Population Control - can it ever work?

There are many barriers to population control, some of them sensible others not so sensible.

The population of the earth could quite soon outstrip it's food production capacity - as it already has in some countries (although other factors remain)

We have different religions saying that contraception is against their religion, we have anti-abortionists (different topic I know, but it needs a mention), we have better healthcare and diet meaning we all live longer - where will it all end?

I can envisage a time when wars will be fought for food/water, with the world as we know it in disarray - due only to the fact that we are unable to control our numbers.

Can it ever work? Yes, just follow the teachings of Hitler and Stalin.

In other words, only if you think that you have the right to play God. Governments that think they can kill people at will, that they can tell you how many children you can have... Governments that think that it's right to kill a developing baby to lower the population.
It's disgusting.

People will still die. If wars are fought over food, obviously there would be a shortage. More people would die from that if it was desperate enough to start a war over. Your vision is impossible, since it completely ignores the fact that without sufficient food and water, population declines.
In other words, it is impossible to go that far past the carrying capacity of the Earth, since there's nothing to support that extra population. People would die of starvation, no matter what advances are made.

Unless we find a way to transport millions of people from this planet in the future to another habitable worlds, then it will not be a question of if population control can work but population control will have to work.

To make population control work, will need a global administration, and I fear many will say this is just what the NWO want but unless all the peoples of this earth want to control population then it will never happen.

Only a strong single global government will be able to control the population and that begs the question of how to physically control the population.

A drug to concieve a child would seem to be the most practical option and again this begs the question of who decides which people can have a child and if we get to the stage of population control, I can not see families with more than one child.

Another option would be something seen in a lot of sci-fi - licenses for children which is already seen, kind of, in China

countrystudies.us...

www.overpopulation.com...

It raises too many questions about civil liberties etc though and I for one would never advocate taking more freedom away from people.

With science and united world we can support a lot more people than today, but problem is not that big. By 2050 we can expect 9 billion and also space stations and so on. It seems population problem is a challenge for any growing civilization, we either expand and develop or we go back to stone age after some big war.

Originally posted by sb2012
With science and united world we can support a lot more people than today, but problem is not that big. By 2050 we can expect 9 billion and also space stations and so on. It seems population problem is a challenge for any growing civilization, we either expand and develop or we go back to stone age after some big war.

I'd actually argue against that, some estimates say 9 billion, others disagree
www.globalchange.umich.edu...
and the estimates are constantly changing.

Moreover, there is no way we can expectspace stations, a united earth or the science to support such large numbers of people.
dieoff.org...

And this is before we even get to fuels, the environment, luxury items, transportation etc etc

Originally posted by sb2012
With science and united world we can support a lot more people than today, but problem is not that big. By 2050 we can expect 9 billion and also space stations and so on. It seems population problem is a challenge for any growing civilization, we either expand and develop or we go back to stone age after some big war.

By 2050 I think we'll have alot more than 9 billion. We are approaching 7 billion rapidly right now. We are growing exponentially. 40 years ago, there were 3 billion of us. OK, if we continue at that growth rate (which is imposssible, because we grow exponentially) in another 40 years, there would be 7 billion plus 4 billion more. That makes 11 billion by 2047. That's not including the exponential factor, geez that's alot of people.

The history of over population has always been with us throughout history, it's just that it's never talked about. There's a wonderful book called "Cannibals and Kings" by Marvin Harris and it talks about this subject of overpopulation. The ancient ones, who didn't have high tech, suffered from overpopulation and used various forms of infanticide, abortion (with herbs or more brutally, by jumping on the mother's stomach until she miscarried), etc. The women went along with this, because they knew that if the population rate became too high, her existing children and the rest of the tribe would suffer and might well die from starvation, i.e. not enough food for everyone.

China has practiced enforced abortion on full term babies - to me this is a hideous practice
www.faculty.fairfield.edu...

It has also been enforced in Tibet, reportedly - probably due to chinese "influence" in that country.
www.tibet.ca...

Pentagon predicts 9 billion, i had some video from Thomas P.M. Barnett, he is one of the people who develop strategy for Pentagon. But i am not sure how they came to this number.

Originally posted by sb2012
Pentagon predicts 9 billion, i had some video from Thomas P.M. Barnett, he is one of the people who develop strategy for Pentagon. But i am not sure how they came to this number.

There's a of link posted about how they do this, and why there are different estimates, one of which (as Forestlady said) is based on the fact that human growth is exponential.

I'm also not sure on how far I'd trust the Pentagon on anything

Freedom ERP:
To make population control work, will need a global administration,

No we don't. Know what does work in the here and now? Just raise the living standard and people stop having children. Works here (if we could stop the flood of Mexicans and others) and it certainly has been effective in Europe.
The reason is economic. Affluent people have fewer kids as any child is an expense. We tend to make expensive choices for our kids. Education is expensive, clothes, childcare, gifts, computers, medical care is all costly. What is the return? Well.... a kid who is an adult that doesn't want to leave the house and get on with life... a constant burden in a lot of ways. The more money we have the fewer kids. For poor people kids are cheap. They don't spend much on kids cause they don't have the money to spend. Plus as the kids get older they can go out and get jobs and bring in money for the family. Poor people also can't afford birth control.
Rich countries pollute more....wrong. Rich countries have enough money to clean up their messes, do research on polutants and form superfunds to handle cleanups. Poor countries are overspent and can't clean up anything, look at Haiti! Haiti has got to be the worst but there are many more with similar problems. Madagasgar, what a beautiful island that used to be!

