It is generally accepted that overall populations are too high and an ideal world population would be a fraction of present levels. Yet few governments or institutions have been successful in inducing people to voluntarily control their numbers.
Is this even possible with our present political structures? Is it desirable, necessary or manditory? Where do we start?

Originally posted by plumranch
It is generally accepted that overall populations are too high and an ideal world population would be a fraction of present levels. Yet few governments or institutions have been successful in inducing people to voluntarily control their numbers.
Is this even possible with our present political structures? Is it desirable, necessary or manditory? Where do we start?

The best place to start would be over in the Skunkworks forum. I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with Aliens and/or UFOs.

We start by removing this topic and putting it where it belongs?

Revised. Let's move it. Sorry I posted.

[edit on 6/13/2007 by schuyler]

Voluntary population control will never work for a number of reasons.

In developed and developing countries where the population growth is the lowest we have a society based on ever-increasing consumption. It makes no mind that resources are being stripped and that the world is being poisoned to death, we all must pay homage to the god of continuous economic growth. If the population growth slows below the crttical percentage, capitalism mounts a propaganda campaign, the government starts offering child incentives and work places suddenly become "child friendly".
In Australia the slimy Treasurer wants people to have "one for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country." This would raise the birth rate by fifty percent in a country which is already running out of water with little hope of increasing its supply. Australia has "industrialists" (read capitalist scum) wanting to have the population doubled in a generation. These morons cannot see the finite limits on water and other resources because their feeble minds are overwhelmed with the glister of never-ending economic expansion.
All over the world nations have pushed resources to the limit in the pursuit of luxury and decadence. It is only a matter of time before it all comes crashing down. What of the excess population then? - starvation, violence and hopelessness.

In poorer countries, people have big families to provide for them in their old age. Due to the high rate of infant mortality and death due to disease and malnutrition, they have to have about twice as many children as they need for their aged care. A little social security for the elderly in poor countries would see their population growth plummet, but, again, capitalism needs vast quantities of poor people to exploit as slave workers and will oppose such social security as unnecessary. This is one of the reasons that capitalism supports corruption in resource-rich developing countries. By ensuring that money that really belongs to the whole people in a country is siphoned off at the higher levels, the poor receive no benefit and the poverty cycle with its high birth rate persists. Capitalism does not care that a high birth rate in poor countries also means a high rate of death, despair and degradation, all it cares about is more and more obscene profits.

Then we have religion. There are those that exalt the virtues of large families as being indicative of devotion to God's will. Others encourage large families so that they can outbreed other religions and become dominant. How compassionate is a religion that condemns many people to suffering and death by encouraging over-breeding?

Humanity evolved by living in extended family units. Capitalism has perverted human society by developing and demanding that people are crammed together in cities so that it can maximise its rip-off. Humans are evolutionarily incompetent in city situations and are able to be manipulated easily. The sense of belonging and security that an extended family gives is stripped away and replaced with a grasping, avaricious, selfish attitude which plays directly into the hands of the capitalist thugs. By replacing spiritual and community values with materialism and a permanently competitive philisophy, capitalism ensures that people do not work together in harmonious groups because harmonious groups use less and care more and capitalism cannot tolerate a thinking, questioning population.

The universal declaration of human rights gives everyone the right to unfettered breeding. There are a lot of other human rights which are abused but this one is upheld in practically every country. The one country which sees the folly of such an unreasoning declaration is denigrated and harangued because capitalism sees a reducing population as the greatest threat to its obscenities.

The world will continue to breed until self-destruction occurs - pity the survivors.

