Since it's clear that overpopulation exacerbates many problems,

[MineralMan]

can we begin a discussion about ways to begin controlling the rising population on the limited space available on our planet? What sorts of things should progressives do to help teach the world's population to control its reproduction?

In 1969, when I was in my early 20s, I decided not to father any children. I had read a great deal about the problems a burgeoning population was causing and would continue to cause as the population increased at its rate at that time.

I was lucky enough to marry two women who also understood the problem, and I managed not to add to the population any further. At times, I have regretted not having children and grandchildren, of course, but the original reason for my decision remain, and I still have that commitment.

I expressed this decision in a thread a couple of months ago, and some DUer suggested that the world was better off without my children. I thought that was a nice touch from a fellow DUer. It just made me feel all warm inside.

So, how do we encourage a reduction in the rate of population increase? I can't do any more than I have on a personal level, but I often talk to young people about population issues and about that decision, but is there something more we can do? Can we make effective contraception free and easy to obtain? Can we educate our children, and the children of the rest of the planet on these issues and stress the importance of controlling the world's population?

Must we do as China did and make population control mandatory? What shall we do? I'd like to hear DUers' thoughts about how we, as progressives, can help people make good reproductive decisions.

[LiberalEsto]

1. Educate girls

The more education women receive, the lower their birthrate.
And in many places girls have to go through hell just to get schooling. Look at Afghanistan, where the Taliban blows up girls' schools and throws acid in the faces of schoolgirls.

[MineralMan]

5. Really. Girls? Not boys?

It seems to me that girls have more at stake in controlling their reproduction and would use effective contraception if it were available to them at no cost. They are the ones who end up with the babes in arms, so their stake in all of this is clear.

I think educating boys is far more important. They are the ones who can start a pregnancy without dealing with the results. So it has been throughout history. Sadly, we don't have an effective, simple, long-term, but reversible contraception method for males. The only hope is to educate them to take responsibility for their actions, and that hasn't worked all that well so far.

[Cleita]

13. Boys usually get what is available in education before the girls do in those

countries who have the largest uncontrolled populations. I believe this is what the OP meant to make education equal to all. Illiterate girls would have a harder time using contraception because of their inability to understand instructions and the fact that they are socialized to obey the men in their family without questioning them.

[clear eye]

119. There were studies in the 1980s and 90s showing that when girls are taught

marketable skills, they concentrate on working and have fewer children. IIt's not about educating them about birth control, although availability is important.

As population has outpaced job growth just about everywhere, I'm not sure how effective that prescription is today.

[Cleita]

7. Not only that give them access to women's health clinics that enable

them to control their own fertility. Tell the Catholic church and other institutions that think women are brood cows to mind their own business and keep out of the way or lose whatever tax exemptions and other privileges that they get from governments who back those clinics.

[MineralMan]

14. There's a great idea. Perhaps we could also work to decrease

the influence of the Roman Catholic Church in the third world, along with the rest of the world. Its attitude on that topic is harmful. We should never bow to any religious organization in determining our policies on contraception.

[BeFree]

71. Catholics

While I agree, it should be known that Catholics are a minute minority in China, India and Indonesia. So getting rid of Catholicism is no answer overall.

[MineralMan]

76. China is the single place where there is reproductive control

happening. I don't like how it is done there, but the lack of Catholicism in China is one of the reasons they're managing to do something about it. Japan, too has a very low birth rate, and Catholicism is almost non-existent in that country.

[BeFree]

88. Japan is over populated

And is not sustainable. Catholicism is not the problem.

China is not sustainable and they never had Catholicism.

Really, only the third world is sustainable, meaning not the developing countries.

[Hannah Bell]

89. japan is losing population.

[MineralMan]

91. Yup. Their birth rate is very low, which is causing some

concern, even though it is reducing the population. That population is aging quickly...even more quickly than in the USA.

[BeFree]

94. Why?

And what does Catholicism have to do with that?

But, why? Why is their population decreasing?
Answer that and maybe there is our answer?

[SPedigrees]

99. Because housing and living expenses are at a premium

and because the Japanese are evolved enough to add two and two, they carefully limit the size of their families. They are raised to take responsibility for their own actions and to consider the consequences of their actions on themselves and others.

The Catholic religion has nothing to do with this. Nor does any religion for that matter.

[BeFree]

102. So

The Japanese have been educated about the consequences, unlike the US where we are lied to and told everything is gonna be alright?

[Hannah Bell]

110. us population would be declining too, if not for immigration. Birthrates

in the whole of the first world (& lots of the second world) are at or below replacement.

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

[muriel_volestrangler]

202. Incorrect; US births are still considerably more than deaths

The US birth rate: 13.82 births/1,000 population ; and death rate: 8.38 deaths/1,000 population. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

The total fertility rate for women in the US has been, for the last few years, around the replacement rate - http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/total_fertility_rate.html . Only the estimate for 2009 is significantly below 2.1; and demographers say 2.1 is a slight overestimate for the replacement rate in a developed country:

The much-quoted figure of 2.1 children per woman is indeed replacement fertility—in Thailand, Syria and just seven other countries, according to new figures compiled by Population Action International. In every other country, it’s actually less or more than that—mostly more, and often much more. For the world as a whole, replacement fertility amounts to slightly more than 2.3 children per woman. In many countries in Europe, in Japan, and in the United States, the figure is 2.08 or 2.07, reflecting relatively low rates of death among young people in these countries, and the apparent absence of sex-selective abortion.

http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Working_Papers/Replacement_Fertility_Not_Constant/Summary.shtml

[SPedigrees]

113. Kind of, in part. The USA has a culture of arrogance while

Japan has a culture of responsibility. I think that is probably at the heart of it. But certainly we are lied to by media and our govt.

[Hannah Bell]

132. Japan's birthrate has more to do with economics than "culture of arrogance/responsibility".

concentrating resources in fewer children = modern pattern everywhere in the world, including the US.

The US birthrate would be declining too, if not for immigrants from higher-rate countries. Who adopt to the US pattern within a generation.

[clear eye]

116. Sorry but the Catholic religion does have an impact on the availability of birth control

and on its use in some Latin American and some African countries. They drill it into people, girls especially, that birth control is a sin, and oppose it politically.

Not sure how to oppose it, but it is pretty crummy behavior given the hardships it imposes.

[AngryAmish]

122. See the exploding population rates among Catholics in Italy and Spain

[Hannah Bell]

134. catholic countries have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world.

as for africa & latin america, the cathlics have nothing on the protestants & their "abstinence only ed".

rich warren's cohorts got federal dollars to preach it in africa.

[clear eye]

159. Only in highly educated, more prosperous European countries

where people pick & choose what they parts of the religion they follow. Getting birth control banned from public clinics in poor neighborhoods is one up even on poor teen-age sex-ed.

In Africa, the countries of Burundi, Angola & the Congo have both high % of Catholics and a birth rate of ~6/woman, and in Latin America, the largely Catholic countries of Guatemala, Honduras, Bolivia, and El Salvador all average over 3 births/woman. Women who are sterile for whatever reason are averaged into these figures, so they understate the #'s of births/ fertile woman.

[Hannah Bell]

170. yes, "highly educated, more prosperous european countries" like poland, brazil, mexico

Replacement rate = 2.1 children/woman.



Nations with highest % of Catholics (excluding tiny ones like luxembourg/vatican city:


1. Italy = 97% Catholic, Fertility Rate = 1.29, GDP per capita $30K

2. mexico = 95%, 2.4, $14K

3. poland 95%, 1.25, $17K

4. Ireland, 95%, 1.97, $42K

5. spain = 94%, 1.29, $30K

6. Paraguay 94%, 3.48, $4.7K

7. Ecuador 94%, 2.82, $8K

8. El Salvador 94%, 2.88, $7.5K

9. Costa Rica 93%, 2.28, $11K

10. Honduras 93%, 3.72, $4.2K

11. Venezuela 92%, 2.72, $12K

12. Portugal 92%, 1.45, $22K

13. colombia 92%, 2.47, $8K

14. argentina 91%, 2.35, $14K

15. brazil 87%, 2.25, $10K

16. philippines 83%, 3.54, $3.5K

17. france 82%, 1.8, $34K


****

Other: (yours)


Bolivia: 78% catholic, (16% protestant, 3% indigenous,), 3.96, $4.3K

Burundi, 70% Catholic, 6.8, $0.3K

Guatemala, 50-60% cath, (40-50% Prot, 1% indig. religions,), 4.6, $4.9K

Angola 38%, (15% Prot, remainder indigenous), 6.7, $6.2K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola#Religion

Congo (DRC) 50%, (Prot 20%, Kimbanguist Xtian 10%, muslim 10%, indigenous 10%), 6.7, $0.3K

Congo (RC) 45%, (5% other christian, 48% animist, 2% muslim,), 4.8, $3.9K



You're simply wrong. Income & development indices correlate with fetility rate; Cathlicism doesn't.

