Why Is Population Growth Seldom Discussed?

[yellowwoodII]

When the first baby was born today, the world population stood at about 7.2 billion, according to this.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2014/12/31/us-population-2015-320-million-and-world-population-72-billion
So many important issues are discussed on DU, but I seldom see anything about world population.
Environment--Increased food supply comes with a price--GMO's, energy, agricultural chemicals, water depletion.
Energy needs--fracking, nuclear waste, etc.
Wars--Many of the wars that we see come about over limited resources--water, oil, land.
People are praising the Pope for his new attitudes, but I don't see anything about a change in birth control rules
Infrastructure-transportation, river pollution.
I could go on, but you know about this.
These issues are interrelated. Mother Earth can only hold so many.

[marym625]

1. You're right that it's an important

Topic and seldom discussed. Probably; the biggest issue we face. It's another casualty of right wing agenda.

Happy New Year!

[yeoman6987]

84. US and Europe have decreased having as many children

Middle East and Africa not so much.

[dumbcat]

2. It's a taboo subject

Every mention of population growth (which really means population control) rapidly degenerates to chaos with elements of religion, racism, and other very uncomfortable subjects. There is no consensus as to a solution or even if there is actually a problem.

But thanks for posting, it will be interesting to see where this goes this time.

[MH1]

42. Lack of consensus that there's a problem

can be laid squarely at the feet of the anti-intellectual, anti-science forces, IMHO. Of course there's a problem. Anyone with the slightest understanding of how the planetary ecosystem works, can grasp the issue. But if people recognize the problem, then they might support things like voluntary contraception. But more universal use of contraception would take away a key source of control and cheap labor for the powers that be.

[Duppers]

88. +++100

You'll find these people here on DU too. Once had a poster defend her decision to have a number of children because she was supplying people to fill jobs!!
Asked her about global warming but of course she didn't "believe" in it.

[smirkymonkey]

126. +1000

Great post. I think this is one of the most important issues facing the global community. We SHOULD pay more attention to it.

The key IMHO is the education and empowerment of women in third-world nations, but there are many barriers (religion being one of the largest) as you have stated and there is a huge time lag between implementation of programs and outcome (in the form of stable population growth).

[safeinOhio]

3. I've never reproduced.

Folks have asked me who's going to take care of me when I'm old. Well I am old and always think how terrible it would be to get old and have children that wouldn't even visit me, let alone take care of me.

[dixiegrrrrl]

66. My 2 sons will not be fathers, their choice.

I blathered at them in the 70's about population issues, being a big supporter of the topic, and they both, independently of each other, announced while still in their 20's
that they would not have children.
Given the current state of the country/world, I think they made a fine decision.

[NV Whino]

4. People don't want to discuss it

Because it involves so many touchy issues. Just look into any discussion about the Duggers and you will get the idea.

But just for the record, I agree with you. Population control has been on my mind since the 60s, when as an adult, I first became aware of the problem.

One thing that would help is education about birth control. Many cultures and/or religions prevent that. That results in overpopulation, disease and famine.

On the other side of the coin is China's one child policy. That resulted in many more men than women because of their misguided belief that the male is more valuable than the female. Now there are a limited number of women to marry and procreate. And an abundance of single males creates other social problems.

At one time not too long ago, France had a zero (possibly negative) population growth. They frantically welcomed immigrants to fill their work force.

Voluntary birth control is too little at this time. Compensatory birth control infringes upon one's rights and brings other problems. Nothing short of a major plague, with sensible birth control after, will actually solve the problem.

Now, watch the flame wars begin.

[reddread]

5. Because it isnt REALLY a problem, except for xenophobes and Republicans

dramatic and discouraging as that math is, we in America have nothing on the population densities
common elsewhere in the world, and VAST amounts of land that is essentially uninhabitated.
Density favors blue voting.
plenty of genuine and unresolved, critical issues out there without getting sidetracked by the phony right wing agenda.
they are not about to curtail immigration or outsourcing, so lets just watch what they do and ignore the cheap talk distractions.

[dumbcat]

8. So, since we here in America are OK

who cares about the people in the rest of the world? Is that what I am seeing?

[Ed Suspicious]

34. We have very little influence over other country's demographics, but we in the

U.S. are reproducing below replacement rates. We have declining population if not for immigration.



As far as we are concerned, where we have control, there is no population problem. Even the right wing rags attest to that.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/us-birthrate-plummets-to-record-low/?page=all

[ucrdem]

10. Bingo.

Is his name-O.

[MH1]

44. In your opinion, what is the carrying capacity of the planet? 1 Trillion?

Somewhere between 7 billion and 1 trillion?

What do you think will happen as planetary population approaches that limit? (if you concede there is some limit)

Are you saying that every bit of land could be inhabited by dense populations of humans, and that would not cause any problem?

[earthside]

63. It is REALLY at the heart of our most difficult problems.

The population of the U.S. in relationship to our carbon footprint is a serious and very real issue.

Whether native born or immigrant, the consumption behavior of Americans is primarily responsible for hydrocarbon energy depletion, other natural resources depletion, the consequent global warming, the consequent imperialistic policy of our government, so on and so forth. And we are adding to that environmental catastrophe-in-the-making every day.

'We' have a very difficult time dealing with overpopulation because there isn't a clear way out of this problem and because in involves tackling the most inflammatory of ethical, moral and religious issues.

But make no mistake, we are already at two or three times the carrying capacity of this planet vis-a-vis the human population.

Furthermore, it is tragic that there are still those on the left and right politically who trivialize the profoundness of overpopulation by reducing it to mere terms of where blue or red voters are impacted.

Even sadder is that no remedies are on the horizon:

Scientists: Defusing the Population Bomb Won’t Save the Planet

[raccoon]

72. THANK YOU. Nobody ever wants to hear this, but it is so true.

The population of the U.S. in relationship to our carbon footprint is a serious and very real issue.

[NYC Liberal]

68. The issue of population growth is not only about physical space.

[tabasco]

220. You're wrong

Overpopulation is a major problem for every person and species on this planet.

Vast amounts of uninhabited land? Do you presume it would be acceptable if all land was occupied by humans? LOL. That's not even possible because the environment would not sustain human life anywhere near that point.

Have you tried living in the Mojave desert lately?

[Jesus Malverde]

6. Prolly cause the topic raises the notion of genocide as a solution..

more relevant in china or india.

The US actually has a declining population if you discount the recent phenomena of undocumented/illegal immigration from south of the border.

Some other countries are screwed especially if you consider the robotic, three D printing, location aware revolution silently stalking the surplus populations/working peoples.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Really? You think there are about 2.4 million new undocumented immigrants every year?

http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

That's the average population increase per year, over the last 5 years. You think they're all undocumented immigrants?

Source, please, for your claim.

[Duppers]

92. Thank you!

I was also going to ask for a link. A sustainable population? Not in the long term.

[Jesus Malverde]

105. Fairly obvious to anyone who lives in a city...

“The metropolitan areas of Midwestern states are experiencing slow rates of growth and even declining populations,” the report said. “The arrival of immigrants over the past decade has helped to reverse these trends.” Specifically, the report notes that immigration’s demographic effect is particularly prudent among the working age population age 35 to 44 years. While the number of native-born in this age cohort declined over the last decade, the arrival of immigrants in this age group helped fend off what might have been a much more dramatic decline. “Immigrants play a key role in the Midwest economy because the Midwest’s Baby Boomers are moving into retirement and the native-born population as a whole is aging,” the report states. “Immigrants are predominantly young adults, and they help to fill precisely the age groups that are in decline among US-born persons.”

http://immigrationimpact.com/2014/06/25/immigrants-offset-population-decline-and-aging-workforce-in-midwest-metros/

Immigrants have children, those children are native born americans and included in new births. 10-12 million immigrants over 10 years will have an impact when they themselves have children.

http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/growing-heartland-how-immigrants-offset-population-decline-and-aging-workforce-midwest

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-16/fewer-millennial-moms-show-u-s-birth-rate-drop-lasting.html

Population growth in america is not coming from the millennials or gen x, Baby boomers are on a death watch as they head into their twilight years.

The number of Hispanic students in the nation’s public schools nearly doubled from 1990 to 2006, accounting for 60% of the total growth in public school enrollments over that period. There are now approximately 10 million Hispanic students in the nation’s public kindergartens and its elementary and high schools; they make up about one-in-five public school students in the United States. In 1990, just one-in-eight public school students were Hispanic.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/08/26/one-in-five-and-growing-fast-a-profile-of-hispanic-public-school-students/

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. So you're the kind of person who automatically thinks 'illegal' when they hear 'immigrant'

and thinks that "there are many Hispanic people" shows "all the population growth in the USA must come from these damned illegal immigrants I keep seeing everywhere - I can tell they're illegal just by looking at them!".

You obviously don't have any figures to back up your claim about undocumented immigrants - it's just the truthiness your gut tell you, about 'Them'.

[Jesus Malverde]

112. ..

[Recursion]

154. Because we've pretty much found the solution, it just takes time

As societies develop, and particularly as women are educated, fertility rates plummet.

[GliderGuider]

155. How much time do you think we have?

Serious question.

[Recursion]

156. Quite a bit

Mid 22nd-century or so, by my cocktail napkin estimates, and barring some unspeakable catastrophes most of the world should be developed by then.

[GliderGuider]

160. Thanks, that explains it. nt

[rock]

7. Like global warming

Our society does not have the ability to solve the problem (it's political).

[DallasNE]

27. And They Are Basically Two Sides Of The Same Coin

Now you can slow the rate of increase in global warming by adopting renewable energy policies, etc. but the pressures of an increasing population will continue to cause more global warming. The most effective means of population control over time has been war and disease. With science the issue of disease has been lessened greatly -- think small pox. And mutual assured destruction has kept the ravages of war from doing their dirty work to a large extent, along with education. Indeed, education is likely the key to addressing the issue of ever increasing population. Education can bend the political wind -- it just takes time and truthful messaging.

[ucrdem]

9. "Mother Earth can only hold so many." Malthus was wrong in 1798 and he's still wrong.

It's a RW theme based on bogus science. That's why. But there's always . . . EBOLA!



Happy New Fear!

[hedgehog]

36. When i go back and read comments based on Malthus, they generally are of

the attitude that it's all the fault of those poor people having too much sex. Note that I said "based on Malthus" The specific comments are ones I've seen written from 1848 to the present suggesting that the Irish were responsible for the Famine because they kept having sex which (at that time) inevitably leads to more children. I'm not kidding - I've read remarks from current Oxford professors that flat out say that.

Malthus is right: a closed system does have limits. Although we do receive energy from the sun, I am willing to consider the earth as a closed system. However, Malthus underestimated the carrying capacity of the earth. It's possible that we will reach peak human loading on the planet before we hit carrying capacity. (Loading is related both to absolute numbers and how they live.)

The problem with Malthus is that all too often, the wealthy have looked on as the poor were dying and taken no responsibility on the grounds that it's all happening just as Malthus described.

[MH1]

45. So you're saying the opposite, "Mother Earth can hold an infinite number"?

Do you really think that?

[FBaggins]

60. Those aren't the only two options

Because "Mother Earth can only hold so many" to a malthusian is always part of a statement that makes clear that the limit is upon us or has already passed.

The cornucopian label is always the malthusian's strawman.

[TM99]

96. Seriously?

Try reading some more recent science on the subject -

http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/a-synopsis-limits-to-growth-the-30-year-update/

Resources are finite. We have seen what population overgrowth can do with other species. What arrogance to assume that it won't happen to the human ape?

[ucrdem]

159. Seriously. People dress it up all kinds of ways

but a) it's baloney and b) it boils down to "I got mine and I'd hate to see the dusky races take over my {fill in the blank}." Even Malthus knew it was a stinker -- he first published his screed under a pseudonym, but it caught on so he used his own name in subsequent editions. But it's a crap theory and furthermore known to be crap since the get-go.

[TM99]

169. You have obviously not read this work

and the subsequent follow-ups.

You are obsessing about this being a 'race' issue.

This is not 'baloney' nor is it a racist issue. This is reality. Go read the works before replying, otherwise, it won't really be a discussion. It will just be your subjective emotions being rationalized with a few pithy word plays.

Thanks.

[ucrdem]

171. LOL. Malthus also declares his false assumptions "obvious." nt

[TM99]

189. In other words,

you are not up to the task of a real adult discussion.

Have you read the Limits to Growth and the follow-ups? They are not Malthusian in the least. They are not 'racist'. They are not 'obvious'. They are scientific studies and meticulous research.

But you are so busy being smug & ignorant that you will not even research or study that which might contradict your emotional assumptions.

This is sadly typical of both DU and the internet in general these days.

[ucrdem]

201. Just cutting to the chase.

I've had this discussion many times and US News (OP link) has been banging this drum for at least as long as I've been alive. Generally speaking once you dispense with the TED-talk trappings all roads lead to taxes, race, and/or Rome, for instance:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6029547

That's not to say the link you posted is without merit. Yes I glanced through it. Much is commendable but focusing on scarcity when the problem is distribution seems to me wrong-headed and RW, or about what I'd expect from US News. If you really want to discuss it though I'll take another look and comment later.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Good progressives would be talking about it as among the top five priorities.

Number one priority in my books.

In practice, most of any political persuasion are unaware of the importance of it.

[reddread]

28. exactly! More density = More progressive policies.

and besides, what EXACTLY are the options/alternatives?

pretty sure progressives wont be in favor of anything we dont already have in place.
spay and neuter the poor, etc.

[MH1]

46. Progressives favor plenty of things that aren't already in place

Wider use of voluntary , effective contraception, for example.

Easy access to morning-after pill, etc.

Easier access to voluntary abortions in the first and second trimester, and not demonizing the woman or doctor who chooses a later abortion (which is almost NEVER a desired outcome of the pregnancy but is in response to some tragic situation).

Better education and options for low-income folks across the board, that would result in fewer unintended pregnancies.

Those are all positions that most progressives support.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. Because a practical implementation would unbridle the arrogance of humanity.

Who falls under the restrictions? What restrictions? How are the restrictions enforced? Who decides?

We aren't even selfless and smart enough to effectively run the VA medical system that treats a sub-set that is only 1 to 3 percent of the US population. Yet, we're somehow supposed to be clever enough to govern the most intimate of all human activities for all 6.5 billion people across every nation and jurisdiction of the world?

And while your list of hazards attending modern technology is true the fact remains modern technology in the form of refrigeration, medicine, vaccines, etc. is what has allowed more and more people to live to see an age where they reproduce. That jinn cannot be put back into the bottle. Instead, people will seek to continue to develop yet newer technologies to deal with yet newer challenges. Some new solutions will come forth as well as new hazards. We can lament the pitfalls but those will be considered and acceptable risk nonetheless so it will become the default course of action.

