How concerned about overpopulation are you?

[blindpig]

I believe it to be the driving force behind most of our most intractable ills.

I'll check in later, got to run.

[0007]

1. Common sense says that our natural resources are limited

The bigger the population the faster the resources are diminished.

[PDX Bara]

16. Way back in the mid '50's

...when I was in grade school, I was a believer in population control, beginning with the family unit. Considering the general mood of the nation back then, right after the Korean War and not that long after WWII, that was a very unpopular notion but I have stuck with my belief to this very day.

[Deja Q]

23. Yes, but our economy is based on expansion, not perpetual stability.

Oops.

[cascadiance]

102. Force corporations to measure recycling of their products as a measure...

of their success and how much tax incentives they get back for "balancing" back what they take from our world's ecosystem. The movie "The Corporation" has CEO's who've tried to put in place total recycling of their products, etc. as part of a means of making it so that they don't "externalize" any costs back onto society. However, these CEO's are the exception more than the rule, since they are working from personal conscientiousness rather than from systemic rules. Therfore the system doesn't reward them, and often times they are thrown out in favor of those CEO's that don't care about anything except generating a profit, which is the way our rules of corporations are structured now. If we found ways to alter the corporate charters that penalize those companies for all of their externalized costs (economic as well as environmental) onto society, and reward those that find ways of restoring or making more vibrant the resources that they and their products have been using, that would be the first step towards making capitalism a "cyclic" process rather than a destructive "growth" process. Need to have some global agreement on this though, and have some constructive and accurate ways of measuring these externalized costs and ways to "correct" them fairly and simply too.

[lostinacause]

2. With the exception on improvised nations, most of the growth rates are

fairly stable and declining. The effect of most of the "ills" can be reduced though technology and responsible political choices. This, of course, means supporting those who have effective and politically desirable methods of solving these problems.

[SheilaT]

9. Improvised nations?

Any chance you mean impoverished nations?

[lostinacause]

14. Yes, that is what I mean.

I've always been a weak speller.

[blindpig]

26. Improvised nations?

I assume you meant impoverished.:D I'm afraid that the Earth can't handle the numbers we have now if we try to give everybody a decent(American Middle Class) lifestyle, much less accommodate increasing numbers. Politics can mitigate this situation only to a limited degree.

[lostinacause]

55. Given that Americans, even the middle class, are fairly wasteful no there

are not enough resources to go around and produce the material goods that America has. However it is my opinion that through technology most people can have a standard of living that is reasonable especially given that many of the goods available now are information goods. All you have to be is connected into the necessary network to achieve many of them.

[Roho]

78. Considering

the population stats in western or developed nations what exactly are you suggesting?

The lunatic fringe pushes this line of thinking and it is usually followed by "civilized nations need to step in and solve the problem because it is obvious third world countries are unwilling to do their part."

The methods these people suggest are based on racism and bigotry while never addressing the fact that we in the civilized world greedily consume and hoard resources.


roho

[catabryna]

3. I was concerned enough when I was younger...

that I made the decision that I only wanted two kids...

Life is funny that way, though... I couldn't have children and ended up adopting a little boy from what certainly would have been a death sentence.

So, now I have one :) Who knows, maybe I'll have more, but they will be fostered or adopted children.

I'm still concerned about overpopulation which is why I'm a huge proponent of adoption!

[blindpig]

27. Good for you!

I was adopted.:party:

[catabryna]

48. The opportunity to adopt

was a blessing to me. I'm hopeful that as my son grows he will realize that he is the greatest gift I could ever be given, that he is the child of my heart, and that our lives would be poorer were we not together. His situation is one that his birth mom did not want to give him up for adoption but she had to if he was to live. At least I'm able to tell him that her love really knew no boundaries for he is halfway around the world from where his life began. Hopefully they will meet one day and he can know her, his birth father and his brother and sister. :-)

[RebelOne]

4. I am more concerned about urban sprawl.

All the green areas are eaten up by home and shopping center development. I live in North Georgia in a town that was very peaceful when I first moved here from South Florida in 1998. But now it is consumed by shopping centers and new homes.