Possibly you don't know there are two Congos, one very poor with fertility rate >6, one less so with FR <5.

Nearly *every* country in Africa has high fertility rates, whatever the religious practice. It's because Africa is the poorest continent with the highest % of its population living "traditional" (v. "developed," "modern") lifestyles.

[clear eye]

208. Poland not relevant.

Poland is a highly educated country (everyone graduates high school) w/ attitudes toward birth control & abortion remaining from the Communist era.

[a la izquierda]

201. Hell, in parts of Mexico, tampons are sinful...

I had that one explained to me by a good friend, on my first extended trip there. You can get tampons, but they're expensive and can be hard to find outside of the cities.
"How the heck do you swim on your period?" I asked her...I was a swimmer in middle/high school. I was simply stunned. Even married women in rural areas don't use them.
Try buying condoms, and see the horrid looks that clerks will give you at pharmacies...incredible.

[MineralMan]

146. Catholicism has absolutely nothing to do with Japan.

Crowded conditions and economic difficulties are why the Japanese birth rate, and its population, are going down. It's actually a rational decision on the part of the Japanese population. It is, however, causing some problems, primarily due to the aging population. That poses an economic situation in that country.

Catholicism has almost no impact on Japanese culture.

[Hannah Bell]

176. "crowded conditions" & "economic difficulties" have little to do with it either.

Rich countries near-universally have low birthrates.

Population density doesn't correlate with birthrate, else these countries would have lower fertility rates than Japan (density 874 people/mile2, fertility rate = 1.29):

Bangladesh (density/mile2 = 2,917 people, FR = 3.2)
Bahrain (d/mile2 = 2,845, FR = 2.5)
Palestine (d/mile2 = 1728, FR = 5.6)
Haiti (density/mile2 = 936 people, fertility rate = 4.0)
India (d/mile2 = 925, FR = 3.1)
Israel (d/mile2 = 876, FR = 2.9)

and low-density Iceland (8/mile2) wouldn't be below replacement.

It's not a "decision" of a population (except in the case of political diktat).

It's a response to social conditions.

Japan's economic difficulties are no greater than any other developed country's.

[SPedigrees]

101. There was a single child per couple quota under Mao.

Although that is lifted now I believe the culture of lower birthrates stuck. It was a rather late awakening for both China and Japan, but better late than never...

[Hannah Bell]

112. "rather late" - no. transition occurred just slightly later than us/europe.

[Hannah Bell]

143. catholic countries have some of the lowest birthrates in the world.

the presence or lack of cathlics in china has nothing to do with anything.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HereSince1628]

41. Yes, and then get them into the labor force

The desire for the increased family income when women are in the work force is a great motivation for birth control.

The combination of education and jobs has a long history of working to reduce birthrates in industrial nations.

[Hannah Bell]

198. rather the decreased utility & increased cost of child-rearing in modernizing urbanizing

environments = concentration of economic resources on fewer children.

but having both women & men in the workforce is good for the profits of capitalists.

[Greyhound]

162. Bingo. n/t

[amborin]

163. +1000

[LeftinOH]

221. +1,000; the education of/status of/rights of women is what makes the difference.

[SPedigrees]

2. For years I was a proponent of population control.

Now I realize the human race is too backwards to control their own numbers and I wash my hands of it all. I feel very fortunate to have been young and lived during an era when there was plenty of space to go around, at least in this country. I feel no guilt whatsoever about the population explosion, since I have not contributed to it.

[notadmblnd]

8. I've contributed to it by one. A Dugger, I'm not.

[MineralMan]

12. Well, you've done your part, I think, as long as that continues.

I don't share your pessimism, though.

[SPedigrees]

104. I'm post menopausal, so my part and my hubby's is permanent. nt

[Subdivisions]

3. Controlling reproduction is impossible. The thing about this is,

we don't need to do anything. Nature will take care of it for us. Like it did for Easter Island.

[MineralMan]

10. Yeah? How has that worked out so far, then?

I can't see that ignoring the issue has done much good. The world's population continues to increase, and at an increasing rate. So, your theory seems flawed, somehow.

[Subdivisions]

21. Hi MM. Easter Island isn't a theory. They used up all their resources and

nature took it's course. I didn't mean that the issue should be ignored. Quite the contrary. However, how would you control populations without violating and diminishing human rights? Could you implement in the U.S. a one-child policy like China did? I don't think that would go over well. Would it be acceptable to cease food shipments to areas of Africa in order to reduce populations there? You get the picture? Which brings us back to your original question, how do we control population? Answer: well, we really can't. And, as such, nature will do it for us - eventually - and probably a lot sooner than us humans could solve the problem.

[MineralMan]

25. I disagree. I believe that education and assistance with

contraception can do the job, at least over time. I'm aware of what happened on Easter Island, but don't consider it a solution...rather a consequence I'd prefer to avoid.

I do not want mandatory population control. I do want unfettered education and aid to promote the universal use of contraception, except for actual wanted reproduction. That unfettered education and assistance does not exist. It could. I would far prefer that our money be spent on that than on wars.

[SPedigrees]

107. The trouble is that the failure to limit reproduction tramples on my civil rights

or should I say quality of life, and everyone else's for that matter,

[laughingliberal]

26. A lot of truth, that. My favorite new line for the RW's who deride us for trying to 'save the earth'

is to reply, "The earth is doing fine. Our ability to survive on it is in peril but the earth is not in danger."

[SPedigrees]

114. That is a very good point. Truer words never spoken.

It won't make a whit of difference in the grand scheme of things when we have polluted the earth beyond redemption. And cockroaches and algae will probably inherit the earth when we have rendered it uninhabitable for man and other mammals and for birds. And the floating island of plastic debris in the S. Pacific ocean will be here long after we're gone... our legacy.

[Orsino]

225. We need to reexamine what we call our "rights"...

...in light of the demonstrable dangers of overpopulation.

Whether or not restrictions on reproduction would "go over well," we can either implement them voluntarily or watch millions/billions die of famine and climate effects.

We need to educate ourselves, and to stop squirting out so many goddamned babies.

[Hannah Bell]

108. impossible. that's why world fertility rate = 2.65 births/woman, expected to decline to 2.55

within 5 years.

Oh, & the 1st world, with birthrates at or below replacement, uses more resources than the rest of the world combined. especially the US.


Per-Capita Consumption of Electricity, in Kilowatt-Hours Per Year

US 1990 12993

United States 12180 (current)

US 1980 9880

US 1970 8534

Japan 7567
France 6847
Germany 6148
Russia 5390

US 1960 4981
US 1950 2955

Brazil 1805
Mexico 1758
Iran 1704
Turkey 1616

US 1940 1514

Thailand 1389
China 1004
Egypt 903

US 1930 812

Philippines 479

US 1920 470

India 460
Pakistan 383
Indonesia 368
Vietnam 332

US 1910 271

Nigeria 113
Bangladesh 99

US 1900 66

Ethiopia 22

http://www.gongol.com/research/economics/growthstages/

[Subdivisions]

118. Interesting website, Hannah. Tell me, is that expected reduction in the fertility

rate a consequence of carrying capacity having been exceeded or is it a result of education and contraception?

Edit: grammar

[Hannah Bell]

131. The result of the same social & economic changes that have produced

demographic transition since the beginning of the 20th century.

[notadmblnd]

4. did you watch Jessie Ventura's Conspiracy Theory last week?

His show was on just that. If you listen and believe him, there's a certain group that is working on that for you. The plan is to kill us (80% of the population) with flu vaccines. He's on the TRU network, go check it out.

[MineralMan]

6. I have far, far better things to do with my time than

watch television shows about conspiracy theories. Please do yourself a favor and spend more time learning about factual information. You'll find it fascinating.

[notadmblnd]

15. There was no need for your condesending remark

I said nothing that made your response called for. I told you about something I saw recently and offered the information so you could access it if you liked. You could have simply chose not to. it was totally uncalled for. However, I hope the feeling you get by saying that sort of thing to people, is a good one.

[90-percent]

19. Jesse on TruTv

Do you all have a better TV show that you can suggest that does a better job than Jesse does?

He seems to be the only one within the entire TV landscape that even deals with the subject of modern current conspiracy/police state issues. Except for the UFO, JFK and masonic material covered on history/discovery.

Can you refute the material Jesse covers on his show?

-90% jimmy

[notadmblnd]

23. did you me to ask me this?

I haven't made any judgment on Jessie. Am I so naive to think that my government has my best interest in mind when setting policy? No. Perhaps you were really wanting to respond to the smug intellectual that felt the need to make condescending remarks in regards to my post about the program?:shrug:

[90-percent]

39. didn't mean to ask you specifically

I asked of "you all" have seen it, meaning everybody here, particularly the critics of the show. I suspect people dismiss the show because they don't like Jesse. Fine.