Add to this the fact that it is generally a bunch of predominantly white Westerners telling the swarthy-skinned Others of the world how they're ruining the planet for the rest of us the topic has every appearance of being racist and self-serving.

[The2ndWheel]

13. Civilization and every institution we've built in it is based on more people doing more things

Look at everything we do to stop death from happening. You combine that with freedom of choice, and nobody gets to tell anyone else how to live. We have the ability to sustain 7.2 billion people on the planet, so we will, because, again, we don't want people dying. We can try to give more people more options to have fewer children, but that will require more resources to accomplish. Plus not everyone has enough resources today anyway, which will require more resources to accomplish.

It's a complex issue. We have 4 ways we can go:

1)More people doing more
2)More people doing less
3)Fewer people doing more
4)Fewer people doing less

We have an idea of steady states, but life doesn't work that way. It's always changing, and you have to adapt, but it's very difficult to take every variable into account. So no matter what we do, there will end up being downsides.

Option 1 is what we're doing, as it's the easiest one, because it doesn't require any difficult choices, and probably more importantly, it's built into the biology of life. We can think that humanity can extricate itself from biological drives, but good luck. Options 2 and 3 have those difficult choices attached to them. With option 2, if we're doing less, how do we maintain a functioning society which is based on doing more? With option 3, if there are fewer people, how much does each person have to pay to maintain a functioning society? Of course with option 4, there wouldn't be a society as we know it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Go forth and multiply...preferably white and cute.

[alp227]

158. "white and cute"? whaaa? nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. Because you're not willing to say that you shouldn't exist.

I'm sure you're willing to say that for the good of the planet, a couple billion OTHER people shouldn't exist,
but I have never, ever seen one population control advocate say, "and let it begin with ME."

That's why.

[mopinko]

33. ^^^^^

we talk about choice, healthcare, education and equality.
all those things give people the tools to make their own choices, and mostly, people choose to have fewer children in those cases.
i believe there was a saying back in the day- africa (or anyplace) doesnt need birth control, they need death control. when you dont have to have 10 kids to have one around to take care of you when you are old, you dont have 10 kids.

as medical care improves, people choose fewer children. problem solved.
many countries have declining birth rates. see above.

[MH1]

48. Plenty say "let it begin with me" as far as not reproducing.

And yes, I'm sure there is more than one suicide in history of someone who was a population control advocate and felt that there was no more value in their particular carbon footprint continuing to impact the rest of the planet.

[CrawlingChaos]

167. Wha?? You're conflating population control with genocide?

You have, presumably, heard of contraception?

Honestly, your "let it begin with me" statement is one of the most head-explodey things I've ever read on this forum.

[TheKentuckian]

16. Because any discussion is going to put it into a severely negative light and

when a necessary part of the premise to the official ideology is eternal growth and as much as possible it means that isn't going to be acceptable in "polite conversation".

[Igel]

17. Because it's a pointless subject.

On the one hand, projections give a good chance of the population flatlining in the next couple of generations, and possibly dropping after that (or possibly increasing, there's always a range when you read projections and look at inferential statistics).

The projections look worse than they are. Even if you hit replacement levels for all current population--2.1 kids per every male-female pair--you'd still get a lot of that growth because so much of the population is single single and hasn't reproduced yet.

The projections also make a few assumptions that might well be wrong. More education means lower fertility. Greater numbers of surviving offspring means lower fertility. More women working outside the home, finding fulfillment in what men have traditionally found fulfillment in, means lower fertility. The assumptions generally hold in the West and seem to be on track in some other parts of the world. But stay tuned, because there's no preset "arc of history" and not only have not all cultures have checked in, but some subcultures are flouting the "arc of history" and being really intransigent about following the trends of the dominant populations.



On the other, there's sod-all anybody can do about it that they're not doing already, at least to some extent. China's going to face some massive problems because of it and took a lot of repression to implement it. To get the countries that currently have high fertility rates would require having those with low fertility rates--mostly white, Western, Xian or post-Xian countries--to impose restrictions or seek self-imposed restrictions on mostly non-white, non-Western, non-Xian countries. I can just see the US, Britain, France imposing such restrictions on Africa, S. America, S. Asia.

The actions being taken view population control as secondary, derivative. First you fix health conditions, uplift women in their status and education and empowerment, you get them working outside the home, you change men's minds about the role of women in society and get governments to do what they should, which is help. In short, you remake 3rd-world families in precisely the kind of ways that liberal Western society finds most valuable: Women should be educated, jobs should be mostly white-collar, there should be good health care, and immediately everybody will see that what's really important is wealth and money and living standards, or personal self-fulfillment, so they'll limit procreation because that takes time away from work and pleasure and because large families predispose families to poverty.

[Demeter]

18. Maybe because it isn't our job to police other people's reproduction?

The US isn't producing excessively. We did our part.

Go jump on the Religiously Insane, why don't you? They are the ones promoting population growth.

[Jim Lane]

86. The US "did our part" is wrong. The US is overpopulated.

Like other developed countries, we've seen the declining birth rate that comes with prosperity. As a result, our natural rate of increase (births minus deaths) is slightly negative.

But in that simple statement you can see two reasons that it's a hard issue to get people to address. First, the US population is still growing, and we're still building new subdivisions where wildlife habitat used to be, but the growth arises from immigration. Therefore, many progressives fear, not without justice, that concern over population stabilization will fuel xenophobia. (It doesn't have to. "Every child a wanted child" would be a great start, with readily available contraception and abortion for the people already here. Instead, we're moving in the opposite direction.)

Second, there's the tendency to look only at population growth as the problem. At current levels, the world as a whole is already overpopulated, and at current levels the US is already overpopulated. Partly because of our prosperity, our population is unsustainably high in terms of resource consumption and carbon footprint.

Incidentally, here's an illustration of the OP's point: In the preceding paragraph, the DU spell checker flagged "unsustainably", even though it's a perfectly valid word. A progressive website isn't even set up to accommodate a discussion of sustainability.

[AlbertCat]

19. Oh please!

What a non-issue!

Gotta go! "19 and Counting" is coming on!!!!




Seriously folks, I'll never forget what Carl Sagan said. I cannot quote exactly, but it goes something along the lines of: "Either we can do something about overpopulation, or we can let Mother Nature do something about it...which she will. And you really don't want her to be the one solving the problem because she will use disease and famine to try to keep it in check."

[delta17]

39. What should "we" do, though?

The U.S. already has a pretty low birthrate. Should we try to impose restrictions on poor countries? Somehow I doubt that will go over well. Are their any solutions that don't grossly infringe on people's rights?

I think we need to work for everyone to have access to birth control and medical care. That would go a long way. I don't support stuff like China's one child policy. The government needs to stay out of people's bedrooms.

[Kalidurga]

81. that is what I told my youngest daughter

she said I was insensitive and heartless. And when I told her that the people who will suffer the most are people in poor countries and the poor in richer countries she got really upset.

[Maedhros]

94. This sums it up:

"The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to emotionally comprehend the exponential function."

- Edward Teller

[NewDeal_Dem]

20. NEARLY half of all people now live in countries where women, on average, give birth to fewer than

2.1 babies — the number generally required to replace both parents — over their lifetimes. This is true in Melbourne and Moscow, São Paulo and Seoul, Tehran and Tokyo. It is not limited to the West, or to rich countries; it is happening in places as diverse as Armenia, Bhutan, El Salvador, Poland and Qatar...

Very high national fertility rates have not disappeared, but they are now mostly concentrated in a single region: sub-Saharan Africa. Last year, all five countries with estimated total fertility rates (the average number of births per woman) at six or higher — Niger, Mali, Somalia, Uganda and Burkina Faso — were there. So were nearly all of the 18 countries with fertility rates of five or more (the exceptions were Afghanistan and East Timor).

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/opinion/sunday/bye-bye-baby.html?_r=0


For decades we’ve read scary headlines about the consequences of overpopulation, from food shortages and wars to running out of water. But it turns out that the world’s population growth rate is now half of what it was forty years ago: 1.2 percent. After peaking at 2.1 in the 1970s, it hit the brakes – and at this pace the number of people on Earth should stop growing and start falling in less than 50 years.

Today the planet is home to 7.2 billion people — more than at any point in recorded history. Yet one hundred years from now, the number will be smaller. Back in 1950, the global fertility rate averaged about five children per woman, but today that global average is down to 2.58 (total fertility rate as of 2011).

Fertility rates remain high across Africa, which is home to 29 of the 31 “high fertility” countries where the average women has 5 or more children. Niger ranks at the top with an average of 7 children per woman. Still, these “high fertility” regions account for just 9 percent of the world’s population: 48 percent live in “low fertility” countries (< 2.1 children), and another 43 percent live in “intermediate fertility” countries (between 2.1 and 5 children).

http://www.ozy.com/acumen/world-population-decline/4357


Africa is the only continent with reproduction significantly above zpg, and for the most part, Africa has a low population density -- and low average resource use as well.

[joanbarnes]

21. This has been a concern of mine since learning about it in grade school and seeing it up front

in my large family. As for me, I only had one child.

[Basic LA]

22. Good question.

Zero Population Growth was an important issue in the 60's & 70's. It meant that the ideal rate of reproduction would be 2 kids, max, for every couple, thus holding population to current levels. Malthusian dystopian futures as written & filmed in such works as Soylent Green & The Wanting Seed could thus be averted. This would come not by rule of law, as in China, but by education & incentives. It was seen as critical a subject as Global Warming is today.

[adieu]

24. Because population growth

Is not happening. What is happening is that we have had a steep decline in deaths. The growth rate in most countries is just at replenishment rate of 2.2 kids per family. We should see a drop in population over the course of the next 30 years.

[Posteritatis]

29. Plus the global decline in birthrates as well. (nt)

[LWolf]

211. "A steep decline in deaths."

Since I don't think we should increase the death rate to reduce the population, the only other way I know of is to reduce the birth rate.

Population growth as a measure of the number of people alive on the planet is the issue, and it is clearly continuing to grow.

If longer, healthier lives for those here is a worthy goal, and I think it is, then we need fewer births to keep the population cycle stable.

[The Green Manalishi]

25. I did not reproduce.

And I've never met anyone who should.

[CrispyQ]

58. Lol!

[Duppers]

98. love it!

That's about the truth!

[FrodosPet]

195. That sounds like you have a small circle of acquaintances

Or just a negative opinion of our species in general?

[The Green Manalishi]

205. Negative on h. sapiens in general

I've had to explain to people more than once that I am not misanthropic, not misogynist, racist, or anything other than someone who does not regard our species as the whole purpose of the planet/existence and considers the world vastly overpopulated. Doesn't mean I don't like and get along with many many people, far from it; I just consider "us" more important or more worthy of continued existence than any other species. YMMV

[GliderGuider]

207. +1 I hear ya!

[chervilant]

26. Population growth is most accurately

represented mathematically as an exponential function. Small, incremental changes in X result in significant changes in Y. Using the exponential function for population change, one can readily derive a K that fairly accurately projects future population changes. At present, the K for world population change projects a world population in excess of 11 billion by 2020.

Discussions of world population numbers devolve into partisan criticisms whenever moral or "religious" judgments muddy the waters, so to speak. Clearly, our species' exponentially increasing numbers are linked to various ecological consequences, and we will inevitably contend with these consequences without having to link population growth to some sort of moral turpitude.

Our species is inextricably a part of this planet's ecosystem. When our numbers become a critical stressor to our ecosystem, "Gaia" will roll over and scrape us off her backside. And, we'll just have to go along for the ride, since our species can't seem to escape our own hedonistic egos long enough to rationally assess when our vast numbers will upset the apple cart.

[Duppers]

101. a.f.m

A.fucking.men!

[GliderGuider]

208. Actually, most populations are best represented by a logistic function.

Human aggregate population growth has been linear since about 1980 (approximately a constant increase each year). To me this implies that our population curve is trying to enter the flattening region at the top of the sigmoidal logistic function, but we keep finding/appropriating more natural resources. that expands the apparent carrying capacity of the planet, and keeps our growth from flattening out altogether.

[chervilant]

213. Thank you, Paul!!

I had to look up the logistic function, and I have to tell you that the asymptote of the logistic makes much more sense with regards to population.

In a discussion of the logistic function, a "nod" is given to the exponential:

The initial stage of growth is approximately exponential; then, as saturation begins, the growth slows, and at maturity, growth stops.

Are you using the logistic function to project that the "ideal" or "carrying" world population is two billion? Could you post more about that? I think more people need to understand how our vast numbers are threatening our entire ecosystem.

Again, thanks for teaching me about an essential function!

[GliderGuider]

214. Population growth and carrying capacity

As I said above, living (reproductive) populations tend to follow a logistic curve.

• The logistic curve starts off with a long flat "toe", that mirrors the slow growth of human population until the 1600s.
• Then there is an increasing quasi-exponential section in which the population rises very swiftly, like we saw from about 1700 to 1980;
• That is followed by a quasi-linear portion that resembles the world's population growth since 1980;
• Finally there is the shoulder of the curve, in which population growth declines to zero, asymptotic to the 'carrying capacity' of the planet; we haven't got there yet.

The definition of a human carrying capacity is related to the definition of the term "sustainable". Both are exceedingly imprecise and slippery terms.

At the moment I prefer this definition of the word sustainable:

A sustainable system is an open system whose characteristics can be preserved ("sustained&quot for a given period, assuming no change in the system's environment.

This definition requires us to specify both a bounded time period and the environment the system is operating in. In other words, it requires us expand the system boundaries to include its environment, and to to evaluate that larger system as a dynamic process operating over a bounded time frame.

Using an approach like that it's possible to understand how we could arrive at estimates for a sustainable human population (aka "planetary carrying capacity&quot that range all the way from our current 7.2 billion (or even more) all the way down to less than 10 million people living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

The closest I've come to estimating a carrying capacity for the world biosphere is "200 MT of terrestrial animal biomass". That carrying capacity is redistributed between species (including humans) over time as conditions change. I arrived at this conclusion through analyzing Vaclav Smil's estimates of wild animal, domesticated animal and human biomass over time. My estimate of 200 MT is based on the assumed wild animal biomass in 10,000 BCE.



I agree with evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr who said that intelligence is a lethal mutation. In other words, human beings are an inherently unsustainable species, and there is no "sustainable carrying capacity" per se for homo sapiens.

[Cassidy]

30. You are right - human population increase is the fundamental problem

Population growth is a fundamental biological problem. Population growth in "developed" nations is a problem because our economic system is so rapacious. Population growth in "developing" nations is a problem because the rates of increase are so high. Resources, like food and fresh water, are not infinite, although some technologies can stretch them, often at significant cost.