This issue keeps coming up in discussions about aliens and their views of us. One of which is that we are overpopulated and that we are not being a responsible race in that respect. The idea is that we may be a quarantined race till we somehow get our numbers under control.
From a human viewpoint we relate overpopulation with our percieved problems such as urban sprawl, undesireable aggricultural practices (slash and burn), atmosphere problems, disease, parasitism, reduction of wild areas, global warming and urban crowding to name a few.
It is true that some European countries have attained ZPG at least for now with no apparent national policy in that regard, in fact some countries like France and Germany have official policy that encourages childbirth as decreasing population is seen as a negative national asset.
The US has taken a "laisez fair" stance with an apparent unofficial policy of allowing as many selected foreign nationals as possible especially on the Mexican border as evidenced by its lack of either legislative action or enforcement. The result is a rapidly increasing population in certain segments where influx is unchecked. Thus the US is far from having a mechanism for population control in place.
It appears that we would need to identify population overgrowth with actual problems at a national level and then develope ways of dealing with overpopulation that are acceptable with the populace. I can't imagine that the Chinese model would work in any Western nation especially here in the US!
Incentives that could be considered would be penalties for children born over say 2 per couple, tax breaks for smaller familys and other financial incentives. Any such measures would probably be considered very controversial and political in nature. Proof of benifits beyond the esoteric would be essential.



[edit on 13-6-2007 by plumranch]

By Hippichick

In Australia the slimy Treasurer wants people to have "one for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country."

I understand Australia has often had politicians who are not in tune with their availability of resources especially aggricultural. Hopefully there are politicians there with opposing views. By the way I hear it is raining heavily in some areas and the drought is broken at least for now! In the recent best seller "Collapse!" the author makes the case that Australia has the carrying capacity of about 1/2 its present population!

Capitalism has perverted human society by developing and demanding that people are crammed together in cities so that it can maximise its rip-off.

I would call this more of a side effect of development in general. Urbanization is the result with all its problems. When I think of severe environmental problems the 2 countries that come to mind are Haiti and Madagasgar. They have all but ruined their formerly beautiful, rich environments. I would say their problems were more governmental in nature than a side effect of capitalism.
What is capitalism? It is a system of government that allows or encourages private development. This means that corporations can exist in these states. The corporations need the cooperation of their government and I can imagine this may lead to fraud, kickbacks and favoritism to the government to ensure the corporation's survival. I think you give too much credit to the corperations to say that they demand that people live in crowded conditions. The businesses need workers, they pay worker's wages, workers like to live near their workplace so crowding results. Corporations are a framework designed to make a profit for the shareholders. They must make a useful product or people will not want or buy it. Businesses need labor to produce a product. It's the most efficient system of production possible on earth. Other systems are wasteful by nature.

By replacing spiritual and community values with materialism and a permanently competitive philisophy, capitalism ensures that people do not work together in harmonious groups

Capitolism (ie. business) can exist in any spiritual or communal situation. Healthy business simply ensures that the goods and services that are produced are actually wanted and needed by the people and not what some politician or party thinks they need (or don't need).

The universal declaration of human rights gives everyone the right to unfettered breeding.

This is the "fly in the ointment". Noone wants their breeding rights stripped. It will take some major convincing for people to give up this one!

[edit on 13-6-2007 by plumranch]

Quote by Hippichick:

It makes no mind that resources are being stripped and that the world is being poisoned to death, we all must pay homage to the god of continuous economic growth.

Actually it is an economic fact that individual affluence encourages fewer children. This may be our only practical solution to overpopulation! Provide societies that allow the individual to prosper and become affluent and they will have fewer offspring. The reason is that to the affluent person, children are an expensive burden. The economic choices we make for our kids cost a lot eg. for medicine, education, clothes, computers, everything! Kids are also a burden in old age whereas for poor people kids are less expensive and may even make the family money when they are sent out to find jobs in agriculture or wherever jobs are available. Poor people need their children to provide for them in old age.
In addition poorer nations often have larger environmental problems because funds are scarce so environmental cleanup is not a priority. Funds go to more needy social areas. Affluent countries have both the funds and the priority to clean up the environment.
For more information regarding practical economics see:The Economics of Public Issues by Miller, Benjamin and North

By Cydonian Priest:

We start by removing this topic and putting it where it belongs?

1) I stated at the beginning of my 3rd post why this is a subject belonging in Aliens and UFOs.
2) If the Ads are not in agreement then let me know how to move it and where. I don't see the button to use.