As a critical thinker with an adequate grasp of facts, reasons, logic and the ability to Analise what information I'm consuming, I think there's a lot of material on Jesse's show that has merit. Some of it is tin foil hat, but I can discriminate what's bogus and what has merit.

When Jesse, in the privacy episode, discusses first becoming Governor, and getting a visit from 26 CIA agents, do you all think he was lying about this visit from the CIA? Will you only consider what he says if he says it under oath or something?

I was not keen on Jesse's global warming debunking, but it's helpful to see what's going on out there.

-90% jimmy

[MineralMan]

22. You suggested that I watch a television show about a

ridiculous conspiracy theory. Vaccines have not reduced reproduction, nor killed large numbers of people. It is just stupid to promulgate such nonsense, and Jesse Ventura is a moron for participating in spreading misinformation.

My remark was that I would spend no time on nonsense conspiracy theories. I did not condescend. I am absolutely serious about that, and highly recommend that you study facts, not conspiracy theories. You will benefit from facts, but will only be duped by nonsense. It's your choice, entirely.

[notadmblnd]

24. I didn't endorse it either way. I told you what it was about and said to take a look if you liked

Unlike others, I prefer to let people think and decide for themselves. The condescending remark was to suggest to me that perhaps my time would be spent in better ways. Your specific suggestion was to find and agree on the "facts" you agree with. The implication was that there is somehow something flawed with me because I choose to flip channels at night and happened upon a program with the subject of your post, and letting you know about it.

So sorry!

[MineralMan]

33. The premise in what you said the show discussed

is ridiculous, on its face. Where are the deaths from vaccinations? We've been vaccinating people for many decades. Where are the deaths? A little thought would make it clear that no such "conspiracy" exists. Jesse Ventura is just an entertainer. He entertained as a professional wrestler, acting to appear to be actually fighting. Now, he's trying to entertain by promoting bogus "conspiracy" theories. He took a break from entertaining to be the worst Governor Minnesota ever had before getting bored with that job. Now he's back faking things. Ridiculous.

You see, some conspiracy theories are so ridiculous that paying them any attention at all is also ridiculous. This is a serious issue, and nonsense theories are not information...just noise. I encouraged you not to listen to noise, but to educate yourself on such issues with valid information.

If you see that as condescension, then I have nothing more to add.

[notadmblnd]

98. go to- nevermind.

con⋅de⋅scend
  /ˌkɒndəˈsɛnd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
–verb (used without object)
1. to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity.

[SPedigrees]

117. There would be plenty of deaths w/o those vaccines

just as there were before vaccines.

[BeFree]

74. Yeah

For someone who proposes education as the answer, to just arbitrarily shoot down a possible educational source is kinda weird, eh?

[MineralMan]

77. You consider a show on conspiracies an educational source?

Really? OK. Good luck with that.

[notadmblnd]

100. apparently he's the authority

:sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

147. Jesse Ventura is an authority on nothing.

[notadmblnd]

161. I was talking about you

slow down, take a deep breath. There's no need for your anger. I'm afraid you may prematurely do your part to relieve the population problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

203. Look, the only reason to watch a Ventura show on "vaccinations are killing us" is to laugh at it

I thought your first post about it was a joke. If you mean it deserves taking seriously, then you deserve being condescended to.

[notadmblnd]

213. if your critical reading skills were a little more honed,

you would see that I didn't endorse it either way. I was talking about the OP being the authority.

What is wrong with you people? Are you so eager to get on here and spew your hate and anger, just because you can? Are you all just angry just for the sake of being angry? Does it make you feel better to condescend to other people and post replies that attempt to demean their responses if they don't match what you see as the truth? Are you so blinded with anger that you can't slow down and actually read what is written? Why does it bother you so much that you are moved to personal attacks? Are you afraid there could be some truth? Do you have vested interests in the industry? It's either that, or your just mean, nasty and rude to be mean and rude.

[muriel_volestrangler]

216. In #15, you described his program as a source of information

"I told you about something I saw recently and offered the information so you could access it if you liked."

The point is, Ventura's bollocks is not worth listening to. We can see that, and referring to it as anything other than a joke is wasting people's time. You got indignant that you were told that.

Nothing is wrong with me, or with "you people". I'm not spewing hate; I am angry that Ventura can spread complete bullshit and be taken serioualy by anyone. Ventura needs condescending to, urgently, and anyone who is neutral with regards to his claims needs educating as well.

"Are you afraid there could be some truth? " You see, you still have this problem: you haven't recognised that Ventura was lying. You need to start thinking about what he said, and then you'll see it's total rubbish.

"Do you have vested interests in the industry?" No. I'm not absolutely sure which industry you're even talking about here, but I'm not involved in broadcasting, medicine, alternative medicine, Ventura's business, or any industry to do with population. I am just pointing out that you are telling DU about a complete load of bollocks, and wasting our time by pretending it's worth considering. I'd dearly love DUers to think critically when they come across crap like Ventura's; and I fear you still haven't done so.

[notadmblnd]

226. I did not. I said "if you believe him" in #15

how did you miss that part of my statement? Nowhere did I say I believed it. I just said his program was on the subject and if you listen to his program and believe what he says. I didn't say he was an authority, I didn't say I believed it in any of my posts. And all I got was hate and ridicule from some of you people posting on this thread.

[anonymous171]

9. Forcible sterilization of 1st worlders. Population crisis solved. nt

[StarfarerBill]

37. With an attitude like that, you might as well be a fascist.

On a sensible note, reducing overconsumption by the West would be the best immediate course...though even that would require a sea-change in thinking on our part.

[Cleita]

78. I have an idea, let's castrate all males except the ones we deem acceptable

for breeding purposes kind of like what we do to cows and horses. Actually, Hitler did something similar. He killed everyone he thought were racially inferior and he raided adjoining nations so his perfect Aryan race would have lebensraum (living space) to breed and raise their perfect Aryan children.

[StarfarerBill]

96. Ouch. Would we males who choose not to reproduce be considered acceptable?

[Cleita]

97. Maybe we could give you a choice then between an irreversible vasectomy

and castration. I kid of course. I just like throwing a reverse gear in the conversation when it comes to women's reproductive rights.

[StarfarerBill]

103. lol. I know, but if the government wants to give me a free, professional vasectomy,

I'll take it. :)

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

135. +1. or just the US, since they use about 20% of world resources.

hyperbole, but the folks who obsess over birthrates when most of the world's at replacement & the main high-birth areas = dirt poor, tick me off.

heal thyself, hypocrites.

[raccoon]

204. Yep, the 1st worlders are the ones with the huge carbon footprint.

Not the third world citizen having a big family, but the

1st WORLDER using maybe 25-50 times as much resources as the third world citizen.

[leftstreet]

11. How about reducing resource consumption first

Oh wait...that would inconvenience the developed world

[noamnety]

16. Do it in a way that allows choice.

Free birth control, free abortions, no pressure to take advantage of either.

Since half of all pregnancies are unplanned, that would go a long way.

Then, education for women. I'm not talking "sex ed just for girls" like it's their exclusive fault they get pregnant. I mean a real education because women who have careers and interests outside the house will have smaller families than women whose lives revolve solely around raising children.

[Gregorian]

69. I agree. I also think the best sex education is math.

When people fully realize the deeper significance of the exponential function, they'd absolutely freak.

[Cleita]

17. Mother Nature does a good job of it herself

when overpopulation becomes a problem. She scratches us off like fleas with war, natural disasters, epidemics, and famine. We can avoid some of those if we allow women to be in charge of their own fertility and give them the education and means to do it like free clinics. Studies have shown that any society that practices these two principles starts showing a decrease in population in the first decade.

[MineralMan]

28. And yet, population continues to grow, and has done for a long, long

time, despite wars, famines, natural disasters, and epidemics. Look at the graph below. Do you see any downturns on it? When does this happen, do you suppose?

[Cleita]

34. I think your chart is a big disingenuous.

It doesn't show the valleys and peaks in population and depopulation. Half of the population in the late Middle Ages in Europe was decimated because of the Bubonic Plague.

http://www.learner.org/interactives/renaissance/middleages.html

World War II killed six million Jews and many more. I don't need to give you a link for that I hope.

[MineralMan]

40. And yet, the world population continues, and continued, to grow

during all those periods. Six million is a drop in the bucket when you are talking about billions, you see. It was a terrible act of mankind, but it did not slow the world's population. As for the middle ages, you can see the dip in the second chart I posted. Not much of an effect, since the curve steepened shortly afterwards, and continues to steepen.

[greyl]

48. If it were plotted from the dawn of humanity a few million years ago,

the spike corresponding with the dawn of our particular culture several thousand years ago would be more clear.

[Cleita]

55. There was a period at the dawn of mankind when our species was almost

extinct. We were down to a few thousand and we managed to survive that.

[greyl]

83. I think you might have missed my point. nt

[Cleita]

85. Not really. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

137. no, in fact, the curve doesn't continue to steepen. global birth rate

has been dropping since the 50s & is now at 2.65/woman.