One of my favorite professors discussed the fundamentals here: http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html

Educating women is currently the most direct way to reduce the rate of human population increase. Educated women have fewer children and they have them later.

And no, those of us for significantly reduced human populations do not want people to kill each other or themselves to solve the problem. We want people to have 2 or fewer children. We want the earth to have room and resources for rhinoceroses, tigers, black-footed ferrets, and monarch butterflies, as well as human beings.

We should encourage the reduction in population in rich countries by not allowing tax credits for more than 2 children per family. Since religious ideologies play such a role in excessive increases in population (not to mention politics in general), we should tax churches so they at least financially support their ideologies.

And just the record, I have no children. Concern about the environment was a fundamental reason why I made this choice.

[appalachiablue]

56. Educating men is also a direct way to reduce human population and to have fewer children.

Condoms and other contraceptive methods work. Human offspring are produced by and belong to both women and men. Men are responsible for their sperm; they are also responsible for their children. It's not a matter of sole responsibility and education for women.

[metalbot]

147. I'm skeptical

I don't think we have a global issue that men simply don't know how to not have babies. We have reduced rates of pregnancy in countries that also have legal consequences for men for getting women pregnant. That's not education - that's enforcement (which is a good thing).

[DebJ]

163. "Educating women" doesn't refer to educating them on birth control; it refers to

allowing women to see and feel and have a shot at being something more in life than
a breeder.

Educated women find fulfillment in careers, etc............

[appalachiablue]

192. I understand that. Women are far more than walking uteruses. Men must also receive general and

reproductive health education in order have a better life and to insure that schools succeed especially in areas with strong patriarchal traditions.

[hedgehog]

31. Maybe because it seems to be a problem that is solving itself as long

as women have access to education, contraception and the confidence that their children will survive.

[yellowwoodII]

32. Very interesting Responses So Far

So far, many of the responses on this issue run like this:
Americans are not the problem, so why discuss it.
It's not really a problem or won't be in the future. (God will provide?)
If we exist, we shouldn't worry about countless humans crowding the Earth in the future. We could solve it by taking ourselves out of existence.
To discuss World Population is racist.
To discuss World Population is discriminatory to poor countries.
India and China had some bad results from their population programs so why discuss it.
It's hopeless.
Really!?

[mopinko]

35. you missed the most important one, made more than once.

who do you think you are to tell other people how to manage the most important decision of their lives?
maybe it doesnt get traction here because progressives dont do that.

[MH1]

50. Who do I think I am? the same person who has the right to tell you

that you can't pollute the stream or the air with poisons.

As noted above, population growth actually is slowing, so maybe it won't come to this, but if it does: if one group's survival depends on another group's cessation of destructive behavior (over-reproduction), if the first group has the power, they WILL enforce that cessation on the other group, one way or the other.

People can either choose to deal with this voluntarily and peacefully, or at some point someone / some group will be stressed enough to take other actions. (Which is basically why China implemented the one child policy in the first place.)

[mopinko]

53. do you now?

well, lah-dee-dah.
actually, no you dont. and comparing children to, what, strip mining or ???
please. get over yourself.

[MH1]

57. Not strip mining. More like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Some carbon dioxide is needed. Too much, and it creates problems for everyone.

Do you agree that anthropogenic climate change exists and is a problem? If you agree with that, do you agree that governments should regulate the production of carbon dioxide?

[mopinko]

106. plenty of more wasteful sources of carbon out there than children.

and like i said, choice, education, opportunity and "death control" are doing the job quite well.

just what is it that you are proposing? one child policy? forced abortions? forced sterilizations?
on a progressive board?

maybe you took a wrong turn somewhere.

[MH1]

108. "maybe you took a wrong turn somewhere" - LOL

Surely you can think of more creative solutions than "forced abortions", "forced sterilizations".

If you can't, then perhaps you are the one who took a wrong turn?

Either way, a discussion of overpopulation doesn't necessitate promoting solutions based on force. To the contrary, solutions based on force are what WILL come about if voluntary, peaceful solutions are not implemented in time. It is not something I am advocating, but rather predicting. (Do you understand the difference?)

World population is still increasing, even though it has slowed. Biodiversity loss, loss of habitat, and other environmental destruction is meanwhile increasing. These damages WILL negatively impact human populations.

Governments DO have the right to implement policies that discourage harmful behaviors such as excessive reproduction. I would prefer that we DON'T come to a need for a "one child policy", but we SHOULD be addressing how to encourage voluntary population reduction and the ensuing economic consequences of those choices.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. Man, your posts are a perfect example of the completely tuned out bubble big chunks of this place

has become.

The idea that the US- which, after 5 decades of the pill and increasing personal and reproductive freedom, something (silly me!) I thought us Democrats were pretty much en masse on board with - has drastically reduced its fertility rate to lower than the replacement rate, which means, save for immigration, US population is actually declining-- the ridiculous but I'm sure supposed-to-sound-ominous blarts that we're a hair away from implimenting a 'one child policy' if you people can't control yourselves I'm tellin ya we'll do it for you!!!!

Right.. there's not enough derp to hold all that derp.

I think some people definitely need to get out more.

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. Seems to me you're more the one in a tuned out bubble

You think population has not become a problem in the US, and therefore it doesn't need to be discussed at all. First of all, there are parts of the US that are already overloaded (look at the flow problems of the Colorado River, for instance), and the overall ecological footprint of the people in the USA is estimated at 8.00 hectares per person, but the biocapacity for the current population is only 3.87 hectares per person - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint (note that some countries, such as Canada and Australia, do have excess capacity at the moment). So, ecologically, the USA is already overpopulated. Secondly, you shouldn't just live in the bubble of "only talk about the USA".

You are in no position to criticise others for 'derp', or tell them to get out more. You're the one saying 'ignore the world outside the USA'.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. Im not saying ignore the world outside the USA, I'm saying global population isnt fungible.

And what population growth there actually is, inside the USA is right now, driven by things like immigration, which is another topic which understandably makes people want to change the subject.

The colorado river has problems because too many people have moved into the Las Vegas and Los Angeles basins. Now, certainly, those are real issues which need to be addressed- a lot of people wanting to live on highly valuable desert real estate- but it's not about "too many strollers".

If people want to address the population issue in the places where it's really a problem, fine- my point is that the only way to do that without being a major xenophobic jerk (or worse) is to try to raise 3rd world standards of living and hopefully encourage - not force, of course- personal autonomy versus cultural or religious control of peoples lives.

[muriel_volestrangler]

165. Maybe that would be better discussed without the words

'blart', 'derp' and 'get out more'. The other poster had posted perfectly reasonably; you described them with words better suited to a below-average YouTube commenter.

[Warren DeMontague]

166. Yeah, the 'reasonable' guy making vaguely violent-sounding noises about what 'they' will do to 'you'

if 'you' don't stop making babies.


I'm supposed to be apologetic for saying 'derp' to the person who said this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6028936

if one group's survival depends on another group's cessation of destructive behavior (over-reproduction), if the first group has the power, they WILL enforce that cessation on the other group, one way or the other.
People can either choose to deal with this voluntarily and peacefully, or at some point someone / some group will be stressed enough to take other actions.

("Ya hear me, stroller pushers? COMIN. TA. GIT. YA!!!!&quot

Sorry, screw that. Did I say "derp"? I meant [font size=5]DERP.[/font]

You write how you want, I'll do the same. Thanks!

[Warren DeMontague]

116. And if people took that approach with the parts of the world that actually do have problems with

fertility rates around 5, 6, 7... how would you feel about that?

Would if offend you? If other people marched into the poor overpopulated parts of the world and demanded that they drastically reduce their populations or 'we'll do it for you', wink wink nudge nudge?

Yeah. Smell that? I do. Smells pretty ugly.

Here's what I think we SHOULD do with places where population actually is a problem- help those people achieve a standard of living (poverty being a big driver behind overpopulation) and personal freedom/access to contraception (cultural/governmental/religious control being another) where they can make their own decisions on the matter.

[polly7]

144. So true.

Poverty is one of the main reasons people in some of the poorest nations have the highest birth-rates. Disease, famine, lack of clean water, war .... all cause the deaths of children who are relied upon to help the family survive, and later, take care of aging parents for whom there is often no source of aid whatsoever. Many have more children than they probably would otherwise, they know very well their children may not survive childhood. How do you explain to parents in these countries that birth-control is absolutely necessary for the species' survival, when it must seem nearly hopeless to see a future with children they can manage to raise to adulthood? Poverty is THE issue.

"According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”Source 4

Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

If current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goals target of halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30 million children, largely because of slow progress in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa."Source 5

Infectious diseases continue to blight the lives of the poor across the world. An estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 3 million deaths in 2004. Every year there are 350–500 million cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90 percent of malarial deaths and African children account for over 80 percent of malaria victims worldwide.Source 9

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

[Warren DeMontague]

148. And look at what happened with what should have been a manageable ebola outbreak.

The lack of health care and public infrastructure in the poorest parts of the world is all our problem, and responsibility.

[Cassidy]

59. Eventually, nature will make the choice for us.

The tragedy of the commons is the fundamental issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Imagine there is a village of 100 families with a community pasture. The pasture can support 200 cows indefinitely, i.e. 2 cows per family. Each family individually would be better off if they had 3 or 4 cows. But if each family does what is best for them individually, they will destroy the pasture.

Humanity is in the process of destroying the pasture. We can either make the rational choice to limit our individual desires, including family sizes, to allow a sustainable environment, or we can allow ourselves to be destroyed by natural consequences, i.e. pandemics, famine, resource wars, etc. It is not a question of whether the population will be limited, but a question of how and when.

When we discussed the tragedy of the commons in one of my biology classes, we also discussed the Chinese one child policy. My American students were horrified at the thought of the government limiting family size. A Chinese student, an only child, was in my class and she told us that neither she nor any of her cousins were planning to have any children at all because of changing cultural norms. The one child policy wasn't instigated out of thin air, it was instigated to prevent future famines. Freedom to have house full of children has less allure if you are watching your children starve. Of course, there are additional problems with the preference for boys, etc. but the reality is our behavior as individuals has consequences for human population. There is no free lunch.

Our behavior as a species has consequences for the earth. If you disagree, please provide evidence of living populations of passenger pigeons, Newfoundland wolfs, and Xerces blue butterflies as part of your rebuttal.

[Jim Lane]

87. Fallacy of the excluded middle

You imply that the only choice is between, on the one hand, mandatory population controls, and, on the other hand, doing absolutely nothing.

There are many, many policy options in between.

Mandatory controls would be a last resort. We don't need to get into an abstract debate about whether that step would ever be justified unless and until we've tried the less intrusive solutions.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. We haven't done absolutely nothing. We've given people the tools to make their own reproductive

choices.

And it's worked.



This is a "solution" in search of a problem, and if the history of these threads is any indication, it has little to do with how many babies are actually being born, say, in this country.

[Jim Lane]

121. We haven't done nothing, but also haven't done all we could.

Your graph would benefit from a few labels, such as what the numbers along the y-axis represent (I'm guessing fertility rate in the US, but I'm not sure). If your general point is that the birth rate has declined in this country, that is of course correct. The economy is a factor. So is access to sex education, contraception, and abortion.

If, however, your point is that everyone in the US (let alone in the world) currently has all the tools needed to make their own reproductive choices, then that's clearly wrong.

Therefore, mopinko in #35 is incorrect to imply that the only remaining step that could be taken on population issues is "to tell other people how to manage the most important decision of their lives".

[Warren DeMontague]

134. Either we're saying the same thing, or we aren't.

I think the solution to the so-called population problem, such as it is, is to empower more people worldwide to make their own decisions and run their own lives. I think that involves raising standards of living in places with high birth rates- economics being undoubtedly a big factor in places with high population growth- and also increasing access to contraception, etc and ideally personal autonomy versus cultural, governmental or religious control.

But If you think that is what these "population problem" threads are really about, I'm not buying it for a second.

[Jim Lane]

182. If you refer to a "so-called population problem" then we're probably not saying the same thing.

First, you continue to focus on the Third World. Your posts upthread indicate that you think the United States doesn't have a population problem. You're wrong. Population issues go beyond current rates of growth. The United States, at its current level of population, is overpopulated. The world as a whole, at its current level of population, is overpopulated.

You're right that, in sub-Saharan Africa and other places with high birth rates, higher standards of living will tend to reduce birth rates. So is it a solution to envision bringing the rest of the world up to the U.S. standard of living, in the hope that, along with other factors such as overcoming religious barriers to reproductive rights, the result will be population stabilization? No, it isn't. The current world population is unsustainable because of consumption of nonrenewable resources and other impacts on the ecosystem. Because of our higher standard of living, we in the U.S. contribute disproportionately to that aspect of the problem. If other countries are brought up to our standard of living while each country's population remains the same (i.e., with unrealistically immediate and complete population stabilization), then the world will hit the point of catastrophe that much more quickly.

As to your final paragraph, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you mean that an expressed concern about population issues is sometimes a cover for xenophobia or racism, I agree, but those people are a small minority. There are many of us who sincerely believe that there's a real problem here.

[Warren DeMontague]

198. You're damn right I put it in quotes.

Population issues go beyond current rates of growth. The United States, at its current level of population, is overpopulated. The world as a whole, at its current level of population, is overpopulated.

--- says you. So, okay, given that it is both a statistical fact that the US fertility rate is already below replacement levels, AND what population growth there is in the US is due to immigration- again, statistical fact; what exactly do you propose be done about the so-called overpopulation here in the US? I mean, I understand that less than 2 babies per 2 parents is still far too many wailing infants to fuck up some peoples' fine dining experience at TGIFs or whatever (yes, I've been on DU for a long time), but there is only so much reduction that can be done between 2 and zero. So, again, what precise real-world concrete policy proposals would make you happy, in this regard?

So is it a solution to envision bringing the rest of the world up to the U.S. standard of living, in the hope that, along with other factors such as overcoming religious barriers to reproductive rights, the result will be population stabilization? No, it isn't.

I'm sure that's easy for you to say, as you sit on a computer and drink clean water and don't have to worry about your family members dying of what should be entirely treatable illnesses. What was the overwhelming lesson of the entirely preventable ebola tragedy -and yes, for the 10K people or so killed and their families, it was not a "manufactured FOX news crisis", it was a real tragedy- of the past year? It was that countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia are suffering with terribly dilapidated health care infrastructures, and it is incumbent- both morally and from a self-interest perspective- on the rest of the world to help them in that regard.

