzzy, the Tragedy of the Commons is not nearly as true as its authors and supporters would like you to believe. Their research - and I use the word very loosely - was quite tendentious. They were tying to prove that common-property resources just wouldn't work and that radical privatization was the only solution.

Fortunately, it doesn't really work that way.

Consider the original commons in England before the Enclosure Acts. The contention was that everyone would have an incentive to put extra sheep on the common land giving himself more sheep at the cost of degrading the pasture. Of course, a single owner - the local Lord - would behave efficiently. So it was only right for him to take over the commons.

In fact, it turned out that stockmen had a very good idea of how many sheep could be raised on a plot. And later research shows that the people who used the land implemented very effective methods to make sure people were well-behaved. The local Lord was actually less efficient about raising sheep and generally turned farmers into tenants, threw them off the land to starve or engaged in rent-seeking behavior (economic-speak for "I have a monopoly and will put the screws to you) with no regard to actual productivity. His job was land owner, not sheep raiser.

The same theory has been applied to everything water to clean air to plant varieties to the genes in your own personal cells. The record for radical privatization has been pretty dismal. Oh, it's made a lot of money for a few people. But a very good case could be - and has - been made that the value thus added has been more than outstripped by the increase in transaction costs, the effect of rent-seeking and increased barriers to entry reducing competition.

 

[theletch1]

It seems to me that no matter how well implemented conservation techniques are that eventually the world population (if it continues to grow at the rate it is going now) will out strip the resources on hand. More people means more living space is needed which means less room to grow food. If not checked will we not eventually find ourselves in a position to not be able to feed anyone? Of course, that sets up a scenario for collapse of the species which will leave a small percentage to start all over again. Even if the world implemented a one child policy that didn't have the pitfalls of the Chinese model would we not eventually wind up in the same position?

Here's an odd thought. Perhaps war has always been something of a population control and as we move away from global conflict we are creating a scenario which will ensure the eventual demise of the species more surely than any fear in the cold war could have come up with.

Edit: BTW, thanks to everyone joining in the thread and actually having a calm and respectful conversation.

 

[Cryozombie]

I am, for all practical intents and purposes, pretty much unofficially part of it already.

What you really mean is you aren't getting any. Heh Heh.

 

[MA-Caver]

My take on it is that people will breed and breed either like rabbits or whales, meaning having a lot of having only one or two every few years. Wars will ensure the reduction of any surplus population to be sure. Famine, and disease or any of the 4 fabled horsemen will ensure population reduction. And it'll surge again.
It's nature, it's keeping balance.
We're headed for a third world war, no doubt about it... it'll probably be over oil or something of that nature, millions will die everywhere and when the dust settles there's room and food for those who are left.
Same with a pandemic flu, similar to the one that killed hundreds of thousands in the 1800's ... it'll occur in our day and reduce the population. It'll be messy, it'll probably be horrible... it'll hopefully help mankind in general to be more compassionate and see the suffering we wrought upon each other... and how much of it is unnecessary.

Hopefully in about 100 years from now we will have learned enough to start colonizing the moon and perhaps Mars. True, probably have to grow our own food there but... it's doable. That'll take care of population excess now won't it? heh.

Originally Posted by Andy Moynihan
I am, for all practical intents and purposes, pretty much unofficially part of it already.

What you really mean is you aren't getting any. Heh Heh.

Neither am I... got a problem with that? Doesn't make us any less than who/what we are.

 

[Cryozombie]

Neither am I... got a problem with that? Doesn't make us any less than who/what we are.

No Caver. I have no issue with it. Me and Andy had a discussion on this subject not so long ago, and I was making reference back to that. I expect him to get it, probably not anyone else.