[MineralMan]

148. The total population curve continues to steepen. Sorry, but that's

the fact of the matter. Now, it may flatten in the future, but that's uncertain.

[Hannah Bell]

165. steeper curve = faster & faster rate of doubling. we've already passed the peak of the curve.

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm

Doubling:

1804-1927 = 123 yrs.

1927-1975 = 48 yrs

1975-2025 = 50 yrs


Sorry, you're wrong on just about everything.

[muriel_volestrangler]

206. No, it started to flatten after 1989, even in the absolute population change

Year	Population	growth 	population
			rate 	change
1960 	3,041,697,768	1.34	41,003,421
1961 	3,082,701,189	1.81	56,220,873
1962 	3,138,922,062	2.20	69,754,913
1963 	3,208,676,975	2.20	71,373,247
1964 	3,280,050,222	2.09	69,237,110
1965 	3,349,287,332	2.08	70,440,885
1966 	3,419,728,217	2.02	69,951,226
1967 	3,489,679,443	2.04	72,049,773
1968 	3,561,729,216	2.08	74,837,437
1969 	3,636,566,653	2.05	75,395,011

1970 	3,711,961,664	2.07	77,577,745
1971 	3,789,539,409	1.99	76,264,651
1972 	3,865,804,060	1.94	75,746,936
1973 	3,941,550,996	1.87	74,504,460
1974 	4,016,055,456	1.79	72,556,130
1975 	4,088,611,586	1.73	71,151,338
1976 	4,159,762,924	1.71	71,747,562
1977 	4,231,510,486	1.68	71,623,166
1978 	4,303,133,652	1.71	74,363,306
1979 	4,377,496,958	1.70	75,050,564
 
1980 	4,452,547,522	1.70	76,334,640
1981 	4,528,882,162	1.75	79,799,596
1982 	4,608,681,758	1.75	81,595,751
1983 	4,690,277,509	1.70	80,190,787
1984 	4,770,468,296	1.70	81,583,644
1985 	4,852,051,940	1.71	83,821,652
1986 	4,935,873,592	1.73	86,149,518
1987 	5,022,023,110	1.71	86,836,702
1988 	5,108,859,812	1.69	86,853,384
1989 	5,195,713,196	1.68	87,974,233
 
1990 	5,283,687,429	1.57	83,497,697
1991 	5,367,185,126	1.56	84,486,391
1992 	5,451,671,517	1.50	82,466,386
1993 	5,534,137,903	1.46	81,172,623
1994 	5,615,310,526	1.44	81,366,213
1995 	5,696,676,739	1.40	80,180,106
1996 	5,776,856,845	1.35	78,229,877
1997 	5,855,086,722	1.31	77,004,229
1998 	5,932,090,951	1.28	76,163,844
1999 	6,008,254,795	1.25	75,295,425
 
2000 	6,083,550,220	1.24	75,692,290
2001 	6,159,242,510	1.21	75,119,261
2002 	6,234,361,771	1.18	74,154,412
2003 	6,308,516,183	1.16	73,917,364
2004 	6,382,433,547	1.15	74,009,533
2005 	6,456,443,080	1.15	74,541,551
2006 	6,530,984,631	1.15	75,230,155
2007 	6,606,214,786	1.13	74,897,743
2008 	6,681,112,529	1.11	74,874,710

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpop.php

The growth rate peaked in 1963; but the annual increase, measured in number of people, was highest in 1989.

[MineralMan]

29. And here is another chart, which shows population growth

by continent. As you can see, the curve is the same, no matter which continent you look at. There have been many of those things you say will control the population since 400 AD. Where are the decreases in population growth?

[Cleita]

51. Here's an article with a more comprehensive chart than yours:

http://www.dhushara.com/book/diversit/bomb.htm

Here's an interesting article about the UN addressing population explosion and the role women play:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/crossette

And another which I excerpted pertinent paragraphs from:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2009/04/10/means_reproduction/


<snip>

The global spread of family planning has vastly changed the world. Even as the planet's population increased nearly fourfold in the twentieth century, from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people, fertility rates have declined sharply in most countries, and smaller families have become the norm. "In the 1950s, women in less developed regions had an average of six children," wrote UN demographer Joseph Chamie. "oday's average is closer to three. By mid-century, the global fertility average is anticipated to be close to replacement levels of around two children per couple." There are many reasons women are having fewer children, but many studies show that a substantial part of the decrease is due to increased access to contraception, now used by more than half the couples in the world.

In some countries effective family planning programs have been a great boon to development. Falling birthrates, which for a time increase the percentage of working adults to dependent children in a society, create a window where a greater share of the population is productive. Demographers call this the "demographic dividend," and it can be a major spur to development. Harvard economists David Bloom, David Canning, and Jaypee Sevilla have argued that the demographic dividend created by East Asia's postwar embrace of family planning "was essential to East Asia's extraordinary economic achievements, accounting for as much as one-third of its 'economic miracle.'" (The Philippines, conversely, is the only big East Asian country to eschew family planning, and the only one whose economy never took off.)

Perhaps most important, the global family planning movement has -- often inadvertently, and in the face of great internal resistance -- given rise to a new vision of universal women's rights that has changed both international law and individual lives. At the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, more than 180 countries adopted a program of action proclaiming, "Advancing gender equality and equity and the empowerment of women, and the elimination of all kinds of violence against women, and ensuring women's ability to control their own fertility, are cornerstones of population and development-related programs. ... The full and equal participation of women in civil, cultural, economic, political and social life, at the national, regional and international levels, and the eradication of all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex, are priority objectives of the international community."

<snip>

[Walk away]

18. I commend you on you commitment to the cause...

It is also the reason I decided not to have children.

In my mind the most effective way of making a difference in this crazy world is to work against groups advocating rampant procreation or practices that produce the same results.

The Catholic church and their ridiculous stance against birth control. Especially the insane pope who makes a habit of telling his third world followers that condoms are dangerous and will increase their chances of contracting AIDS. All thinking people need to question Catholics about this and request that they make their leaders change this disastrous policy. Think about the disease, misery and poverty this has caused already.

Then there are the fundamentalist Christian groups like the Quiverfulls. These people advocate having as many children as possible. The "19 Children and Counting" family are Quiverfulls.

I think shining a light on these problems and advocating against them is a good first step.

[MineralMan]

20. Yes, I agree.

The Catholic Church is a worldwide problem-causer with their prohibition of contraception. The fundamentalist Christians are a lesser influence, except in this country. The Duggars are an excellent example of the problem.

And thanks for your contribution to population control.

[Don Caballero]

27. Place one child limits at once

Those who choose to have more than one will be fined an exorbitant amount of money throughout their lifetime. Criminals will not be allowed to procreate. A carbon tax on everyone is also needed.

[MineralMan]

30. How about a reverse deduction on income taxes, instead of a

fine? The first two children (replacements) get the standard tax deduction, but additional children get a reverse deduction, increasing for each child beyond two for a couple. Similarly, two children would get their education paid for by the state, but additional children would incur charges for public schooling, again with the amount increasing for each child beyond two.

Now, I'm just talking about the USA with this, since we can't determine tax rates in other countries.

[tinrobot]

47. The education limits would be unconstitutional.

A child can't help that he/she is born third.

Not giving that child an education is highly discriminatory.

[SPedigrees]

120. This would be a good start. nt

[Cleita]

31. Oh brother, we get more and more like China every day. n/t

[Don Caballero]

38. As much as China is criticized

their policy limiting children per household has been a success. There is no denying that.

[Cleita]

65. Actually, if they had given women equal rights and access to

contraception, it would have been an equal success without the forced mandate.

[MineralMan]

43. The reason for this thread is to get suggestions, not defeatism.

You seem to think that we needn't do anything since nature's going to kill us off at some point. That's not a suggestion about doing something. It's just saying that we can't affect the problem. So, it's not really responsive to the thread.

China is attempting to do something. It's working rather well for China, even though it doesn't match up well with our philosphy in the western world.

So, what's your suggestion? Breed until we are wiped out? Sorry, but I don't find that to be a serious suggestion.

[Cleita]

62. Anything that suggests that treating women like they do in China to

force them to have only one child, including very late term forced abortions, is not acceptable anymore than Senator Nelson's abortion language in the health bill is. It's misogynistic any way you look at it. I know that you are sincere but your brainwashing in patriarchalism needs some working on. Only women can decide what happens to their bodies and to suggest otherwise makes us no better than societies who stone women for having sex.

[MineralMan]

75. Patriarchal.

Damn. I think only women SHOULD have any say in what happens to their bodies. I discussed the need to find a way to prevent men from impregnating women who did not want to bear a child at that time. That seems the prime issue, to me. Women would, I am quite certain, be pregnant less often if they had a choice. In many parts of the world, they have no such choice.