Given the choice, I suspect that much of the rest of the world would say, "yeah, actually, that 1st world standard of living doesn't sound so terrible, and we'll figure out the resource and energy issues just like you guys are working on them". I think it's awfully arrogant to presume to condemn the rest of the planet to live in permanent abject poverty because, hey, you know, the environment- our bad.

I happen to believe our problems - resource utilization, sustainable energy- will be solved by moving FORWARD, not backward. I know that's a position that pisses some people off immeasurably, but again, too fucking bad. Just like how being pro choice magically turns into a position that pisses some people off, as soon as the topic is the "population problem". Again, sorry, but too damn bad.

And perhaps not coincidentally enough, that is how the 1st world has dealt with fertility and population- not by going backwards, but by going forward. With the tools of personal freedom and access to contraception, the problem has solved itself. Presto.

[Jim Lane]

200. Growth is a real problem, and so is the current high population.

So, again, what precise real-world concrete policy proposals would make you happy, in this regard?

Things that could be done in the United States: I've mentioned some elsewhere in this thread. "Every child a wanted child" would be a good place to start, but lately we've been moving in the opposite direction, with access to information, contraception, and abortion all coming under constant attacks (some of which have succeeded). Beyond that, we can consider the factors that affect how many children are wanted. Some people in this thread have mentioned the social pressure to have children. A government policy aimed at legitimizing the choice to have no or fewer children might do some good. We could also consider the effects of the tax code, although completely abolishing or even capping deductions for dependents would have adverse distributional effects that might outweigh the benefits.

Of course, it's hard to get such issues even considered as long as there's this viewpoint that, because the natural rate of increase in the U.S. is now slightly negative, we have no population problem. You appear to adopt that perspective of focusing solely on population growth as an issue. A country can have a population that is stable at a figure that's still too high.

I think it's awfully arrogant to presume to condemn the rest of the planet to live in permanent abject poverty because, hey, you know, the environment- our bad.

That is, of course, not anything that I proposed. My point is simply that raising the entire world to US living standards probably would stabilize population, as you argue, but clearly would not solve the population problem, because even that stable population would be consuming resources and otherwise impacting the Earth at a rate far beyond what's sustainable.

Is your vision of the ideal future one in which we raise living standards throughout the Third World, so that population stabilizes at roughly the current seven billion or so, all of whom are consuming at current U.S. average levels? You give the impression that any resulting problems can be addressed by "moving FORWARD," which to me suggests the technological-fix school of thought. The question is whether there's a scientific advance or group of advances likely to occur in the next several decades that would enable seven billion people to live here at the current U.S. standard of living on any long-term basis. I can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that no such technological fix will occur. All I can give you is my subjective estimate that it's wildly improbable. Should we go forward on a course that depends on such an unforeseen fix popping up, as the way to prevent an otherwise inevitable catastrophe? I say No.

[Warren DeMontague]

202. Yes, I lean towards the technological fix school of thought, if I can be ascribed to any "school"

And I am fundamentally an optimist.

If I'm wrong, and we're screwed, we're screwed either way.

but lately we've been moving in the opposite direction, with access to information, contraception, and abortion all coming under constant attacks (some of which have succeeded).

And I'm pro-choice, but the logic of being pro-choice cuts both ways. I don't take it upon myself to presume to tell other people not to have kids, OR to have kids. Also, despite RW wars on choice, the birth rate hasn't really reflected it, en masse. I'm not talking about the Duggars, but the general average. I suspect most people on DU who are not stealth RW trolls would agree that protecting Roe v. Wade on the SCOTUS is a top-tier argument for voting (D) every 4 years.

The rest of your paragraph, though, is a bit silly- and more of this sort of "the fact that you don't acknowledge there's a problem IS the problem, itself" reasoning. I see this more and more, and I'm starting to ascribe it to a form of rhetorical laziness. No, either there's an objective problem or there isn't, but how I feel about it isn't changing jack shit. We don't live in Wile E. Coyote land where the key to not falling off the cliff is not looking down to realize it's not under us. Anyone can 'social pressure' anyone about anything, and no one is stopping them- but honestly, I doubt too many people are either having or not having a child based on what some anonymous yarblocko on the internet says. "Well, I wasn't going to, but now I am, because.... social pressure". Really? Are people that friggin malleable?

You may say yes, but I don't think so.

The only concrete policy action you mention; the tax code- you yourself admit is quite likely untenable.

Is your vision of the ideal future one in which we raise living standards throughout the Third World, so that population stabilizes at roughly the current seven billion or so, all of whom are consuming at current U.S. average levels?

No, because my vision of the ideal future includes one in which some of the sustainability problems we've already started to solve, will be solved to an even greater degree. I would aim higher, for the rest of the world, and hope that yes, as standards of living are raised better means to sustainably do so are incorporated.

Should we go forward on a course that depends on such an unforeseen fix popping up, as the way to prevent an otherwise inevitable catastrophe? I say No.

And again, aside from "getting people to admit there's a problem"- fine advice for a 12 step meeting, but geopolitically sort of an empty suggestion- what is your concrete alternate vision, including practical policy implementation?

Science got us into much of this mess, to be sure. I'm not positive science can get us out, but I am pretty sure we don't have any other choice.

[Jim Lane]

204. We shouldn't put all our eggs in the technological fix basket.

If I'm wrong, and we're screwed, we're screwed either way.

Yes and no. I think it likely that the overall situation of humanity (to the extent one can assess something so nebulous) will be worse in fifty years than it is today. Nevertheless, there's screwed and then there's mega-screwed. If our best-case scenario is being screwed through a significant decline in quality of life, and our worst-case scenario is being screwed through catastrophic population decline (wars, famine, pestilence, whatever), then it's worth taking actions now that will get us to the "merely screwed" outcome.

And I'm pro-choice, but the logic of being pro-choice cuts both ways. I don't take it upon myself to presume to tell other people not to have kids, OR to have kids.

It's interesting that you keep rebutting the argument for mandatory population control -- interesting because no one in this thread is actually making that argument. That policy option wouldn't even merit discussion unless and until we had exhausted less draconian remedies.

For what it's worth, though, I don't think "pro-choice" is all one piece. There are many instances in which we prohibit people from doing something because of its social consequences, even though we therefore limit their choice. To my mind, barring people from having more than a certain number of children, because of the social consequences, limits their choice, but is less of an imposition than is requiring an unwilling woman to go through pregnancy and childbirth. There would be no inconsistency in supporting limits on family size while opposing mandatory motherhood.

No, either there's an objective problem or there isn't, but how I feel about it isn't changing jack shit.

You post on a political message board to opine that people's opinions on politics are irrelevant? How you feel about something generally doesn't change whether there's an objective problem but it does affect the political prospects for taking effective action. As for the role of social pressure, if you look at this very thread you'll see references to it. It's not so much that someone says, "Should I or shouldn't I have a child... well, I was undecided, until I considered the latest Gallup poll, and that swayed me." It's more like people never even getting to the point of "Should I or shouldn't I have a child" because it's just assumed. This is less true than it once was but it's still a factor.

As for the geopolitical alternatives, I think you skipped over the distinction I was drawing between the U.S. (along with the rest of the industrialized world) and the poorer countries where the most population growth is occurring. In the Third World, there is still considerable progress to be made just under the rubric of "Every child a wanted child." Achieving that goal worldwide would somewhat reduce the U.S. birthrate but would do even more good in the poorer countries. I also agree with trying to improve living standards in those countries and taking other measures (such as educational and occupational opportunities for women) that have been shown to reduce the birthrate.

[Warren DeMontague]

206. So yes, you yourself acknowledge that there's a rather large gap between the 1st world

Situation and the reality in places where population growth actually is a problem.

Here it is a "solution" in search of a problem. If less than replacement birth rate isnt good enough, what is it you think you're going to get? And this idea that the US is just a hair's breadth or a few "less draconian remedies" away from shit like limiting the number of kids people can have- look, maybe you have an inordinately bad commute or think the subway is crowded, but I don't think your finger is on the pulse of US public opinion.... Speaking of gallup polls.

For what it's worth, though, I don't think "pro-choice" is all one piece.

For what it's worth, I DO. This isn't Communist China, or even Corporate/Communist China.

I also, getting back to the upper point, suspect that the same Constitutional rights which have been interpreted, in cases like Griswold and Roe, to protect individual liberty, conscience, and privacy, would make short work of any hypothetical asinine proposal to legislate family size.

There are many instances in which we prohibit people from doing something because of its social consequences, even though we therefore limit their choice.

Sounds legit. But here's a fun thought experiment- just for shits and giggles, why dont you make a list of all the "legitimate" instances in which we limit, or try to, the personal life choices of individuals, when they arent directly harming or endangering others. And also make a list of the authoritarian bullshit- from arresting pot smokers in their own homes to arguments against gay marriage equality- that is justified in the name of controlling people, because of those same sorts of nebulous "social consequences" arguments.

You post on a political message board to opine that people's opinions on politics are irrelevant? How you feel about something generally doesn't change whether there's an objective problem but it does affect the political prospects for taking effective action.

No, I think that "the fact that people dont think there is a problem is the problem, or proves that it exists" is crappy reasoning, and I like pretzels as much as anyone.

Lastly, again...leaving aside promoting wanted children in the places with high rates of pop. Growth, access to contraception etc... Which I suspect has wide agreement-- what sorts of "effective action" do you envision being taken politically, here, you know, before the draconian shit "has to be" implemented ... because the fertility rate is still a whopping 1.9 or whatever?

And what makes you think any of it would be more effective than what has already been done in the past 50 years, namely, giving people access to contraception and reproductive choice?

[Jim Lane]

217. The Third World has higher population growth, but we also have an overpopulation problem.

You refer to "places where population growth actually is a problem." I keep saying that growth is not the only issue and you keep saying that everything in the U.S. is fine because our natural rate of increase is negative. My view is still that the U.S., at its current population level, is overpopulated. To me, that's absolutely clear from our share of the human impact on the global environment. Your answer appears to be: (1) Hey, I said, we're not growing, except through immigration, so no growth = no problem, and (2) at some unspecified time in the future, we'll be able to reduce our impact, while yet maintaining our current lifestyle and current numbers, by employing some unspecified technology. If that's your position, we'll just have to disagree.

And this idea that the US is just a hair's breadth or a few "less draconian remedies" away from shit like limiting the number of kids people can have....

I don't think it's just a hair's breadth away. I do think it's at least possible that, at some time in the future, things will get bad enough that there will be some serious proposals along those lines. Obviously, those (still hypothetical) proponents will face enormous obstacles. Depending on what happens over the next 50 years, though, the idea may seem less outlandish than it does today.

why dont you make a list of all the "legitimate" instances in which we limit, or try to, the personal life choices of individuals, when they arent directly harming or endangering others.

The first one that occurs to me, because it was in the news on Election Day, is the minimum wage. Lisa runs a McDonald's franchise. She wants to hire Joe, a 22-year-old of sound mind, to flip burgers at $5 an hour. He wants to take the job. Personal life choices of two consenting adults, rah rah freedom, except that our government steps in and prohibits it. I consider that restriction on choice to be legitimate (even if Communist China has comparable laws).

Sorry, no, I'm not going to try to make a complete list of all such instances. Go to a libertarian website to see the aspects of the twentieth century that they object to and you'll have a good first draft, subject to addition and deletion.

And also make a list of the authoritarian bullshit- from arresting pot smokers in their own homes to arguments against gay marriage equality- that is justified in the name of controlling people, because of those same sorts of nebulous "social consequences" arguments.

Sorry again. I refuse to take responsibility for arguments I haven't made. Some other people make bogus arguments based on social consequences, so I must eschew all valid arguments based on social consequences? No. People make bogus arguments based on, for example, the First Amendment (see Citizens United and McCutcheon), but that won't stop me from defending the Constitutional rights of peaceful protesters in Ferguson. When it comes to laws that control people, I support minimum-wage laws, and I oppose anti-marriage-equality laws and marijuana prohibition. (I also oppose limits on family size, so I'm not sure why we're having this conversation.)

No, I think that "the fact that people dont think there is a problem is the problem, or proves that it exists" is crappy reasoning, and I like pretzels as much as anyone.

Let's momentarily leave the charged subject of population. Many DUers see income inequality and anthropogenic climate change as problems. No one would say that public opinion is the problem (the straw man you attack), but certainly part of the problem in each case is that millions of Americans don't think it's a problem, and therefore resist policies to address it. I think the same is true of overpopulation.

Lastly, again...leaving aside promoting wanted children in the places with high rates of pop. Growth, access to contraception etc... Which I suspect has wide agreement-- what sorts of "effective action" do you envision being taken politically, here, you know, before the draconian shit "has to be" implemented ... because the fertility rate is still a whopping 1.9 or whatever?

If your point is that there are no easy solutions, I completely agree. Your comment, juxtaposed with those of people in this thread saying that there's plenty of unoccupied land, reminds me of an observation I read long ago. It was along the lines of: "The land problem is easier to solve than the energy problem; the energy problem is easier to solve than the water problem; and anything is easier to solve than the population problem." Still true, alas.

I have no magic bullets. You suggest there's wide agreement on "promoting wanted children in the places with high rates of pop. Growth" but I'd note two points. First, I do see more room for improvement even in the developed countries. There are unwanted children born here, too. Second, even as to the countries with high rates of growth, the developed countries should be providing much greater assistance to people who want to plan their families -- the free choice we all agree on -- but who currently don't have access to the means to do so. In that context, the OP's question is a valid one. You and I can say we agree on free access to contraception, etc., and plenty of other people may say they agree, but among politicians it's just not seen as a priority, and not an issue worth pressing.

And, yes, that attitude is part of the problem.

[Warren DeMontague]

218. And round and round and round we go, like I said, either we're saying the same thing or we aren't.

we also have an overpopulation problem

- says you. Also, population growth in the US, such as it is, currently is driven by immigration, not birth. And oddly enough, that's how a lot of those burger-flipping companies get around laws like benefits or minimum wage, by hiring undocumented workers. So what do you propose be done about it, since you're asserting it's an objective fact that "we have an overpopulation problem"? If it's a problem, and you keep saying it is- shouldn't the focus be on the thing that is actaully driving the problem?

If not, why not?

(Please note, here, that I personally think that while letting an infinite number of people into this country is bad for our workers, etc, I DO think that the people who have been here for years and played by the rules deserve a path to citizenship, and certainly shouldn't be in this limbo of easy low wage, no benefit exploitation what only benefits big business)

things will get bad enough that there will be some serious proposals along those lines.

And again, if a less than replacement fertility rate isn't good enough, what is?

Lisa runs a McDonald's franchise. She wants to hire Joe, a 22-year-old of sound mind, to flip burgers at $5 an hour. He wants to take the job. Personal life choices of two consenting adults, rah rah freedom, except that our government steps in and prohibits it. I consider that restriction on choice to be legitimate.