[SheilaT]

10. Urban sprawl is a by-product

of overpopulation. And it's everywhere. Just much more noticeable in areas considered desirable.

[Nikia]

24. There is no reason that we can't build up, not out

Some buildings, like heavy manufacturing, does need to be in big single buildings. There is no reason that office or retail buildings need to take up a lot of space though. Building up, not out also encourages more walking and public transportation, saving gas and lessening pollution. Land in many areas of the U.S. is still cheap though and building out and having a large parking lot are popular.

[RebelOne]

36. Yes, it is much more noticeable where I live because the land

is very desirable, which I wish it wasn't.

[Roho]

79. Urban sprawl is a by product?

That is absurd.

Would you mind explaining that and perhaps site some supporting evidence.

[blindpig]

28. It is but an expression of overpopulation. n/t

[yellowdoginGA]

43. you shouldv'e stayed in florida

[RebelOne]

50. No way, it's worse down there.

Houses are built practically on top of one another.

[yellowdoginGA]

54. i know

if want to keep green spaces green that's the way we need it. people that want to live in less dense neighborhoods are part of the problem and environmental hypocrites

[proud patriot]

5. I decided long ago to have one child for this reason

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Too many people - too few resources. All the problems we have

stem from this.

[blindpig]

29. What I can't understand is

why do they insist on pushing us to the brink? Surely those behind the curtain have the information. What are they thinking?

[Roho]

80. who is they?

behind what curtain?

Are you saying that over consumption and resource hoarding is causing third world countries to procreate at a greater rate to overcome higher mortally rates?

If not what are you saying?

[JVS]

7. Somewhat less than I'm concerned about the consequences of...

having an ever expanding population of elderly people who cannot work supported by the younger people who are able to work but also must raise their replacements. Lowering birthrates is not always helpful. Russia is an economic basket case now, but imagine how much worse it will look in 20 years because people have barely been having kids since the early 90's! Similarly the retirement of the baby-boomers would be pretty ugly if not for the fact that we have (at least now) immigrants who are willing to come and shore up the numbers of the working population. Call it a pyramid scheme if you will, but better to have a pyramid than an inverted pyramid.

[Trillo]

19. If capitalism only works with an expanding populace,

then it's time for economic scientists to find another system that will work under a decreasing population. Maybe capitalism can be tweaked and adjusted to work under that scenario.

Myself, I chose to have no children for a less politically correct reason than overpopulation (but perhaps it's related): Why bring children one should love into a world that will treat them mostly with various forms of hatred (some veiled) for most of their lives? It seems to me that granted the power of choice one would only bring an 'enemy' into that/this world.

[JVS]

20. It is not unique to capitalism

even the European model of a state regulated economy requires population growth, if not by birth then by importation of labor (i.e immigration) or by outsourcing of the labor to other areas.

Basically it boils down to labor being the producer of wealth. In order to feed people you need people to do the work. Technology can help to lessen the need for more people, but to just think that cutting birthrates will help the situation is oversimplistic. First you need to figure out how to manage with less people, then you can start having less births.

[Zynx]

22. Exactly. Technological and productivity advances are the way to get

around that. Productivity has allowed us to shrink our agricultural labor force and lessened the amount of man hours needed for producing other goods and services as well. That's the only way I see us going.

[blindpig]

30. That is a tricky one

One can only hope that increased productivity can cover the slack otherwise us soon-to-be old fucks are in deep shit. That and a little redistribution :wow:

[SheilaT]

8. I'm extremely concerned.

I think it's the hidden cause behind most of the problems facing the world today, including global warming, wars, mal-distribution of wealth, and so on.

But there's more than one way to respond besides limiting number of children. Helping poorer countries limit their population growth and improving their standard of living is easily as important as limiting how many children any of us have. Working to reduce soil erosion, famine, and disease matter enormously. Of course, all of these are closely connected to overpopulation.

For all of the (generally valid) criticism of China's One Child policy, they're very much on to something. Population growth cannot continue unchecked. There need to be ways to provide for one's old age besides having several sons. Heck, even in this country the burden of caring for aging people falls very much on the grown children, usually daughters in our culture.