I have never suggested that it should fall only to women to control their reproduction. I have suggested that they should have that ability and that men should not be able to force reproduction on women. Someone in the thread said that "girls" should be educated about reproduction, but didn't mention the concept of educating boys about their responsibilities.

Uff da!

[Cleita]

84. This is why women need equality under the law and the ability to tell

their men how many children they are willing to bear. That means women have to be in charge. It may mean some marriages end because the men want children and their wives don't, but at least there is a freedom of choice for both not just one gender. I have known such situations and both parties moved on finding spouses more compatible to their desires in starting families.

[MineralMan]

90. Well, I agree with that 100%.

[bettyellen]

105. oh, i see your misunderstanding re: who shld get eduacted, stats show the more education girls get

the lower the birthrate... that's referring to all schooling- not just being educated about birth control!
i'd guess it;s because sucjh places also have a wider range of options for women to work, so they have more possiblilties than being a lifelong mother/ wife.

[SPedigrees]

109. They treat men and animals just as badly as women in China.

That country does not discriminate when it comes to abuse. They are raping their environment as well. They have the corner on greed and barbarism.

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberal_at_heart]

32. getting medical care and birth control to impoverished nations

[MineralMan]

35. What about the population of the affluent nations?

It's growing just as fast. What do we do about that?

[liberal_at_heart]

42. If you look at historical data you find that the birth rate of affluent nations has hit a plateau

The real problem with affluent nations is that their death rate also decreases and so you still have too many people. I am an idealist on many issues but when it comes to overpopulation I am a realist. People are not going to start killing off old and sick people just so we don't overpopulat the Earth. My mother and grand mother both died in their early thirties due to breast cancer. I have tested positive for a gene that causes inherited breast cancer. I have taken surgical steps to make sure I don't get cancer. In terms of the Earth my mother and grandmother dying were good for the Earth. It was not good for me, and I am not going to lay down and die so that I can do my part. I have two children including an autistic son and I have a loving husband. I will fight to stay alive. Yes, we will come to a point where there are too many people on this Earth and we will have wars because we will be fighting over water and land and other natural resources. But we are not going to stop it from happening by trying to keep people from living. It's just not going to happen.

[MineralMan]

44. Not so. Here's a chart showing US population over time.

It doesn't show anything like what you have claimed. There is no plateau, and the curve is steepening.

[liberal_at_heart]

45. Your chart doesn't have a legend and you don't say where you get it from

I will do my own research thank you.

[MineralMan]

52. By all means. Go find a population growth chart for the US and

post it here. It will show the same data.

[liberal_at_heart]

93. I'm not the best at searching on the internet but here are a couple of interesting links I found

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography

http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html

[Hannah Bell]

139. That's a POPULATION chart, not a birthrate chart. If not for immigration

population growth in the US would be pretty flat since the 70s.

"Legal immigration to the U.S. increased from 250,000 in the 1930s, 2.5 million in the 1950s, 4.5 million in the 1970s, and 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s.<19>

Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S.

Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever at over 37,000,000 legal immigrants.

Illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year with a net of at least 700,000 illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already there.<20> (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates <8>)

Immigration led to a 57.4% increase in foreign born population from 1990 to 2000.<21>"

[MineralMan]

149. I am less concerned with birthrate than I am with population.

You've already made the point that the birthrate is decreasing, at least in some places. It has not been reduced to replacement level or below in most populations.

The total population, which is the measure that determines resource usage, continues to rise in a very steep curve. That is a fact. Will that change? Perhaps. We shall see, or at least those of us young enough to live for another 50 years will see. I'm not of that age.

[Hannah Bell]

164. in fact, it's basically near or at replacement on every continent but africa.

and africa's population density is low in most places.



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



population growth in the us since the 80s is almost entirely due to immigration: same in europe.

it's not population that determines resource usage.

The average power consumption of low-population density, low birthrate US = >2000 units/person.

In high density, high birthrate ethiopia = 22.

[kelly1mm]

50. Not true if you take births only into account. Births+immigration

is the only way most affluent nations have positive population growth at all. If the US outlawed all immigration our population growth would be almost zero and lots of European nations would have negative population growth. Should we try that?

[Don Caballero]

36. If we really want to reverse the damages done by overpopulation, it must be a worldwide effort

The United States could be the first and test out the one child policy, fines on those who defy that policy, and very aggressive carbon taxes. In order to truly work, all nations must follow suit however.

[anonymous171]

46. You do realize how unconstitutional that would be don't you? nt

[Don Caballero]

49. When it comes to saving mankind

The Constitution really shouldn't matter. Do not get me wrong I am a true believer in the document, but climate change due to overpopulation is destroying our planet.

[anonymous171]

53. So we have to destroy the Constitution to save it. nt

[Don Caballero]

59. First of all I do not see anything I advocated as unconstitutional

Secondly, we have a planet that is dying and dying faster everyday. The amount of people on Earth is directly proportional to the expediency and overall devastation of global climate change.

[anonymous171]

72. Population controls would violate the right to privacy,

which incidentally also guarantees women the right to an abortion.

[Don Caballero]

80. I am very much in favor of abortion

I do not see how forced birth control would violate privacy rights.

[Gormy Cuss]

124. The stress on the planet is a combination of population and use of resources..

and in most cases the more affluent countries, those with the lowest birth rates, also have higher carbon footprints per capita.


(graph from the U. N. Human Development site)

It's not just an issue of reproduction, it's an issue of lifestyles.

[Don Caballero]

129. I totally agree

Resources must be centralized and then doled out proportionately. Together with aggressive forced birth control we may just have enough time to reverse the cataclysmic climate change.

[spoony]

207. Hey, George

I remember when you said that to save humanity from terrorism the Constitution really shouldn't matter.

[liberal_at_heart]

56. but if it's for the good of the nation or the good of the world then we don't need the constitution

:sarcasm:


I've seen liberals take pages from the conservative rule book before but this is a new one. Yes, we probably are in for a doomsday scenario when it comes to overpopulation but we can't give up our humanity trying to stop it. If we stop people from having children and kill off old an sick people so that we can preserve our world for future generations then we have accomplished the same thing as if we overpopulate the Earth and start wars over natural resources. We lose our humanity.

[Hannah Bell]

141. we don't need a one child policy. we're already at replacement rate.

[KansDem]

54. Over 50 posts and not one mention of "religion"

It seems to me the obstacles religion places on birth control needs to be addressed.

"Go forth and multiply" should be the cry of the recently-graduated math or accounting student...

[anonymous171]

57. Not true, #18 mentions it. nt

[KansDem]

67. Sorry...thanks for the correction...

I did a "ctrl-F" using "religion" and didn't come up with anything. I missed no. 18 when I was pursuing the posts.

Thanks...:hi:

[MineralMan]

60. See #14 and the post it replies to.

There are other posts in the thread that bring up the role religion plays. You may have to read the thread, rather than make assumptions about it.

[KansDem]

70. See no. 67

I did read the thread but missed these two posts.

But thank you for your advice...

[MineralMan]

154. See #57

[dems_rightnow]

61. Staying within Constitutional guidelines...

... what would you do about religion?????

[MineralMan]

87. Make religion a non-issue for people who don't follow

religion. Catholicism controlled contraception in this country until the late 1960s. When I was a teenager, you had to be 21 years old to buy condoms in California, and each package said, "For prevention of disease only." That was there because of the influence of the Catholic church. Never mind that a majority of Californians were not Catholics. Oral contraception ended that whole business, because doctors could prescribe it as they chose, but it was fought tooth and nail by the Catholics.

We must not allow religions to force laws into adoption. And yet, that has gone on, and still goes on. We don't have national marriage equality because religious organizations use their power and money to fight laws that would normalize marriage rights.

Our Constitution is not being followed. Not at all, when it comes to the power religion has on our laws. I'd like it to be followed.

[Cleita]

68. The first few posts including the OP mentions it. n/t

[SPedigrees]

123. It is interesting. Of my own and my husband's immediate families

my hubby's one religious whacko brother is the one with 5 or 6 kids. (He'd have more if his dad hadn't sprung for a vasectomy when his wife couldn't get her tubes tied at the RW hospital that delivered their kids.) His repro rates exceed all the rest of our collective offspring:

me and hubby = 0 kids
my sister & husband = 2 kids
hubby's sis & her husband = 1 kid
hubby's other brother & wife = 1 kid

So yeah I'd say the religious wingnuts are largely responsible for overpopulating this country.

[Hannah Bell]

179. religion has very little to do with birthrates.

[Hello_Kitty]

58. It needs to become socially acceptable not to procreate

Even in "permissive" societies like this one, you have people trying to make you feel guilty or abnormal for not being a parent as evidenced by that flippant comment you got. As a result, a lot of people have kids because its expected and everyone else does it and don't give serious thought to whether parenting is something they even want to do. I honestly believe that if one little shift in the cultural paradigm - that not having kids is just as worthy a choice as having them - were embraced the birth rate would drop precipitously. I really don't think coercive measures are necessary. Give people a choice.