I do, too, but that is a commercial business transaction between two people, not someone's personal choice about their own life. You keep saying "I don't want to legislate family size" and apparently no one does in this thread, honest! .... but boy oh boy oh boy are they seemingly pissed off about all the people around them breeding without their express permission. I'm not a "Libertarian" (eek! that word!) but I'd be far more comfortable with that label than the sort of Authoritarianism that presumes to make peoples' most personal life decisions- like whether to have a child- for them.

Your comment, juxtaposed with those of people in this thread saying that there's plenty of unoccupied land, reminds me of an observation I read long ago. It was along the lines of: "The land problem is easier to solve than the energy problem; the energy problem is easier to solve than the water problem; and anything is easier to solve than the population problem." Still true, alas.

Except, again, it's not, I don't believe it is, at least, and you, obviously, disagree, so there's limited point in us going "is too" "is not" back and forth.. "The US is overpopulated" is a purely subjective opinion. What we DO have in the way of hard facts, is the fertility rate, as well as, again, the fact that current population growth in the US is driven by immigration. And in the realm of statistical fact, we also know that between the time the pill was introduced to now, fertility rates dropped considerably. So no, "the population problem" is not the hardest to solve, in fact it has proven ridiculously easy to deal with, given the proper tools.

[Cerridwen]

107. Jury results: 0-7 to LEAVE IT. I kid you not. Your post was alerted.

On Thu Jan 1, 2015, 06:21 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

you missed the most important one, made more than once.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6028839

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Over the top, insensitive comment. Please hide it

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jan 1, 2015, 06:28 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sigh/ugh/facepalm/children. Is this what we have to look forward to in 2015?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To the alerter: did you mis-click? Did you truly mean to alert this post? Leave it. I'm sure the alerter made a mistake.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: not OTT. Typical DU.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see this as over the top at all.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Absolutely not hide-worthy. Alert is frivolous or self-serving.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I've served on some head-scratchers but I think this one takes the cake.

How many posts does a person on this board have to have before they can alert a post? I can't imagine any honest reason to alert your post.

Take care, mopinko.

[mopinko]

109. oy.

at least it was 0-7.

take care of yourself, too.

[tclambert]

37. It's okay, we can easily solve the over-population problem.

Let's hope we don't over-do it and drive ourselves to extinction.

[2banon]

38. Weird Coincidence.. I was just about to post an OP how the Reich Wing used this issue to their

advantage. Over population of the planet was a serious concern in the 60's and early 70's and all of my peeps of the day decided on having ONE child based on these concerns. I did and most of my friends made that decision.

However, in the past decade I was struck with the realization that this was a HUGE mistake.

No, make that a BEHEMOTH mistake.

While we were busy being concerned with the environment and the issues of over population impacting the environment in it's various facets of consumerism, world hunger, devastating impact on clean, and clean water and the depletion of natural resources, trying to raise awareness, live consciously, work politically to legislate safeguards to our environment, etc... the Reich Wing had been busy not just opposing these objectives, but ensuring their political agendas and aims for the present would be safeguarded, but into the future by producing scores more children, teaching them their twisted views which have manifested politically....

Additionally, folks in our tribe trended to "coastal" regions when we should have populated the so called "fly over" regions.

Yes, shoulda woulda coulda's..

But we now have this so called "Red State/Blue State" political grid which is insanely fixed for generations to come unless progressives get wise to the strategy that the Reich Wing had created and is countered with the same.

They deliberately created armies for their own tribe that controls national politics.

[appalachiablue]

64. Very interesting points. Agree it seems that more thoughtful, caring liberals behaved in a

socially responsible way in the 60s and 70s while conservatives acted on selfishness and now have a larger population. And we have the huge coastal and ideological division and conflict. Hindsight is always great! I wish I'd had more children also, my grandmother had 10, 8 lived.

[2banon]

70. My One Child is now an adult in her 40's.. She and her Wife got married several years ago

I was happy she found her life partner but thought I would never have grandchildren.

But soon after they married, they decided to have children. My daughter gave birth to two beautiful girls, now ages 6 and 4. I count my blessings every day.

The reason why she had two is because she was an "only child" and wanted her first born to have a sibling. We live in the Bay Area, and as everyone knows, it's a bubble of very progressive thinking.

We were having this discussion a couple of months ago, and it has just come up again on fb. Someone had posted something about a christian fundamentalist "quiver" strategy established several decades ago which completely confirmed my realization that morally speaking, our tribe's thinking about over population issues are critical, but politically it's been suicidal and on the "wrong" strategic path.

I think we need to promote the strategy of having "lots" more kids for our "tribe" and scatter about the nation, settling in and populating places like Nebraska etc. etc. in order to achieve the progressive goals for the future of our nation.

[appalachiablue]

80. How wonderful for you, two grandgirls. Agree we need serious catchup in population nos.for the left

by creating larger families and bringing in people from groups like the young, minorities, immigrants and any disenchanted GOP voters. As to having more children there are some major issues for many like the decline in good jobs and income, loss of the middle class, widening income inequality and economic insecurity.
Student debt is also holding back some from buying homes, starting families, etc. But for those for whom these are not an issue fine, go forth and prosper!

Frida Kahlo's art and style are great, particularly her symbolism and use of color. My mom was enchanted with the west, worked in San Fran and NYC during WWII using her artist skills while dad was overseas. We returned to SF in the 90s and I have to get back soon, friends in San Diego now.

[NewDeal_Dem]

97. agreed. and the superrich have more kids than the middle classes do, on average. and they

definitely use way more resources per capita. and of course are responsible for more pollution etc. because they own industry and would rather run it dirty and unsafe than lose profit. and of course they've made all the rules about resource use (such as creating our car-dependent society and suburbs).

yet they pretend the average American is the villain of the piece.

[etherealtruth]

40. I think it pits the developed world against the developing world

The developed world has far lower birth rates .... but uses significantly more resources.

A family of four in the U.S. uses many times the resources as a family twice the size in Niger or Bangladesh ... so what is the real question when it comes to depleting the world's finite resources.

I heartily agree that education and lower birthrates are better for women and society .... but think the "over population" question is highly nuanced and is not simply a matter of birth and death rates.

birthrates around the globe http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=25

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/
It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live much less sustainably than people from any other large country of the world. “A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.

[raccoon]

73. THANK YOU. nt

[Starry Messenger]

145. ^^^^The correct answer^^^^

[MicaelS]

41. Because you cannot support reproductive freedom and choice..

For women on one hand, and then complain when women exercise those freedoms and choices and deliberately choose to reproduce. The subtext of "reproductive freedom" among some of those on the left really translates into the "freedom" not to reproduce because it's bad for the planet. And that is what your OP really implies.

The one thing I have often noticed about some on the Left is they complain that there are not enough progressives / liberals, and then turn right around state THEY would never have children. While conservatives are having them all the time.

The best way to create more people with your values is to have or adopt them, raise them, and pass your values onto them.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. Some people just wake up in the morning pissed off that they can't tell everyone else what to do.

They have all different sorts of rationalizations, belief systems, religions, prejudices, etc. laid on top of it, but right there at the bottom that's what it boils down to.

[Duppers]

127. we don't live as isolated islands on this planet

What you do affects me and vice versa.

I thought it was only the 1% who thought they could survive in splendid isolation.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. And I thought it was only right wing fundamentalists who were anti-choice.

[Starry Messenger]

43. What happened to yellowwood1?

[mopinko]

54. his parents have a time machine. they realized their error. nt

[BlueJazz]

47. I don't want any children so I'm selfishly doing my part. I think? the problem is

not so much the population but the density rate. Isn't it true that in poor countries with high density, the rates of new adaption of viruses are becoming quite a problem?? (I'm asking..not preaching)

[sendero]

49. Because...

... it's inevitable. Until it isn't because the resources of the planet cannot support more humans?

Human beings never pre-emptively solve a problem that has no current negative manifestation.

Humans will never solve this particular problem, the earth will.

[PasadenaTrudy]

51. People are selfish

Bringing kids into the world is the ultimate act of selfishness and narcissism, IMO.

[jeff47]

52. Because the problem is solving itself.

Population growth is already slowing down. Most of the developed world is below replacement rate - population growth in those countries is coming from immigration, and immigrants are quickly dropping to the prevailing replacement rate.

As "developing" countries move closer to "developed" countries, their reproduction rate is also dropping. The only way to really solve the problem is to somehow impose a cap on those developing countries....which isn't exactly fair nor liberal.

There's also we don't yet know what the zero-growth replacement rate is. It's constantly changing due to medical advances. It's somewhere around 2.1 to 2.3 children per woman.

These issues are interrelated. Mother Earth can only hold so many.

We've blown through several predictions on how many "Mother Earth" can hold. And we still have vast tracts of fallow farmland. So it doesn't look like we're approaching carrying capacity.

[exboyfil]

62. Look at the latest predictions

I was alarmed when I saw them.

You mention fallow farmland. Where is it? We are seeing significant clear cutting of forests to generate more farmland. Granted a portion is being turned to energy (which we should be ashamed of), but 2 Billion more than originally projected is quite a number.

I am an engineer in the agricultural equipment industry. I like to think that technology can handle these situations, but projecting such advances can always be dangerous. I am also hoping for a new revelation in the Vatican that switches from no birth control to responsible family planning. It may turn out that our current monocrop approach will be kicked in the head by some future pathogen.

Combine that with the understandable desire of everyone to achieve the highest standard of living which they can. That translates into more meat consumption which means far more grain than currently being produced.

I am not a doom and gloom Malthusian, but these statistics did make me sit up and take notice.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-population-will-soar-higher-than-predicted/

[jeff47]

129. Hey, it looks a lot like the earlier predictions that didn't come to pass.

Time to panic!!

You mention fallow farmland. Where is it?

The developed world.

We used to farm all over the Northeast of the US, for example. Now there's very few farms. There's also lots of fallow land in the West. And remember the whole "paying farmers to not grow corn" thing?

We are seeing significant clear cutting of forests to generate more farmland.

In poor countries that make their money exporting agricultural products. Not because we're out of farmland on the planet.

They're clear-cutting forests because that's how they make money. As they move from "developing" to "developed", they will create an economy that doesn't rely on agricultural exports. Because that's what every country that has made that transition did.

It may turn out that our current monocrop approach will be kicked in the head by some future pathogen.

You're thinking too short. A famine caused by a pathogen isn't going to be multi-generational. It will make a terrible few years. But they'll move to some other crop.

Saying it's solving itself does not mean there will be no problems, nor that there will be no pain. It means the trends we're seeing is for the population to level off. Your predictions assume that Africa won't do what has happened everywhere else, which is an odd assumption.

[ffr]

74. And what about the natural carrying capacity for non-human species

Are we all that matters? We're already seeing a breakdown of our natural pollinating systems. Honeybee CCD, Monarch butterfly populations plummeting, the list reads like a dead end for crop yields that depend on nature's gift to us.



Forget the pollinating systems required for agriculture. Let's consider how do you feed 7 - 11 billion humans when cheap oil runs out? The math doesn't add up. You know oil is a finite resource, right? Without cheap oil, which when used destabilizes the environment, human population wouldn't survive beyond a few billion.

What you're advocating is unrestricted human breeding until some future time that "you" determine there's a carrying capacity problem. This is why I don't concern myself with the fact we're already beyond earth's carrying capacity to sustain humans. We cannot get your kind on board with slowing the ever expanding human population. Instead, your kind forces us all into this experiment, which nature and history have shown is not sustainable.

Cosmos: Welcome to the Halls of Extinction

[jeff47]

132. Why do you have to lie to make your point?

What you're advocating is unrestricted human breeding until some future time that "you" determine there's a carrying capacity problem.

Why do you have to lie to make your point? My post is right there. Unrestricted breeding does not exist anywhere in the post.

It talks about trends as countries develop, and that the countries that are not at replacement rate are the poor countries. Imposing population controls on those countries from the outside would be utterly horrific.

This is why I don't concern myself with the fact we're already beyond earth's carrying capacity to sustain humans.

If that were true, we'd be farming every single plot of land that can grow a crop. That isn't remotely true.

But good job with lying so you can claim superiority!

[ffr]

162. Doesn't dignify a response. n/t

[jeff47]

178. Neither did your lies. (nt)

[bhikkhu]

75. Yes - what I was going to say:

Most of the world is near replacement rate, and the trajectories are dipping under.

I was raised in the 70's, and the projections were all disaster and doom. We haven't had disaster and doom (though "shifting baselines" have certainly masked some impacts), and all of the birthrates are on a regional trajectories either solved the problem already, or will in a decade or two. Most country's population growth has levelled off.

The problem isn't population anymore, its resource use. If every country used resources at our rate, that would bring disaster and doom. Carrying capacity is determined by how we live much more than how many we are.

[Cassidy]

90. "We haven't had disaster and doom..." Who is included in "we"?

1968–1972 Sahel drought created a famine that killed a million people[85] Mauritania, Mali, Chad, Niger and Burkina Faso
1972–1973 Famine in Ethiopia caused by drought and poor governance; failure of the government to handle this crisis led to the fall of Haile Selassie and to Derg rule Ethiopia 60,000[86]
1974 Bangladesh famine of 1974 Bangladesh 1 million
1975–1979 Khmer Rouge. An estimated 2 million Cambodians lost their lives to murder, forced labor and famine Cambodia
1980–1981 Caused by drought and conflict[86] Uganda 30,000[86]
1984–1985 1984–1985 famine in Ethiopia Ethiopia
1991–1992 Famine in Somalia caused by drought and civil war[86] Somalia 300,000[86]
1996 North Korean famine.[87][88] Scholars estimate 600,000 died of starvation (other estimates range from 200,000 to 3.5 million).[89] North Korea 200,000 to 3.5 million
1998 1998 Sudan famine caused by war and drought Sudan 70,000[86]
1998–2000 Famine in Ethiopia. The situation worsened by Eritrean–Ethiopian War Ethiopia
1998–2004 Second Congo War. 3.8 million people died, mostly from starvation and disease Democratic Republic of the Congo
2011-2012 Famine in Somalia, brought on by the 2011 East Africa drought[90] Somalia
2012 Famine in West Africa, brought on by the 2012 Sahel drought[91] Senegal, Gambia, Niger, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso

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

Would a smaller human population, even in wealthy nations, be more likely to decrease resource use or somehow to increase resource use? I understand there is not a direct correlation between population and resource depletion, because of massive wealth inequalities, but I don't think it is correct to argue that population is not part of the problem. How many extinctions and environmental degradations are acceptable in order to maintain a maximum human population? Is that the correct goal?