Meanwhile, cities are crowded, quality of life diminishes, there are more powerful hurricanes thanks to global warming.

It's a vast and complex problem that can't be solved quickly or easily. Of course, it might be solved for us by a true slate-wiper of an epidemic, or by serious climate catastrophes.

[blindpig]

32. You've got it.

Still, population control does nip the problem(s) in the bud over the medium term.

Soil erosion is something that no one thinks about. Yet the plow has been a double edged sword, it takes away as it gives. The development of a perennial multi grain agriculture would greatly reduce our footprint.

[Lorien]

33. Indeed. And equal rights for women of all nations, a high quality

education for all, and accessible birth control would also go a long way toward limiting population growth.

A recent World Wildlife Fund study concluded that at CURRENT consumption rates, the planet will run out of resources by 2050. We MUST wake up and face the realities of this issue!

[lindisfarne]

11. I long ago decided I could not morally bring a child into this world -

not only because of over-population, but because there are so many children out there who need a loving family, and because we are quickly destroying this world - future generations will suffer because of the mess our selfishness has created.

[SPKrazy]

12. Of Course, While Enlightened People Limit, or Don't Have Children

There are multitudes of Freepers making more Freepers

There are multitudes of others in many 3rd world countries making more 3rd world people.

Europe is expected to have too few workers to finance their own retirement, so they have nearly unbridled immigration in some places.

We are in the same boat too.

Interesting.

[lostinacause]

15. I have found that it is both religious and stupid people that are breading

too. The third world is not a problem from a growth standpoint as they have high death rates it is bad from a social standpoint. Hopefully as one changes the other will.

[NMMNG]

46. Yep.

I saw a program the other night (Discovery Health Channel or something like that). "Fourteen Children and Pregnant Again". It was one of those fundie whackjob couples who decided to just "let God decide" how many kids they would have. It has nothing to do with "God" you morons, if you just keep screwing and not using birth control you're going to keep having kids! :eyes:

[blindpig]

34. Story I read in Omni about 20 years ago

"the march of the morons" can't remember the author. Dealt with the same. I don't know, my feeling is that most humans have about equal potential. Life is strange. More than one red neck has spawned a hippie!

[0007]

52. My red neck father spawned a hippie.

[REP]

89. "The Marching Morons," Cyril M Kornbluth, 1951, Galaxy

So closer to 55 years ago and long before Omni was published, but close!

I just happen to own an original copy of the April 1951 Galaxy in which that story appeared; I'm a big Kornbluth fan.

[Demeter]

13. Other: Too Many Republican/Religious Fundamentalists/Fascists/

Put them all on saltpeter and the Pill

[karlrschneider]

17. WTF? 6 assholes picked "be fruitful & multiply"

:puke: :grr: :eyes:

[BuelahWitch]

99. It's up to 13 now

:eyes:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

18. I completely agree with you - it's one of the biggest problems we face

and even if statisticians tell us the world's population will begin to slow its growth rate in the coming decades, the consumption of resources as third world nations modernize will only continue to grow. I think we need to reduce the present population throughout the world by at least two thirds, whether in developing nations or in economically advanced ones.

[bigwillq]

21. I don't want any children

Some of the reasons why have to do with the overpopulation problem, the high cost of living, and because I like children, I just don't want any of mine own!

[sweetheart]

25. All ecosystems are local

Some european countries are falling below the birthrates to sustain
their countries. Some of those places are thickly populated, but
others are not, and then in these microsystems, there is a need for
population. The obvious answer would be to accept mass immigration
from the boom areas of the earth, and not to procreate at the levels
we do. But due to racism and small thinking, the world rather seeks
to procreate itself the most hundreds of millions of dirt poor cheap
labour. And each of these superpoor will have a smaller carbon footprint
because they will die young and never drive a car.

But religion has done this, to foist a procreation strategy on us that
we are all breeding cows.