[MineralMan]

73. That's a good point.

There is a lot of pressure for people to have children, from their parents and grandparents, and from society as a whole.

More than once, I've been called selfish for not having children. I've never figured that one out. I support other people's children via my property taxes, often the very people calling me selfish. I have time to volunteer for organizations like Big Brother/Big Sister to mentor kids who have no effective parenting.

I have volunteered in local schools and libraries all my adult life, always working directly with kids to help them learn how to learn.

I know many other childless or "child free" people, and they all get this accusation, as if we somehow detract from society by not making babies. It's really a puzzle to me.

As I said, I have sometimes questioned my decision, since I don't have children to keep me company in my old age, but my child-free status let me and my wife move halfway across the country to help care for my wife's mother and her now-deceased husband. We could do that because we didn't have to live in any particular place. My own parents have two other of their offspring living in the same town, so they have that help, now that they're in their mid-80s. My sister-in-law, who lives in the same city as my M-I-L, have a child and rarely even visit my mother-in-law. If my wife and I hadn't moved here, she'd be alone almost all the time.

Selfish. What an odd thing to call people who don't have children.

[Hello_Kitty]

115. Exactly. It's an incredibly loaded and powerful term.

"Selfish"

IOW, you aren't conforming to what they want.

[MineralMan]

150. Screw 'em, then.

I'll be 65 this year. Odds are that I'll be checking out before it all goes kablooie. At least I didn't contribute to the mess.

[clear eye]

125. Back when an older friend of mine was a child in a French Catholic community in Maine,

his father became infertile after having two children. All his friends and relatives asked him how was it he wasn't having more children, b/c as good Catholics they got the message from the pulpit that large families were expected of them.

From what I hear, that is the case in some Latin American and some African countries today. The priests sermonize and give awards to couples w/ the largest families, etc. The message has the most impact on poorer, less educated people there--just the people who have the hardest time feeding their children. The church has also lobbied successfully against including birth control & birth control info at public health clinics in their communities.

Even w/o the danger of over-populating ourselves into extinction (& taking most of the other species on the planet along w/ us), the hardship and suffering caused by large families in the barrios, makes the Church's pressure obstinate and immoral in my book.

[MineralMan]

151. More souls to save for Jebus. Feh!

[Hannah Bell]

180. you've got a thing about catholics, i see. but it's bullshit. there's no correlation between

catholicism & # children/woman.

[clear eye]

211. I am critical of certain tenets of Catholicism, not "Catholics"

but you always see yourself as the only moral person on DU. You treat anyone who disagrees w/ you on any single thing as the enemy.

The church dictates no birth control calling it a sin, preaches large families, and tries its best where it can to prevent gov'ts from offering birth control in public clinics. Even conservative Protestant sects generally only concern themselves w/ abortion and leave birth control alone, except to oppose teaching it in school to teenagers (bad enough but less harmful to poor families than calling it a sin even for married couples).

And I find that stance repugnant not b/c it causes high usage of resources, b/c I'm well aware that 1st world countries have a much higher use of resources/person than do poorer nations, but because it exacerbates poverty, causes emotional and physical suffering in the women under its influence (puts them b/t a rock and a hard place), and increases the number of starving babies. Doesn't help the AIDS situation much either.

I deeply resent being called a bigot.

[Meldread]

63. Children's Education & Welfare Fund Tax

It's proven that a disincentive will discourage people from having children.

What we'd want to do is to discourage people from having more children, unless they REALLY want them. If they want children, then they need to accept the consequences and responsibilities. However, you can't just chase after people with a big stick, you need some honey too. Therefore here is my proposal.

There will be a tax on the parental income (both male and female) of any child born in the United States. This includes a child given up for adoption. This money will be placed into a fund that the government cannot touch. It belongs to the children. These funds go toward every child's education and other needs, and would ideally be enough to ensure that a child not only completes grade school but also is able to go to college. It will tax up to 8% of each parents income, scalable depending on the cost of covering the children in the system, with an additional 1% per additional child if the 8% mark is reached. Each parent will be sent a bill each month letting them know how much they owe to the Children's Education & Welfare Fund - this discourages them from having more children.

Those who choose NOT to have children will not pay this tax. Additionally, adoption will be made easier for families who want children. The tax will only apply to biological parents and not adoptive parents. Surgical procedures that sterilize adults (must be at least 21 to qualify) will be free and fully subsidized.

This is the best way to handle it within the United States. Those that wish to have children will have to learn to take the responsibilities along with it.

[Gregorian]

64. Skinner, please let us have a population forum.

What does it take? There is a Dreadful Great forum, Daily Show forum, and all kinds of trivial forums. Why not the single most important issue facing all of mankind forum?


No, we can't discuss it. It's wrong. It's wrong because everyone has children, and they don't want to discuss it. This shouldn't be about blame. Although I'll admit I'm pretty fucking pissed off about it. It should be about what to do now. Because all of the Priuses and all of the kings men cannot put this Humpty together faster than dealing with population will.

[BeFree]

86. Yes

Just like the gays rightfully have a forum where they are free to discuss that problem, we need a forum and the freedom to discuss this issue.

**************

As to a solution to this problem: quit having babies. Men should be born with a condom and only allowed to take it off after they are old and ugly and only after the pop of the Earth has gone down to a sustainable level. And that level would be at a level where cheap energy (except for the free sun's energy) is factored out.

What I have missed in this thread, however, is at the root of why we haven't controlled the population of humans. That is: Why? Why should we control our population? I have an inkling....

[Gregorian]

126. Just an example for your previous post

My father didn't want children. My mother insisted. Finally my dad decided to get a vasectomy. This was in 1959. He actually had to have a letter from a clergyman in order to have the operation. This was what I was told. It may not have been a requirement for everyone? I'm not sure. But it's the sentiment. How dare people not get married. And how dare they not have children. Well, I'm 53 and happy to have neither. Although recently I've grown nostalgic over the colorful life I lived in my younger days. Hm, I'm wandering here. :)

[greyl]

66. We need to stop the race between food production and population.

Increased food production results in increased population.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

194. No! Cap it and improve distribution. nt

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

215. Hell no! Jebus, try applying your imagination to the interest of good, why don't ya. nt

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

182. uh, no, it doesn't. the first world's birthrates have gone down near universally since

the turn of the 20th century.

Their food production exploded. Their birthrates declined to replacement level & below.

[greyl]

193. 2 things.

1. As a whole, the so-called First World population has continued to increase, along with food production.
2. In any case, it was never stated that the population increase occurs locally.

According to the empirical research (Hopfenberg 2003), human population growth is a rapidly cycling positive feedback loop in which food availability drives population growth and this growth in human numbers gives rise to the mistaken impression that food production needs to be increased even more.

The data of Hopfenberg (2003) and Hopfenberg and Pimentel (2001) indicate that the world’s human population—all segments of it—grows by approximately 2% per year, including more people with brown eyes and more with blue eyes; more tall people and more short people; and more people who grow up well fed and more who grow up hungry. We may or may not be reducing hunger by increasing food production; however, we are most certainly producing more and more hungry people. The evidence suggests that the remarkably successful efforts of humankind to increase food production to feed a growing population results in even greater increase in population numbers.

more: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1332674/

Climate change and an increasing population could trigger a global food crisis in the next half century as countries struggle for fertile land to grow crops and rear animals, scientists warned yesterday.

To keep up with the growth in human population, more food will have to be produced worldwide over the next 50 years than has been during the past 10,000 years combined, the experts said.
-
The global population has risen substantially in recent decades. Between 1980 and 2000 it rose from 4.4bn to 6.1bn and food production increased 50%. By 2050 the population is expected to reach 9bn.
-
more: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/31/climatechange.food

[Hannah Bell]

195. first world population increases, since approximately the 70s, due to immigration.

birthrates world-wide in steady decline since beginning of 20th century.

last doubling took ~50 years. Next one will take somewhat longer. We're already on the downside of the curve.

US cut back on acreage being farmed since approximately 60s, but production continued to expand.

[shadowknows69]

79. I have a bad feeling it's going to take care of itself soon.

Either by Mother Earth's hand or our own self destructive ones.

[MineralMan]

82. Well, people have been having that bad feeling since Malthus.

So far, it hasn't slowed the steepening of the curve, and it continues to steepen.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

183. no, his predictions were based on the assumption that people would

not voluntarily limit their family sizes.

But they did.

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

187. no, i wouldn't say. Children per woman over the entire first world = below replacement rate.

Second world = at or near replacement rate.

World fertility rate = 2.6 children/woman, on target for 2.5 within years.

Only the 3rd world, the poorest countries, still have very high fertility rates, but declining too.

We're past the height of the curve on fertility, & if trends continue, world population will start declining shortly after 2050.