[ffr]

55. I bring it up as often as I can on DU and with everyone I speak to

And I agree with those who study this topic, that the World's human population is only sustainable at about 2 to 3 billion, if that.

I laugh at any assessment about saving wildlife or the environment as a solution, because until human consumption of resources is addressed through reduced population, they're all going to go extinct and the environment is going to continue being polluted; we've already passed the cliff of no return. And as Neil Degrasse Tyson says in Cosmos, 'there's a disconnect between what we know and what we need to do.' (or something along those lines - Episode 11 or 12).

Human population control to these levels by itself would cascade in so many positive directions for life on Earth. It would give us time to come into commonality with nature. We know this, but we're satisfied with an untimely harsh ending we can sluff off until later, rather than making the tough decisions to address the problems we see staring us in the face. We needed to change our consciousness long ago, doing what we needed to do for the betterment of all life on this planet.

Faster and faster we go...in the direction of easy. In the last 60 years the Earth's human population has almost tripled.

I do what little I can do to reduce and recycle. But I see far too many that don't want to see. Our fate is sealed.

http://www.worldometers.info/

[ffr]

65. The Optimum Population Trust

Current trends
The population trends projected by the UN vary enormously by region:

Africa and much of Asia are predicted to grow significantly
the Americas are expected to grow somewhat
Europe is predicted to stabilize

Crowd of people
The mid-range global projection is that the planet’s population will increase from seven billion to nine billion by 2050. Broader estimates range from eight to 11 billion, depending on how effectively and quickly reproductive and development programmes are implemented in developing areas of the world to address the key drivers of population growth: the lack of reproductive health and contraception, lack of women’s rights and poverty. In some countries, migration also contributes significantly to the increase in population. - PopulationMatters.org

[appalachiablue]

61. Population growth is essential to understanding the rise of global neoliberal economics and climate

change. Omitting this is irresponsible regardless of fears and taboos. When I realized the world population and growth rate I understood much more how our natural resources are being exhausted and polluted in order to produce food and other essentials for so many people in the world.

[FrodosPet]

67. So how do we get Asians and Africans to quit reproducing?

Birth rates have fallen to below replacement levels in most of the western world.

The bulk of population growth is in Asia and Africa. I challenge you to offer a solution that won't get you branded as a xenophobic imperialist monster, interfering in the sovereignty of other nations and cultures.

[yellowwoodII]

69. Assumption

I assume that all women in the world want to have control over their own fertility, just as women in the Western countries do.
You may remember that, during the Bush Administration, efforts to provide contraception methods were blocked.
From 2005 article:
http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/2005_01/20050103.html
"Despite these findings, Bush continues to push abstinence-only education, and to toe the anti-birth control line, as can be seen by his executive appointments."

[FrodosPet]

194. You know what happens when you assume, right?

There is a famous phrase about assuming that I would rather not repeat.

Anyhow...

The long and short of it is, in certain areas of the world, if we go in and start telling people that there are too many of them, they shouldn't be reproducing - they are not going to look at it as a matter of "Oh these nice white people are trying to save the Earth!". They are going to look at it as "These white imperialists are trying to kill off our people".

I am in total agreement that population growth needs to be checked. But it is not going to be easy to reach the people who are having large families and to convince them to slow down, when biological and cultural motivation tells them to make babies.

[Iggo]

71. Why?

[ffr]

78. Because in the 4 hrs since this thread started, 76,000 more humans were added

https://www.populationinstitute.org/programs/gpso/gpso/

[Iggo]

79. Is that gross or net?

[ffr]

82. Google! Damn it. As soon as I type a number it goes up.

There it goes some more. Up 1,000 since I posted last.

I don't know. You figure it out. It's going up. And fast! Now, net of 1,200. No, now 1,250. Damn it! 1,300. 1,320. 1,340.

I can't type this fast. 1,360. 1,380. 1,410. 1440...

I can't do it!

[Iggo]

83. Lol...take it easy!

Let me give it a shot...

EDIT: Okay, I'm seeing about 216,000 per day, so four hours' worth would be about 36,000.

Source:
http://www.medindia.net/patients/calculators/worldpopulation.asp

[ffr]

85. Lol...good luck

Last edited Thu Jan 1, 2015, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Edit: you're correct. I divided 228,000/day by 12 (thinking months instead of hours). So netting 216,000/day for the six hours since the thread was started, 9,000/hr; 54,000.

54,000 more hungry people on Earth than there were just six hours ago.

Some months back I put the current population growth into a spreadsheet that tallied all the known water on Earth. Taking into consideration how much water is in the average adult human I copied and pasted the formulas down the rows. Not just drinkable water, but all known water and let the spreadsheet's cells calculate the breakeven point of when humans would absorb all the water on and in the Earth, an impossible scenario and without going into the repercussions of us consuming every drop from every other form of life. At our current rate, ~1,500 yrs.

So I tell people, that we have less than 1,500 years to figure it out. I'd bet it's much less than that.

[Calista241]

175. Wars will be fought over water in the near future.

There's a reason Israel doesn't want to return the Golan Heights to Syria, and wants to maintain a foothold in the West Bank.

And that's just the most widely known immediate disaster looming. India and China have a very difficult time istributing water to people, much less growing rice.

[yellowwoodII]

100. I Don't Think that We "Get" Anyone To Do Anything

I think that poster is suggesting that the Western countries do not and should not impose restrictions on other countries. So true. On the other hand, by the religious imposition on policy toward contraception, we do "get" women to have less control over their family size than they might want.
Some have asked, "What can we do?" We can stop funding religions which impose their beliefs on others, both here and in other countries.

[SheilaT]

76. It does get discussed, but not as often or in the way it should be.

The discussions here, while interesting, don't change anything.

Several have pointed out correctly that many nations on this planet have already achieved zero population growth, or even negative population growth (Italy, Japan, and several others). But our entire economic world -- and it doesn't matter if you're talking about consumer capitalism or socialism or any other system -- depends on growth. More things need to be produced and purchased, so more workers are needed and the cycle is endless and ultimately, given that this planet is a closed system, cannot go on forever.

Resources are finite. But we humans evolved in circumstances where resources were, for all practical purposes, infinite. There were enough animals to hunt, berries and nuts to gather, to keep a small band going, and when they ran out of animals or berries they could move on to another territory. Because of high infant mortality and other things that kept most babies who were born from reproducing, population growth was almost non-existent. Then we developed agriculture, then manufacturing of various things, and conditions changed so that more of those babies lived to reproduce.

We are hard wired to reproduce, and those who choose not to, while an excellent choice these days, are behaving counter to our evolution. As several here have said, they are mindful of the fact there are already too many people, and are doing their own small bit to save the planet.

Eventually human population will decline, and decline precipitously. Whether that happens because of world wide catastrophe as in the exceptionally-deadly-and-fast-moving disease, global nuclear war, or simply a slower die-off due to things like environmental degradation and disease, we can't begin to know at this point. There is a small hope that the slowing of population growth world-wide will continue, but it is my personal belief that we are already well above this planet's carrying capacity. If we could magically reduce the world population to about a billion people overnight and keep it at that number, that might solve the problems of too many people. But at the rate we are collectively using up resources and dumping garbage everywhere, I'd guess that the long run sustainable number will be half of that.

Looking at population growth graphs, it's scary to see that the Black Death in the 14th century is only a very small blip in population growth. And as terrible as WWI and WWII were, they did not noticeably slow it down.

The only questions left are when will world population decline, and how quickly will that decline take place?

[ffr]

95. +1 You hit it dead on.

"Resources are finite. But we humans evolved in circumstances where resources were, for all practical purposes, infinite. There were enough animals to hunt, berries and nuts to gather, to keep a small band going, and when they ran out of animals or berries they could move on to another territory. Because of high infant mortality and other things that kept most babies who were born from reproducing, population growth was almost non-existent. Then we developed agriculture, then manufacturing of various things, and conditions changed so that more of those babies lived to reproduce."

And a good thorough read from start to finish.

[SheilaT]

102. Thank you.

When I'm not thoroughly pissing people off in the gun forum because of my opposition to guns, I try to write thoughtful, informative posts. Sometimes I succeed!

[surrealAmerican]

77. Identifying the problem is of little use unless you have a solution.

Most proposed solutions are either already working or impossible to implement at the current time.

[Jim Lane]

89. First step toward a solution: "Every child a wanted child."

Everyone should have full access to information about reproductive issues, to contraception, and to abortion. We've made some progress toward that but there's still plenty to be done (right here in the USA as well as in other countries).

Then there are other policies that would affect how many children are wanted in the first place, such as providing other assurances of economic security in old age. In the United States we should be considering the tax rules that encourage childbearing.

[Bluenorthwest]

91. Anyone who wants to talk about sustainabilty but won't talk about population issues is a hypocrite.

nt

[JI7]

93. isn't this something that is more connected to poverty, lack of education and other rights for

females and similar issues ? when there is more equality for women and living standards increase usually it means less kids.

also i don't think many of the people in these places are driving cars and using up a lot of other energy.

isn't one of the reasons places like india and china are now using more energy because there is a rise in living standards and the birth rate is actually going down as a result ? and this in turn will mean people will want to buy more cars , homes that use more energy etc.

[seveneyes]

99. Parental Procreation Permit

If you want to propagate
First prove you can educate

[on point]

103. You're right. Need to crash our population nicely, before nature and war does it for us badly

One of reasons is that capitalism needs a growing population (market) to keep up the game. It is not structured for a sustainable economy, which is where we need to go.

[Warren DeMontague]

115. Then why is the US fertility rate stable, or even declining?

http://www.livescience.com/48995-us-birth-rate-hits-all-time-low.html

[on point]

193. Answ: Because of education and pressure on women in occupations.

Rea question is why does business insist on need to grow population through immigration? With out immigration USA population would be shrinking, a very good thing for world and for USA.

Capitalism needs population growth to suppress wages and to feed growth of markets.

Best thing to do is expand education of women worldwide and to provide access to contraceptives in order to first stabilize and then decrease population in world. I see in another post in this list that estimate of sustain population for world, living within what biosphere can sustain, is 3 billion people.

Right now we are living off the principle, not the interest, of what world can sustain

[Warren DeMontague]

197. Anyone can throw numbers out and claim them as authoritative.

170% of all statistics on the internet are made up on the spot, remember.

I doubt that whoever said authoritatively that "the biosphere can ONLY sustain 3 billion people" has much to go on other than they read it somewhere. I was active in the Rainforest Action Network in the 80s, and it was an eye-opening experience. Not just because the rainforest is important, but if I had 10 bucks for every person who quoted me with breathless, earnest authority, this line about how "The biosphere of planet Earth WILL NOT be able to sustain any life more advanced than a cockroach, by the year 2000".

Where did it come from? I don't know. Someone made it up, and must have written it somewhere, and allofasudden it was a fact. But as you can see, here we are in 2015 and while we have problems, we aren't only cockroaches.

My point above is, yes, population growth rates have managed themselves, so to imply that they are a direct function of the economy is incorrect. I agree with you about immigration, which is why despite people on all sides ostensibly wanting to "do something" about it- people in our party wanting to grant folks rights and citizenship, teabaggers wanting mass deportations- big business LIKES having lots of cheap labor from people in undocumented limbo, that they don't have to pay bennies to.

But that is an intrinsic exploitation that could (and should) be dealt with, just as other excesses of capitalism have been dealt with in the past; child labor and the like.

US population growth is from immigration, primarily, but I don't think our entire economic system depends on it.

[Dont call me Shirley]

104. Because birth control is against many religion's policies.

[rogerashton]

110. Well, here are some reasons.

1) Population trends are not as predictable as Malthusians suppose. That native-born populations have stabilized or are declining in the rich world establishes this. That is not to say that populations everywhere will stabilize as the countries become richer or will crash. Those things could happen. We just don't know. (Africa has a "population problem," in the sense that the high growth rate there is pressing on resources and results in a high dependency ratio, but Africa also has worse problems than that.)

2) If population were stabilized or if populations began to decline, that would not solve the problem of environmental degradation, which requires economic change. Thus, Malthusian chatter is a diversion that makes it all the less likely that we will take effective measures against environmental degradation.

3) Policies to limit population growth are very costly and the more successful they are, the more costly. The Chinese one-child policy is the proof example here. The "costs" to which I refer include the repression necessary to impose a one-child or similar policy and the problems that arise from an aging population. I doubt any political system other than an iron dictatorship could impose a strict limit on population growth.

4) There are some policies that will tend to slow population growth that do not require dictatorship: first and foremost the liberation and education of women. But there are other (and far better!!) reasons to support those measures.

5) The "carrying capacity of the planet" is not a constant. It depends on technology and the resource balance, and changes faster than the population does. Thus, a population policy based on "carrying capacity" is like trying to sail an oil tanker through a slalom course.

6) As Malthus advocated, a policy committed to zero population growth would never do anything to help the poor, since (according to Malthus) that would just give them opportunities to have more children and thus produce more misery. Malthus tells us that the best policy is one that increases the wealth of the wealthy, so that the wealthy will hire more servants! Malthusianism is a reactionary ideology. Progressives should avoid it completely.

[Warren DeMontague]

113. Because in economically developed countries where people are free and have access to contraception

birth rates do a fine job of managing themselves.

That's the simple fucking fact.

"but but but but but 1st world people use more resources"- that's a resource utilization problem, not a population one. The idea that somehow all the 1st world people are going to go away, is ... well, they say a rich fantasy life is healthy--- under some circumstances, I suppose.



So basically in these sorts of 'discussions' one either actually arrives at the geographical facts around where population rates are an actual problem- countries like Burundi with a reproductive rate of around 6- of which the implications *understandably* piss off advocates for the poor and 3rd world peoples of the world- or else folks try to spin idiocy about global population being fungible, arguing that somehow the solution to population problems in, say, Africa is for folks in North America to have less than zero babies.

It's stupid. The actual answer is to improve standards of living, personal freedom (including freedom of conscience, vs. fundamentalist religions) worldwide... then, yes, we have energy and resource problems, but those are a separate issue which will need to be addressed no matter how many humans live on Earth.

[The2ndWheel]

176. They're not separate issues

then, yes, we have energy and resource problems, but those are a separate issue which will need to be addressed no matter how many humans live on Earth.

You even say so. It doesn't matter how many people there are, we'll have to deal with resource and energy issues. They're all tied together, which is why this is not a simple topic. If they were all stand alone issues, we could just knock them off one after another.

Sure, the US birth rate may be declining, but we also still have over 300 million people, which is less than 5% of the human population, but we use far more than our fair share of energy in relation to everyone else.