Know what does work in the here and now? Just raise the living standard and people stop having children. Works here (if we could stop the flood of Mexicans and others) and it certainly has been effective in Europe

And just how are we supposed to achieve this? It's taken hundreds of years and the rape of other nations to get Europe and the US to where they are now.
Not a sensible option - can't work.

Poor people also can't afford birth control.

Since when?
There are poor nations throughout the world who have plenty of birth control - this problem is more one of education about birth control.

Rich countries pollute more....wrong.

I'd be interested to see some facts about this - or is it just an opinion?

By Budski:
I'd be interested to see some facts about this - or is it just an opinion?

This is a fairly well known principle of Economics. I'm not at my library but let me explain. A poor country hasn't the resources to devote to more essoteric things as clean environment. What few resources it has must go to basics such as food and medicine.
Example: A friend's daughter was visiting a poor S. American country. Every morning trucks would go by heading to the beach. She found that they were garbage trucks and they dumped their loads directly into the ocean as it was cheaper than building a dump site.
So get a modern Econ text and read the part where they discuss economics relating to the environment and pollution problems.
Another interesting and relavant econ. principle relates to land ownership. If countries have ambiguous land ownership laws, ie. people do not have clear ownership of their land, they will not care for it as well and pollution problems result. Compare W. Germany with E. Germany. When E. Germany was opened to the west they had extreme pollution problems. Factories and individuals had been dumping wastes out their back door. The problem was that with state ownership people felt no responsibility for the land. The dump sites now are being cleaned up by the united German state in which ownership is better defined.

Budski:
And just how are we supposed to achieve this?

Well, things are not going to change overnight. Change is slow and some patience is required. Throwing American Aid at a problem probably won't do much. I was in the Peace Corps and was appalled by the waist of the Aid program. Sorry situation!
Only thing that will really work is to encourage healthy economic growth in developing countries and discourage the countries that are doing a bad job. I think if you looked into it there are programs that encourage small businesses and farming in these countries. There were when I was in the Peace Corps. Just giving away food and birth control is wasteful, silly and arrogant IMO.
The authoritarian approach China is taking on birth control may work there but probably not in other countries and cultures. They claim that by 2050 they will have stopped growth. China's record with pollution control is poor with no improvement in sight. However if China ever decides to do something about improving their environment they may be able to turn things around with their top heavy system of government. To date they haven't, however.

I got a weird idea for this. I know this will get a lot of people but it's the sad truth. Legalize human hunting, seriously, make it so that you can go down and buy a license and go out and waste a certain number of people. Kinda like a fisherman's limit.

I know what you all are going to say. WUK thats sick, whats wrong with you? that would just condone murder. Well I say it's unfortunate that the earth's human population has gotten to over 6 billion people. Seriously something needs to be done and this is a quick cheap way to get that done.

Say give people a lifetime limit on their license of 3 people. you buy one license and it's good to bag 3 people without being arrested for murder.

Mass population decrease in short order, It would also alleviate prison overcrowding. After all it would no longer be murder just poaching.

It works for hunting, animals that are overpopulated for the environment to sustain their existence are hunted and killed and thus the ones that survive are better able to survive.

Sure would be cheaper than contraceptive education all over the earth, and think of the revenue that a license could bring in? don't make em too cheap, and set up designated hunting areas so that we don't just have mass pandemonium in urban areas.

Just a thought. I mean I don't think anyone would actually go for it but it would work.

Yes, hunting would probably work

But who would get the licenses?

Can anyone apply? or just the rich folks?

And you might get a Jean Claude V.D. hunting you instead!

Alternatively, just remove the guidance systems from a few nukes, fire them off and see where they land - would also solve the problem of decommisioning them

[edit on 27/6/2007 by budski]

I,ve just posted last night the same topic in the alien section, have aliens solved the geometric progresson of over population on thier worlds. Glad to see that many agree its the worlds most serious problem. I mention there that the scientific community is going to have to work seriously on this issue. But like I say, a worldwide scientific community is going to need military teeth to solve the problem. Rogue countries doing what they want to our enviroment is quickly going to kill us all. The world needs to get together and make overpopulation a top priority, one way or another, the solution if there is one might be already to late to implement. Al gore does briefly mention in his film though the overpopulation factor in his documentary film an inconvenient truth, im going to wait a few days before posting my idea of a solution in my thread in the alien section, it involves nanotechnology and how it could be used to solve this problem.

Originally posted by budski
But who would get the licenses?

Can anyone apply? or just the rich folks?

I think that the licenses should be at least a little cost prohibitive. You would also have to set up designated hunting areas and seasons. We couldn't have a year round season cause that would just be chaotic. Have different seasons for the hunt. One would be primitive weapons and then you got the rifles. black powder season etc. That way it would be more fair.

Hey this would create a new survival of the fittest, and make mankind just that much better. I mean people have gotten way to complacent, there is no skill at survival anymore. Nothing hunts us down. There is no natural predator of man. So we are forced to control our own population. There is no way your going to stop people from pro creating so the only other logical solution would be to cull the herd

Set up specific rules and regulate it and televise it. I guarantee it would be a hit show that would make American Idol look like crap.

It's satire, budski.

No one is that stupid.

Originally posted by Johnmike
It's satire, budski.

No one is that stupid.

Don't patronize me mate - I know exactly what it is and was joining in with the spirit of the joke - hence the laughs.

And don't call me stupid, by implication or inferrence.