[tabatha]

81. Here is a cynical, somewhat funny column about people in numbers

Hell is people from other places
From the way they act, you'd think this was a galaxy far, far away ..

http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article246629.ece

[The2ndWheel]

92. Anything we do will cause its own problems

America, Western Europe, they still utilize immigration. Why? Because nations can't actually have decreasing populations. It's no different than a functioning government. Can a government function with decreasing tax revenues? At some point, no. It's no different than a functioning corporation. How long can a corporations stay in business with fewer people buying their products? At some point, not very long.

If we have too few people, how are we going to sustain everything? If we have too many people, how are we going to sustain everything? There isn't some magic number to people on the planet.

"Since it's clear that overpopulation exacerbates many problems"

Yet there wouldn't be overpopulation if everything else didn't exist at the same time. Medical advances assist overpopulation. The vast availability of food assists overpopulation. Our social programs assist overpopulation. Again, at the same time, overpopulation, since we try to help everyone, assists medical advances, food availability, social programs, etc. You can't just "fix" overpopulation, and have everything else remain the same. You try to fix that one thing, and everything changes, and not necessarily in the way that you want it to change. Not even in the way you think it will change. But it will change.

The only true fair way to deal with it, would be to not attempt to control any aspect of it, and let the chips fall where they may. Even that would be unfair. Since that isn't an option anyway, and any attempt at control will cause something somewhere to be unfair, you'll never get an agreed upon answer to a question like this.

Our solutions will cause the problems. They always do. It doesn't matter what we do. There is no perfect state to existence. Existence is far too complicated for that. Fix problem 1, and problem 2 pops up. Fix problem 2, and you'll find a 3rd problem. Fix problem 3, and you'll find that the solution to problem 1 didn't take something into account, which makes problem 1 a problem again. Try to fix that, and you'll get a 4th problem, which also changes the solution to problem 2, making that a problem again, and now you're trying to fix two problems. The solution to problems 2 and 4, creates the next 3 problems.

Everything we do, all of our institutions, are based on growth. Governments need people. Corporations need people.

[The Straight Story]

95. We could move everyone in the world to Texas and they would 1000sq ft to live in

The world population is fine.

Between climate change and population control we might as well face up to the fact that those two items will be used well to whip up fear and control an entire world population.

[Gregorian]

127. That's like holding up a white piece of paper, and claiming ANWR is just fine for oil drilling.

I am sorry to have to break the news to you, but it isn't fine.

[The Straight Story]

144. People have been saying it was not fine for a really long time, and yet it still is

Folks need terror/end of the world/population/oil/etc to whip up fear which they will use to force people to live their lives the way they want them to.

[Gregorian]

166. Global warming.

That is just one example of overpopulation. It's because too many people are burning fuel. The fuel isn't burning itself.

Do you understand the exponential function? If not, you might want to learn about it. There are many many symptoms of overpopulation. It's as solid as global warming being a fact. Yet people don't want to accept that either.



Edit- forgive me if I seem serious about this. I've spent forty years studying this subject. I've never found a reason yet to think that it was anything but an extremely serious situation.

[JVS]

106. Strengthening the social safety net.

[LWolf]

111. Good questions, and a substantive topic,

even if you seem determined to object to my engaging in it.

Honestly? I hate the idea of authoritarian legislative control over reproduction. I don't, though, trust my species to be responsible just because it's the right thing to do. If we could, there wouldn't be an issue. I don't think we should do nothing while the population doubles in increasingly shorter spans of time.

To start at home in the U.S.:

Turn tax deductions upside down. A generous deduction for those with no biological children, a smaller deduction for those with one biological child, no deduction and no tax for 2 children, and a carbon tax on every child past 2.

Education: A massive effort to educate the populace of the world about the need for responsible reproductive choices.

Also, a cultural shift away from children as the means to self-completion.

Free birth control, sterilization, and abortion on demand across the globe.

What else? Something more aggressive? I'm not on board with it, but my mother has, for decades, suggested:

Automatic sterilization of males upon puberty, to be reversed when they are educated, self-supporting, and able to support a child.

When I pointed out the gender inequality in this idea, she replied that vasectomies were safer and less intrusive than tubal ligation, and that if a way could be found to do the same reversible process for girls, she'd be all for that.

I don't think I'd support something like this unless better, and more reliably reversible methods were available for both genders, and unless the less restrictive solutions were not working.

Still, we require a license for pet owners. Why not for parents?

[Kaleva]

121. "I was lucky enough to marry two women who also understood the problem"

Kudos to you! Most of us consider ourselves lucky if we are married to just one understanding woman.

[MineralMan]

152. I've been fortunate in my marriages.

I remain friends with my first wife, and am still married to my second, and will remain so.

First lasted 17 years. Second, 18. Both are fine people.

[flvegan]

128. Spay/neuter program for children.

Including a TNR (trap-neuter-release) program for the kids in the neighborhood.

:hide:

[LeftyMom]

130. If you release them they'll just get diseases and get hit by cars, asshole. nt

[MineralMan]

158. Perhaps a bit extreme, but certainly a functional plan.

I doubt it's practical, though.

[Terra Alta]

133. limit people to two children.

one of each gender.
I am childfree myself, made that decision about 10 years ago and never regretted it. I don't want to bring children into this already overpopulated world.

[dysfunctional press]

136. mandatory population control...?

how would that work under our constitution, and all...?
most people's religions tell them to be fruitful and multiply.

[Ferret Annica]

138. Most religions are meant to manage and control people,

not look out for live in the bigger pictures of the health of Earth's myriad of ecosystems.

The Mainland Chinese have made hard decisions in population control that would not fly here well, but I could see supporting such laws here.

Until humanity gets it's population under control, we are all on a joyride on a bus with no driver that is heading for a cliff.

[MineralMan]

153. Religion is irrelevant to our government, or should be, if the

Constitution were followed.

[dysfunctional press]

168. mandatory population control would would prohibit free exercise of people's religion...

a VERY BIG constitutional no-no.

i would think that you would be aware of that.

[LanternWaste]

140. Countries with the highest access to education have the lowest birth rates.

For the most part, countries and nation-states with the most access to higher education, AND have a moderate standard of living or higher have the lowest birth rates (sans any legislative restrictions). Countries and nations which are impoverished and/or still forced to practice subsistence living practices have the highest birth rates.

Share the means of production. Share the education. The rest will follow.

[Hannah Bell]

142. +!

[MineralMan]

157. I'd certainly support that. If the money we spent waging war could

be spent on education, it would be well spent.

[roamer65]

145. The population eventually will be controlled.

Either through dwindling resources, climate change or World War III or a mix of all 3. I don't have lot of confidence that it will be done voluntarily.

[20score]

155. I've thought about starting a non-profit concerning this issue.

1. Education about overpopulation and its effects.
2. As much economic help as possible to third world countries - meaning long-term, with a fundamental change in their economies.
3. Educate women giving them control over their own bodies. Which means changing the culture in some places - that won't be easy.
4. Massive world-wide distribution of contraception.
5. Programs that encourage conservation over destruction.

[Hello_Kitty]

160. 6. Non-parenthood as a legitimate life choice.

You have economists and politicians calling people who choose not to be parents "free riders" and suggesting they shouldn't get retirement benefits. There is a definite top-down encouragement of procreation, and it's not just from the churches.

[20score]

167. Agreed.

[MineralMan]

156. What about long-term contraceptives?

Like Norplant, I mean. I know there are downsides to these, but would offering them freely to women, worldwide, be something worthwhile to do? No coercion, but make them available with full disclosure of risks, to anyone who wanted them.

Or other long-term contraceptive devices. There have been some bad ones, historically, but are there ones with minimal side effects that could be made available at no charge to anyone who wanted them? All are, I believe, reversible.

[Gormy Cuss]

169. Irradiation of the gonads.

That will solve the problem. Maybe an ammonia rinse too just to be sure.

[smalll]

171. How do we ecourage a reduction in the rate of population increase? -- PROMOTE PROSPERITY --

Promote prosperity. I'm not going to explain it any more than that. Google up the facts. :shrug:

[Bucky]

181. Actually, prosperity tends to add a short term boost to birth and infant survival rates.

When Egypt started economically growing in the 1950s and 60s, there was a big boost to birth rates. At the same time a growing middle class had access to better sanitation and child care, decreasing infant mortality. Since no serious effort was made toward a birth control policy, they just goddamn exploded over there. Now's it's awash in poverty and misery and there's a growing conservatism (tho not too much of a radicalism problem... yet).

You can't just expand wealth... you have to change attitudes and change the economic calculaation of expanding family sizes. The stronger leverage point is to educate women. This tends to limit family sizes and thus produce less of a knock-on disaster with urban crowding. But it's all a slow process.

I think we're gonna start seeing more large die-off events in the coming decades. A bunch of Dutch doctors, UN advisers, and Canadian engineers telling Muslim Somali villagers to quit making so many babies is not going to make for a natural sell. It's too easy for a local bossman, jealous of outside interference, to denounce any such advice as a decadent western plot to depopulate their nation.