[Warren DeMontague]

199. Saying it will have to be addressed no matter what is not the same thing as saying they're linked.

"we use far more than our fair share of energy in relation to everyone else."

...and? Okay, that keeps coming up. So what's your answer? What population growth there is, in the US, is coming from immigration. Remember, that's a statistical fact, not teabagger propaganda.

So, okay. Every time someone comes up from central America or Mexico to improve their standard of living, ostensibly you have someone using resources at a 3rd world level turning into a 1st world one. So- again- we can sit here all day and go on and on about how awful it is that people in the US use more resources and energy than other parts of the world, but what, precisely, would you DO about it?

The US isn't going to go away. People in the US are already reproducing at less than replacement levels. I look at these threads and I just see an excuse for folks to complain, not actually present any real arguments about anything.

[DonCoquixote]

114. several reasons

But race and religion are the big two. For example, there was a stir in the UK when the most common name in England was not john or Henry, but Mohammed. Religions of all sorts want BIG families, because that is a very effective way of gaining dominance, it is why the one thing most clergy have in common is opposition to birth control and abortion. It also gets to the sticky issue of race: when there are calls for birth control, some people will say, and rightly so "OH, I get it, you have no problem with people like you breeding, but you see my family as a threat!" It may seem awful to think of a cradle as a weapon of mass destruction, but the fact it is. It is also a political weapon, as countries that feel weak will try to breed their own as opposed to immigration. It is no a accident that in the South, and in Russia and yes in Germany, there is an outright hostility to immigrants, and a call for large families, or as they say in German "Kinder Nicht Inder" (Children not Indians).

If you were to seriously curb population, you would have to address the political and religious issues, which boil down to how to earn the trust of people that can look and say "OK, how am I NOT supposed to interpret this as an attempt to make sure you, the majority, are not just freaking out, and that you simply want less of my children around to compete with your children!"

[stuntcat]

117. humans quadrupled in only 1/2 a century. The mass-extinction was underway at least 15 yrs ago.

Last edited Thu Jan 1, 2015, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Just a century ago almost all the life on the planet was wild. Now much of it is humans or the animals we're raising for food.

No matter what someone feels about human population, if they think the next 8 - 9 decades is a gift to the innocent baby they make then they are living the sickest lie.

Adopt y'all. Really, wake up. 40,000 people starve to death every 24 hours. There must be a baby out there whose life could be saved if people decided to help them instead of feeling obliged to carry their super-incredible-and-special genes into the nastiest century ever.

(and I notice from most of the comments here that most DU'ers are typical symptoms of a disease killing it's only host IN THE WHOLE F'ING UNIVERSE, making excuses for why over 7 billion humans is just great.)

[reddread]

123. its an old chestnut

"For the Anglo-American finance oligarchs, the leading problems of the world then as now could be summed up under the headings of overpopulation, especially among the non-white ethnic groups of the planet, and industrial pollution. The remedies, then as now, were to be sought in limiting population growth, or better yet reducing the existing population wherever possible, while at the same time shutting down indsutry. In this way the oligarchs sought to return to their bucolic and medieval dream world, and especially to a degraded and servile mass psychology agreeable to oligarchical forms of domination. For oligarchs like Bush are well aware that there are only two ways to organize human affairs, namely the republican and the oligarchical modes. The republican mode depends upon the presence of citizens– well educated, technology-oriented, mature, and courageous people who are willing to think for themselves. Oligarchical forms function best in the presence of a culturally pessimistic, hedonist, supersititious mass of passive witnesses to the passing scene.

Thus, at the end of the 1960?s, London financiers and their Wall Street counterparts made available abundant foundation funding for such projects as the Triple Revolution, which proposed the now- accomplished transition from a productive society to a post-industrial society, and the 1968 founding of the Club of Rome with its absurd “Limits to growth” hoax of a few years later, the international flagship for the Malthusian revival. What the oligarchy had in mind was not just a minor adjustment of the Zeitgeist: the greening of the western cultural paradigm made mandatory the quick erosion of the imperatives of subduing and dominating nature contained in the first book of Genesis, the demolition of the beliefs in education, science and progress which had animated the philosophy and nation building of St. Augustine, Charlemagne, the Italian Renaissance, Leibnitz, Franklin, and the American Revolution.

The implementation of this intent on the home front dictated the dismantling of a constituency-based political structure that assumed that the purpose of government was to manage economic development and equitably to distribute the fruits of material and cultural progress. This had to be replaced by an authoritarian-totalitarian regime whose main function was the imposition of austerity and sacrifices. Malthusianism at home also generated problems abroad, to which the Kissinger NSC and the Kissinger State Department were to prove themselves especially sensitive. Although the Malthusian oligarchy sought to deny that industry and population growth represented real power, they were at pains to slow demographic and industrial growth abroad, using various hollow pretexts. Alexander King, along with Aurelio Peccei one of the founders of the Club of Rome, once conceded that the real purpose of his institution was to block the demographic expansion of the non-white peoples of the world. For Prescott Bush and George Bush, the depopulation of the third world, the genocide of non-white populations, was and is a life-long and consuming obsession."

http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-10-rubbers-goes-to-congress/

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. Webster Tarpley? You're going to quote a Lyndon LaRouche supporter who says we should follow Genesis

and its "imperatives of subduing and dominating nature"? Are you agreeing with him that God told us to dominate nature, and therefore that we must?

Wow, you know how to make your message a laughing stock, don't you? He's a ridiculous conspiracy theorist.

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

[reddread]

128. im pointing to an old ruse from the same interests, and got a rise out of you

WE (American voters/citizens/residents) may think we have a say about the reproductive lives and deaths of
other people, but we dont.
hubris.

Isnt there an India forum where this could be discussed?
total red herring in our sphere of influence, promulgated
by xenophobes and Republicans.

[ozone_man]

124. It's usually not a safe subject.

Too many are affected by religion or culture to reason and see that the earth cannot sustain this many people, hence we are in the midst of a mass extinction of the other species on the planet.

In the third world, poverty and lack of education are key to perpetuating a barefoot and pregnant population. Europe is in negative population growth, aside from immigration, and China had to use a one child policy, which I don't think they should have ended. That wouldn't work in the right wing U.S. Rather than live with a sustainable population, we have the influx of immigrants supplying our population needs to continue the 2-3% GDP growth that we desire. We never ask what the planet needs. It won't end well.

[Liberal_in_LA]

130. contoversial topic

[GliderGuider]

131. Here are a couple of population-related graphics worth thinking about:

First, changes in fertility rates since 1990. Since 2000, the poor world is doing far better than the rich at reducing their fertility rates. In some cases the progress made from 1990 to 2000 has decelerated or even reversed since 2000.



The next one shows what the rise in the the population of human beings and our domesticated animals has done to wild animals:

[jeff47]

138. The context missing in your first graphic

is a stable population requires a fertility rate between 2.1 and 2.3.

So while you praise the poor, you're missing that they're still growing. While the wealthy are already well below replacement rate, including the higher 2012 numbers.

[GliderGuider]

140. At the bottom I note that replacement TFR is 2.1

What I was interested in is finding out is how reproductive behaviour is changing in different groups and regions. We know that the population is still growing.

In general, I'd like to see us aiming for a world average TFR of about 1.0. That might mitigate the atrocity revealed by the second graphic.

[jeff47]

141. Um...1.0 would be horrific.

1.0 means the next generation is half the size of the current generation.

That would be extremely bad if you think things like "retirement" should exist.

Russia's 1.4 is already causing huge problems. Europe's 1.8 is also causing large problems. 1.0 would be extremely bad.

[GliderGuider]

142. Retirement problems we can figure out. Missing keystone species, not so much.

As you might guess, I'm not much of a humanist.

[jeff47]

143. No, we really can't "figure it out"

1.0 means work until you die. 1.0 also means a whole lot of other social structures collapse in a horrific and destructive pile. For another example, nothing like single-payer could work, and it's doubtful even our privatized healthcare system could survive.

Again, 1.8 is causing a huge strain in Europe, and 1.4 is a very large part of why Russia's economy is in the toilet - oil propped them up for a while, but cheap oil breaks that.

Saying we need to aim for 1.0 means you really haven't thought about much beyond raw population numbers.

[GliderGuider]

149. Actually I have thought an awful lot about it.

I've been thinking about these issues since 1968, and thinking about them very hard for the last decade. My conclusions are not palatable to progressive humanists, though.

For example, here's an excerpt from an article I wrote last year on human sustainability. It uses six different techniques for determining a sustainable human population for the planet, and concludes that the number is somewhere below 50 million. Compared to that, concern about economies, healthcare systems and retirement prospects is like pissing in a hurricane.

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html

Population growth in the animal kingdom tends to follow a logistic curve. This is an S-shaped curve that starts off low when the species is first introduced to an ecosystem, at some later point rises very fast as the population becomes established, and then finally levels off as the population saturates its niche.

Humans have been pushing the envelope of our logistic curve for much of our history. Our population rose very slowly over the last couple of hundred thousand years, as we gradually developed the skills we needed in order to deal with our varied and changeable environment,particularly language, writing and arithmetic. As we developed and disseminated those skills our ability to modify our environment grew, and so did our growth rate.

If we had not discovered the stored energy stocks of fossil fuels, our logistic growth curve would probably have flattened out some time ago, and we would be well on our way to achieving a balance with the energy flows in the world around us, much like all other species do. Our numbers would have settled down to oscillate around a much lower level than today, similar to what they probably did with hunter-gatherer populations tens of thousands of years ago.

Unfortunately, our discovery of the energy potential of coal created what mathematicians and systems theorists call a “bifurcation point” or what is better known in some cases as a tipping point. This is a point at which a system diverges from one path onto another because of some influence on events. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that bifurcation points are generally irreversible. Once past such a point, the system can’t go back to a point before it.

(snip)

The central number of 35 million people is confirmed by two analyses using different data and assumptions. My conclusion is that this is probably the absolutely largest human population that could be considered sustainable. The realistic but similarly unachievable number is probably more in line with the bottom two estimates, somewhere below 10 million.

[jeff47]

177. Thinking it for a long time is not thinking about it.

For example, the Pope has thought birth control is a bad idea for a very long time. It it?

As another demonstration of "not thinking about it", your plan is to drive us to extinction. 1.0 means each generation is half the size of the previous generation, because it takes 2 people to make one baby. To make the numbers easier to illustrate, let's start with 16 humans. Next generation has 8. Next generation has 4. Next generation has 2. Next generation has 1. And now we're extinct.

As for your estimate, the massive gaping hole is you presume fossil fuels are the only way for us to get large amounts of energy. Perhaps you should step outside on a sunny day to contemplate that. We have non-fossil-fuel options, they've just been too expensive, or there has been too much fearmongering, to use them.

[The2ndWheel]

180. Sounds like we should be privitizing the profits of the planet, and socializing the costs

Like any good corporation. Find the technology loopholes to re-write the rules that govern us. We can only have this much energy, even though it's our hard work that could give us more? Too many burdensome regulations would be placed on humanity.

Next time a CEO or some other member of the 1% says something similar, maybe we shouldn't get so upset about it. They know and do, on an individual level, what humanity has to do on a planetary level. Get ours, and screw everything else.

There's nothing wrong with that either. That's what life does. Every species will do that, and humans are no exception. We think we are, because we're civilized, even though civilization is the mother of all capitalistic corporations. There is no mechanism that concentrates more resources into a few amount of hands.

We just don't like to accept it, which is why we blame greedy CEO's. We know they're right though.

[jeff47]

181. Quick!!! CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!!

Didn't like how that was going then?

We can only have this much energy, even though it's our hard work that could give us more?

The sunlight striking the Earth every day is a few orders of magnitude more energy that we consume. And that's just the sunlight. There's other energy sources too.

Using those energy sources does not require privatization. Or capitalism at all.

[The2ndWheel]

184. Currently

We'll always want more of the sunlight that strikes the Earth. We've never said, wait, yeah, X amount of energy is enough.

Using those energy sources does require privatization, but not in the way the word is usually used. It requires that we privatize the planet for humanity. That's why we have zoos and parks.

[jeff47]

185. Unless we start converting energy into matter

a-la Star Trek, sunlight alone provides more energy than we consume, even if all people on the planet were living a "US lifestyle". And again, there's other sources of energy besides sunlight.

Using those energy sources does require privatization

Not at all. Believe it or not, the government is allowed to buy solar panels. A TVA-like entity could buy an enormous number of them and supply the power.

[The2ndWheel]

191. You're not hearing me on the privatization thing

Whether it's the government or corporations, they're both human institutions. They're both part of the resource concentration mechanism we call civilization. We, humans, in the public or private sector, are privatizing the resources/wealth/profits of the planet for us, and only us.

Think of each species as a corporation, and the planet as the government. The government regulates corporations. Each corporation gets to make a profit if it has a good enough business model, the right timing, etc. If corporations start writing legislation that regulates them, what happens? If money/wealth/resources are hoarded by the big corporations, what happens to the economy?

Civilization is to the planet what Wal-Mart is to society.

And again, there's other sources of energy besides sunlight.

Exactly. No amount of energy will be enough. Just like money.

[GliderGuider]

209. +1

As you point out, the 1% are a naturally emergent phenomenon. Those who study the operation of self-organizing complex adaptive systems, and who are sensitive to how those principles operate in social systems, get this. Most people don't view societies that way, of course.

[GliderGuider]

188. Thanks for sharing.

nt

[smirkymonkey]

133. +1000

[airplaneman]

135. We are well into overshoot with significant carrying capacity degradation.

I believe we will see the decline setting in withing most of our lifetimes.
What we are doing is unsustainable.
-Aquifers on a global basis are almost depleted.
-Climate change will quickly devastate worldwide crops and starvation will set in.
-We are past peak oil and fracking will only be a temporary illusion followed by a more severe drop in supply.
-Airplane

[appalachiablue]

139. I can't wait for posts when December articles of Stephanie Seneff, Phd. MIT Senior Scientific Staff

are posted here:

"HALF OF ALL CHILDREN WILL BE AUTISTIC BY 2025", Stephanie Seneff, Dec. 2014.

"WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF ALL THE EARTH'S MICROBES SUDDENLY DISAPPEARED?", Stephanie Seneff,
Anthony Samsel, Dec. 2014.

[JEFF9K]

146. We need more trumpeting ...

of the joys of a child-free lifestyle.

[OnionPatch]

150. I find it surprising that people actually think

that "doing something" about overpopulation means restricting births, forcing abortions and that kind of thing. I don't know a single person concerned about overpopulation that would be for that. To me, "doing something" means education, especially for women, fighting poverty and making birth control widely and easily available. And while we don't want to restrict people's choices, I see nothing wrong with educating people about what overpopulation is doing to our planet.