[Hannah Bell]

185. Egypt has never been a prosperous country for most of its people.

It's always been economically divided, with a thin layer of westernized elites on top & a mass of poor. Egypt (fertility rate = 3.17) isn't what the poster is talking about.

[Bucky]

188. When they built the Aswan Dam, they provided a boost to jobs, electrified villages, improved health

In the midcentry its birthrate was higher than 3.2 and its poverty rate was shrinking. Today the poverty rate is growing, but a lot of its population stresses came about because of its growth after WW2.

[Hannah Bell]

189. "poverty rate shrinking" doesn't = achieved a middle class society. It never happened.

There's always a bump at the beginning of the demographic transition; more children survive. It happened in the US & Europe too.

But they completed the transition by consolidating agriculture & distributing consumption wealth more widely. Thus, fertility rates dropped.

[Romulox]

174. Unchecked population growth essentially moots environmentalism.

Nor is choosing to have a half a dozen children more environmentally sound than any other sort of overconsumption simply because one may divide the environmental consequences of one's actions by the number of (newly created!) persons in order to produce a more favorable "per capita" number...

[Kaleva]

186. It's more of a distribution of resources problem then an overpopulation problem.

Here in the US, we pay farmers to keep acreage idle and not plant crops.

[bertman]

191. Worldwide it's more about the destruction of resources that are required to have a decent

standard of living: clean air (forests not industry contribute to this), clean water (we are fouling our water and sucking our aquifers dry), natural spaces (look at the cities, the concrete jungles that are sprawling in virtually every nation on the planet), fertile soils (we are poisoning them with pesticides and herbicides and overuse, not to mention covering some of the most fertile land with asphalt and concrete and homes).

Humans are currently a cancer on this planet. We need to shrink our numbers and grow our awareness of how to live in harmony with the planet.

So, I disagree with your theory of the problem. And I dread the day when India and China and Mexico and Brazil and Liberia and Thailand and every other nation feels they have to be able to live like us. Which is what they all strive for now. Not going to be a pretty picture, no matter how well we distribute the resources.

Recommend this thread highly.

Mineral Man, I adopted your stance when I was a young man and have had a similar experience it seems. I love my stepdaughters like my own, but I do not feel any regret for my decision to help reduce our numbers. Now I'm trying to keep my footprint as light as a middle-class American can. Thanks for the post.

[Hannah Bell]

196. From 1980 to the present US consumption of electricity per capita

went up about 50%.

Did our average standard of living go up 50%? Are we 50% better off than in 1980?

I think not. I believe most of the increase went to elites, in the form of $$$$.

A "decent standard of living" doesn't require US-style resource use.

[Kaleva]

197. Homes used to have 60 amp fuze panels. Now 200 amp CB panels are the norm.

[Hannah Bell]

200. so what? is the average person in the US's lifestyle 50% better than in 1980?

imo, no, not anywhere near.

[Kaleva]

205. What size panel do you have?

If you have a 100 amp or 200 amp panel, you are spending more for something that, according to you, makes no improvement in your life. Altough I think code requires that the panel be a 100 amp minimum.

[bertman]

209. You're correct about the 100 amp panel, at least in our area, Kaleva.

[bertman]

210. Correlating standard of living to consumption of electricity sounds specious to me, but

I get your point, Hannah Bell. Although, if one thinks that using an electric tooth-brush, electric razor, electric can openers, electric knives are improvements in standard of living, I guess there's a weak argument to be made.

We now have so many electrical components in our homes that we are continuously pulling amperage off the lines. At my house we have two TeeVees with cable boxes, DVD recorders, two computers, a printer/fax/scanner, a stereo, electric clocks in three rooms, a range with clock. (And we no longer have kids in the house) These "vampires" are constantly sucking electricity unless someone has a system that shuts off power to the devices.

Ever notice how office buildings and many shops leave their lights on overnight even though no one is there? I am constantly telling my nephews to wait just a minute or two when they go outside at night so their eyes can adjust to the conditions. But they just flip on the flood lights to walk to the car, which is simply bad training and a bad habit. Same with turning on lights every time you walk into a room, but NOT turning them off when you leave.

Back in the 50's and 60's GE was really pushing the Total Electric Home. Looks like their campaign worked.

ON EDIT: I forgot cell phone chargers that stay plugged in, cordless phones that stay plugged in and won't work when power outages occur (a great reason to keep at least one old-style, cord phone in the house.

[onpatrol98]

190. Do Nothing

Perhaps we simply cannot truly control the earth's population. In fact, it may even be a bit arrogant to presume that we can. I can't imagine some grand treaty of countries agreeing to reduce the number of children produced. I kind of like the idea of free contraceptives though. Although, there are opportunities for free contraceptives now in the US that are a tad bit under utilized.

[nadinbrzezinski]

192. Education

and as is countries like the former USSR are on a negative growth curve, so is Japan, and a few European countries.

The only reason the US is still on positive numbers is immigration.

But we need to expand the education of girls in the developing world on a massive scale, as well as make available job opportunities, and health clinics.

In the US we need to follow the example of Bull Hall and EDUCATE immigrants, not just into being American, but into the rights that women have in a modern economy and society. Many of these kids are coming from very traditional societies.

And yes, given that we are at a critical point in the mass extinction, we may have to force things along with laws... and I hate to say that. Then again... mother nature may do this for us, and just go there on her own. As is, we are the Apex species, and 99% of all species alive are now dead... so we may join them soon. WE ARE an apex species after all.

[madokie]

199. I made that same decision but earlier in life

I knew a lot of un dad kids as a kid growing up and I've got a shitpot full of brothers to carry on the name so I decided that I wanted to be a person who tried to be the father of someone else's kids. Raised two boys and not a penny of help in any way from their real fathers. I may not have any kids of my own but I have a real grand daughter, We've all agreed that she is my grand daughter and thats the way it is. Oh and I'm just plain ole Dave to my sons, not dad as I wanted them to know who their real dad is/was. I couldn't love them anymore if they were of my own genes.
Their mother and I fell in love when I first came back from 'Nam but I was too bug nuts at the time to handle a relationship so we parted but stayed friends and then one day it just happened, been married now for a few months shy of 20 years.

Sometimes others kids need parents, thats where I came in.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

212. Definitely not mandatory that would meet to much resistance but condoms should globally be free and

abundant. There should be stores in town centers just handing them out each weekend no questions asked. A limited amount per person so there is enough for everyone. Developing countries need this more than any place too with a huge awareness campaign by red cross in how it won't just lower poverty but help the environment, I mean Africa was one of the most concerned after all. It ultimately ends a lot of thing terrorism, war, discontent, famine, eco disaster and continues the survival of the human species.

[blindpig]

218. Capitalism exacerbates overpopulation.

Capitalism makes the majority poor and poverty is a great cause of higher reproductive rates.

[raccoon]

219. First world citizens are the ones using the lion's share of the resources. "We have met the enemy

and he is us."

I know I'm spitting in the wind...but I can only try. :sigh:

[cbdo2007]

220. Well, my wife and I are planning to have 4 kids but I think everyone else should just have 1.

I'm guessing that's how this discussion will go. I did "such and such" but everyone else needs to get educated or adopt or only have 1 kid or 2 kids or blah blah blah.

Don't worry about overpopulation...nature has a way of evening things out, even if that means humans destroying themselves.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

222. No. I have 2, and intend to remain that way. Exactly because of the reasons laid out in this thread.

Hint: not everybody is a hypocrite.

[cbdo2007]

223. I wasn't trying to call people out for being hypocrites necessarily.....

...like its not like people saying one thing but doing another. Hmmm, here's my xample...

Wife and I did IVF last year to have a kid, but don't mention it on here or people will come out of the woodwork with the whole "there are enough kids out there who need a family, why are you so selfish to do IVF which is so unnatural...blah blah blah..." when it's our right to have a kid, with whatever means we want. Just because we couldn't have kids naturally, it isn't our duty to adopt any more than it is someone who's had 5 kids. It's different.

So my complaint comes more with people who tell other people what to do with anything involving procreation, because things are going to even out. If someone's reasoning is that IVF uses medicine to unnaturally create kids, then the counterargument is the number of people who die unnaturally ever year from mixed medications, etc.

[cbdo2007]

224. Maybe a good point - anyone else notice an increase in infertile males you know lately?

When thinking about all of my friends and family and acquaintances, more and more of them it seems are needing help getting pregnant due to low/damaged sperm counts from the male. Anyone think this is caused by laptops, wi-fi signals, cell phones, etc? Or more by diets?

We're all in our late 20's now and it seems like you didn't hear about this as much 15 years ago in the "reproductive generation" before ours. I can probably think of at least 10 close friends/acquaintances who have low sperm count/damaged sperm males.