[airplaneman]

164. actually the mathematics behind a lower birth rate is pretty impressive

If the average female only had 1.8 births - it would not take long for the population to drop down on its own without other efforts. I 100% agree with you on your point and recommendations.
-Airplane

[Jamastiene]

151. Parasites who kill their host cause their own deaths.

We aren't much smarter than parasites, really. All in all, humankind has an ego problem. Humans think we are invincible and know it all. It is that superiority complex the human species has that is causing all of this. Mother Earth and the rest of the species are taking the brunt of that, unfortunately.

Most DU humans would rather argue about "good" and "bad" dog breeds, not to mention the fact that about 1/3 of DU is too busy policing the other 2/3 to make sure proper praise and worship is given to the 1%. They outright forbid the rest of us from criticizing their precious 1%. That 1% has the worst superiority complex/ego of all of the human species. That 1% are responsible for 100% of the policies that have contributed to the overpopulation, pillaging, plundering, polluting, and destruction of Mother Earth. None of the rest of us can get policies that we want enacted into laws. Even if we do, the 1% comes back and changes it back to what they want.

The 99% of us are losing the battle and many of us have become nihilistic. It's too late to change anything really. We are too busy just trying to survive the calamities caused by the policies the 1% have foisted on us. Those who are trying to fight the 1% are too busy just hoping not to be tazered, shot, trampled, jailed, or worse. It is a losing battle. In all honesty, we have already lost the battle. Now, the majority of us are just trying to survive this horrid situation.

Personally, I wish people on DU would talk about population control and how to protect the planet, but even when we do, the "pragmatists" come in and tell us how "dreamy" and "idealist" we are.

The truth is that population control will take care of itself. The human species will manage itself into oblivion, along with all other species and the planet too.

[davidpdx]

152. I think it should be discussed more especially in the US

Given that conservatives have pretty much declared a war on birth control and choice in general. Someone should tell them that Mormon underwear isn't the solution for everything. (sorry, couldn't resist an Romney joke for old time sake).

Couples should have an active conversation about how many children they want and then after they have them make sure they are not going to have any more by some means of birth control (men it is not going to hurt your manhood to go out and have a vasectomy).

I know this has been discussed on DU a few times in the context of people deciding not to have children (I'd go look for the thread, but I'm feeling lazy). People discount it as selfish or mean, but if those who didn't want to have kids made sure they didn't the population in the US would be much less than it is. I hate to say it, some are not fit to be parents (myself included). I've talked to a couple of female friends from the United States who are married to Korean men (btw for those that don't know I live in Korea and am married to a Korean woman and do not have kids. When you get married here you are expected to have kids. So we are viewed as strange) and they said they simply do not feel the urge to be a mother.

I'm sure there are many other ways this topic can be discussed. I just wanted to point out that this is one way of going about it.

[progressoid]

153. Because, JESUS. eom

[alp227]

157. Because it inevitably leads to accusations "YOUR A NAZI WHO WANTS MASS GENOCIDE/STERILIZATION"

and all sorts of nasty accusations that you support eugenics/fascism and want mass murder and s*** like that. Emotionally charged strawman accusations without substance.

The thing is, whose right is more important, an individual's right to procreate vs. the greater world's right to a sustainable environment?

[Jesus Malverde]

161. Utopia Series 2 Episode 6 Opening Scene

[CrawlingChaos]

168. Not only is it seldom discussed

Incredible societal pressure is put on people who choose not to have children. As a childfree woman, I know this all too well.

I can remember this topic being a major issue when I was growing up in the 70's. I remember hearing about the zero population growth movement all over the place, and in a mostly positive way. I was a kid but I remember having a good feeling about it, like society was becoming more enlightened (joke was on me) and I decided very early on I would not have children.

I think education and widespread easy access to birth control would make a huge difference. Emphasis on educating the public on the importance of limiting births. Provide lots of positive reinforcement for the choice not to reproduce. A massive public awareness campaign - that's what I would do. It was getting started in the 70's. Then came Reagan.

[The2ndWheel]

179. That's because society is based on more people doing more things

Retirement is based on more younger people doing more things. A functional government is based on tax payers. A functioning economy is based on more people working and consuming.

If someone chooses not to have children, they're kind of screwing everyone else(I have no children either), because we live in a society. If each family was on their own, your choice is your choice, and if you don't have children to help take care of you in old age, then that's that. But because everyone's children are helping to pay for everyone's retirement, if someone doesn't contribute, or ante up, then things start to not work. There will be societal pressures, because society needs you to have kids.

[CrawlingChaos]

203. People who don't have children are "screwing everyone else"? Bullshit.

So much bullshit. And that attitude is so counter-productive, it makes my head explode. I also resent the implication that childfree people don't contribute, which is beyond absurd.

This planet must have fewer people. Particularly fewer North Americans. That's the imperative before us. We have to change our unsustainable system. It's the little ones of today will suffer the most down the line if we don't.

[RoccoR5955]

170. Because people do not want to hear this.

Last edited Fri Jan 2, 2015, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)

They don't want to hear the truth about this.
Until we are able to colonize other planets, we should do whatever we can to keep the population at a reasonable level.

[The2ndWheel]

173. What is a reasonable level?

How subjective is the word reasonable?

[Jim Lane]

183. That's a difficult question to answer.

One obvious criterion would be long-term sustainability. It's not reasonable if it can't last. You can argue about whether "reasonable" means 100 million or two billion or whatever, but it's pretty clear that seven billion is not reasonable.

Yes, there are subjective factors. What's the tradeoff between numbers and standard of living? What's the tradeoff between more humans and the crowding out of other species?

These questions will come into play when there's a good-faith argument to be made that our numbers might be getting too low. That won't happen anytime soon.

[The2ndWheel]

186. That's what makes it so contentious and fun

One obvious criterion would be long-term sustainability. It's not reasonable if it can't last.

But how do we know what can last until it does or doesn't? That's maybe the trickiest part. What is today has been sustainable up to this point, or else what we know of as today wouldn't exist.

I'm not sure we can forecast what will or will not sustain. Too many variables to take into account.

You can argue about whether "reasonable" means 100 million or two billion or whatever, but it's pretty clear that seven billion is not reasonable.

That's the thing. There are 7 billion though. We're sustaining it. If sustainability is a top criterion, what we're actually doing has to count for more than anything in theory.

[Jim Lane]

187. I don't agree that seven billion is sustainable just because that's the current number.

First, even as it is, thousands of people are starving to death every day.

More to the point, sustainability refers to the long term. If someone with $10,000 in the bank made a New Year's resolution to spend $1,000 per night on lavish partying, you can't call it sustainable just because he hasn't yet gone bankrupt.

[The2ndWheel]

190. It's sustainable until the spending hits $10,000

If you have $10,000 in the bank, and you only spend $10 per night, you might be able to spend for a few extra days, but it's still going to get closer to $0 each day.

If you live in a society that has been around for 500 years doing its thing in a sustainable way, whatever that may mean, and some other society comes along that's been around for only 20, but they've used more resources in a shorter amount of time to get the upper hand, and they defeat the older society in a war, who is sustainable? Even if that younger society is only around for 10 more years for whatever reasons, it, in that moment, was more sustainable than the other one.

First, even as it is, thousands of people are starving to death every day.

Yes, but we still keep adding more people, and getting food to people already here, each day too. So many that the total human population keeps getting bigger.

I don't agree that seven billion is sustainable just because that's the current number.

And I understand what you mean by that. I think it's a bit of both. It's not sustainable, for any number of reasons. At the same time, it has to be sustainable to some degree, in some way, or else there just would not physically be 7+ billion people.

[Jim Lane]

196. Environmentalists who address sustainability don't give that word the broad meaning that you do.

You say that current population "has to be sustainable to some degree, in some way, or else there just would not physically be 7+ billion people." If you give "sustainable" a very broad interpretation, which is the only way to make that statement correct, then the statement becomes so weak as to be meaningless. It would be like saying that the person spending 10% of his net worth each day is managing his personal finances in a way that's sustainable to some degree, in some way. No professional financial advisor would say that.

Put it this way: If human population and technology had both been frozen a thousand years ago, then, today, the world would look pretty much as it did then, and the human experience would be pretty much what it was then. (I'm not saying that nothing in the past millennium is sustainable -- that's just a convenient round number.) By contrast, if you could freeze population and technology at their end-of-2014 levels, the world would not look substantially the same in a thousand years, or even in twenty years. The human experience in 2035 would be vastly different from what it is today, because of the irreversible impacts we're having on the only planet available to us.

My hypothetical included freezing technology. Some people who oppose any concern about population point to technology as the solution. This "technological fix" argument is that we will indeed be able to sustain a population of seven billion indefinitely as soon as we learn enough. While technology is certainly one factor, it's not credible to say that seven billion is sustainable, unless you assume technology that starts with cheap transmutation of elements plus a perpetual-motion machine.

[GliderGuider]

212. "Sustainable" is a very slippery term because most people don't attach a time period to it.

I prefer a definition that goes something like this:

A sustainable system is an open system whose characteristics can be preserved ("sustained&quot for a given period, assuming no change in the system's environment.

This requires us to evaluate both the time period in question and the environment the system is operating in. In other words, it requires us expand the system boundaries to include its environment, and to to evaluate that larger system as a dynamic process within a bounded time frame.

Using an approach like that it's possible to understand how we could have arrived at estimates for a sustainable human population that range all the way from our current 7.2 billion all the way down to less than 10 million people living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It's even possible to conclude that human beings are an inherently unsustainable species, as per the opinion of evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, who said that intelligence is a lethal mutation.



From: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html

[Triana]

172. Humanity is too greedy & simplistic to change its parasitic behavior

To most, it's black or white.

By suggesting that humans limit their reproduction, you're either promoting "genocide" or going against their alleged religious edict to endlessly and thoughtlessly breed. So they just thoughtlessly breed. It's not very smart. And of course it's a false choice - a false premise.

We CAN cut down on births and population without "genocide" and we CAN have some common sense about what we're doing to the planet and to each other. (but we won't)

It seems to never occur to humans to:

Instead of advertising fertility treatments and services (you can hardly turn on the radio or TV without hearing about some help for infertility), instead encourage people to have small families (or no kids) and advertise birth control methods and even abortion services (surgical or otherwise ie: morning after RU486, etc). If someone is infertile, encourage them to adopt or find other ways of fulfilling their desires rather than reproducing. Instead we pander, and give sympathy and all the help possible to infertile couples. We tell women that they were "designed by God" to be incubators (pretty much whether they want that or like it or not). But we never tell infertile women or men that they were "designed by God" to NOT reproduce (whether they like it or not). We CAN do that. But we inexplicably don't.

How about instead, we give people all the help possible to NOT have children? I don't see that happening much, if at all.

Instead of featuring and catering adverts and television programming to 'families' with children, feature and advertise to childless couples or those who adopt or get involved with community services to help at risk, poor or disadvantaged children rather than having any.

But societies (and their religions, which they interpret as some sort of carte blanche for utter illogical stupidity in this regard and which is its own brand of psychopathy) just can't figure this out it seems. At least in America where we have the morally repugnant Duggars and their "quiverful" movement, which epitomizes rabbitlike breeding stupidity as the virus it is.

"I want my OWN kids." <---- Is that REALLY a good idea considering where the environment and where our economies and human rights are today? Probably not. They call people who don't want kids "selfish" though.

Humanity will never survive itself. It's not smart enough.

[Triana]

174. Re: food and water shortages

We have plenty of food to feed everyone on Earth.

The problem is ACCESS to that food: either physical, logistical, or economic barriers to access. Record income inequality in the US contributes to 'food deserts' in many areas. We don't need frigging Monsanto and their frankencrap, as much as they and Dow et al would like us to believe that we do. We DON'T.

With corporations targeting the world's water supply for profit, the same issue will be true for that ie: access will be more of an issue. In areas where physical and logistical barriers exist, economic barriers will be added. And humans waste ridiculous amounts of water on things like fracking and they pollute huge amounts of this resource with their oil spills etc. All for corporate profit of course. IF water remained a publicly-owned and controlled resource and IF it were safeguarded from corporate destruction and control and IF we used it wisely and didn't waste it, we'd be able to manage it for everyone. But...well. We know that's not going to happen.

[LWolf]

210. Because it intersects

choice, freedom, and responsibility, and that's a hard discussion to have.

It's a slippery slope to attach limits to choice and freedom. So while I personally am in favor of responsible choice, rather than unfettered choice, I wouldn't legislate it.

I have other ideas about global over-population. The U.S., though, needs to start at home. Since the U.S. is defiantly uber-capitalistic, I'd like to see the following measures instituted. In the beginning it would be about changing reproductive behavior, hopefully leading to a change in societal conventions:

1. Do away with tax deductions for dependent children.
1A. Universal national health care program, paid for by taxes, 100% free at point of service, a living wage, and guaranteed employment...as well other strands of a deep, many-layered safety net to go with #1. Included: A public education system, pre-school through University or trade school, 100% free for every citizen.

2. Give a very generous tax deduction to every adult who produces no biological children.

3. Give a smaller deduction to every adult who produces one biological child.

4. No deduction, but no tax, to those who produce 2 biological children.

5. A small deduction to anyone who permanently adopts any child not biologically their own in the U.S. of any age who needs a family for any reason.

6. A tax on every adult who creates more than 2 biological children in a lifetime, with that tax increasing exponentially with each further child.

7. And finally, or more probably, FIRST, to go along with U.S. style market incentives above, a comprehensive effort to educate the public about why it's so critical to address population growth.

[Trillo]

215. In fairness to the catholic church

any acceptance of LGBT folks is sort of a scaling back of their baby baby baby, have a baby, baby jesus mantra.

There is also the problem that the U.S. governments subsidize childbirth and motherhood with welfare and tax benefits, while the folks who are not breeding get no similar tax advantages. Thus, thinking people with an axe to grind (that would be government leaders) would have a tendency to shut up and change the subject.

I have read that economic models are often based on an expanding populace, and when in expansion also gives an expanding tax base. Some of this will have to change.

I think it's likely we've already passed the carrying capacity of the planet with respect to human population, we've been bred like labrats by religions, governments, and corporations, while curiously, simultaneously, giving some to many of us great guilt around the entire subject of nudity and sex.

[Homer Wells]

216. KICK for further discussion

[20score]

219. I've posted about it many times in the past, and will do so again. It's our most

important issue, by far.

Have to admit though, it's disheartening to see so many on the left that go for the magical, childish thinking that leads to denial of the obvious. Makes me sick.

"No, it's just over-consumption." They whine in their baby voices. As if the two were mutually exclusive.

They make me just as ill as the Young Earthers and the global warming deniers do.