[doubleplusgood]

35. falling birthrates are NOT a problem

And the "problem" does not need to be remedied my immigration to "maintain" the unsustainabel high population. The rates NEED to fall in overpopulated countries, perhaps for decades, before the population gets a bit sparser. Why do we NEED to have high populations or high-density ? Given a chance to live in a dense urban area or move "out to the country", the fact of urban sprawl shows that people like lower population densities, at least in their immediate surroundings. It would be interesting to actually poll the people of cities, states & countries to ask them, "Do you think our population is too high, too low or just right ?" and then base public policy on that. Why has this never happened ?

[sweetheart]

45. Yes the economic drivers

I doubt anyone would argue that overpopulation is not the issue,
nor that the populations need to fall. But our modern system of
economics puts a political value on increased birthrates. That is
the problem. It is when the practitioners of a religion feel
obligated to have 5 children to satisfy god... things like that,
where no logic or forebrain decision is used. And these areas are
overwhelmingly in countries where people have lots of time on their
hands for childraising. Then likely they are unemployed and in
poverty... but over a lifetime, providing useful cheap labour to
oil the global machine.

Somebody's picking your strawberries, apples and oranges, and
doubtful it is you. Low pay ag-work, like they have even today
swathes of immigrants for this, and until you see the benefits of
training your children to do fruit picking, the culture you
are sustained by, endemically requires this underclass to survive.
Athens needed the slaves to reproduce that there be enough for
every household to have their own slave. Modern man thinks rather
similarly.

[doubleplusgood]

49. picking strawberries

Maybe we need a compulsory national service program whereby after graduating high-school, kids would have to do some form of public service, sort of a non-military draft. They could pick strawberries, empty bedpans, take meals to seniors, whatever. As a society we shouldn't have to rely on a permanent underclass of poor people to do all of our dirty work.

[sweetheart]

56. specialization

Your idea is inspired, but perhaps a little heavy handed social engineering-wise.

I think "the progressive" answer is a living wage for all jobs. Then no jobs are
untouchable, and there be no underclass as well, all having an opportunity to at
least have the bottom rung of a mini-american dream.

[blindpig]

37. Interesting point.

That might work but I would deplore the homogenization of culture. I hate seeing other cultures polluted by ours. rather than encouraging immigration, which I feel is a sort of shell game, I want people to have economic justice in their homelands, so they don't have to immigrate.

[sweetheart]

47. Yes, and we have to be realistic

There are already long-term displaced persons on the planet, and plenty
of countries suffering terribly for a population injection. Russia will
become a failed state if it cannot stop its steep population decline.
It will go back to old history and become a no-mans-land frontier
territory for china.

As well, europe/canada/au/nz has been really stupid, IMO, by keeping its 45 years age
limit on american immigrants. Instead of scooping up some of the creme
of the good wood of american society as bush destroys it, they are a bunch
of cheepskates worried that successful middle-years yanks have nothing
better to do than sponge off their healthcare.

In my perfect world, there would be no border controls and people would
just live where in the world they felt comfortable. For those persons
travelling about, they learn and take best-living practices with them
from community/country to country. When i visited kathmandu years ago,
i was shocked at what a filthy city it was, and was not suprised at all
to find out that 51 was the average lifespan there. Then it is common
knowledge for me that nepal is a failed state that needs water purification
so its people/economy can survive this tragic mortality of age/wisdom.
If i hadn't travelled there, i would think it a himalayan idyll.

Visiting places and meeting people face to face creates commerce, goodwill
and a global interconnectedness in the most positive ways. This is not
"official" trade, nothing government or antying to do with taxpaid fraudsters..
just individual intellegence of civilians crossing borders helps everyone
involved to understand each other on both sides of the membrane, and for
cultures to feel and respond to the needs of the other.

[Cleita]

31. Voted other.

Because, studies have shown that when women are in charge of their fertility and have access to all the means they need to limit their families, the populations of those places stabilize. This is why there is slower population growth in European populations that in third world countries.

[WHAT]

38. As a justification for culling?...

NO.

As the third wave of entrophy crashes with its supreme morality in order to establish it's self-serving supremacy...

NO.

Is "Draining the Swamp" even helpful (sic. NOLA)?

NO.

As an excuse it might be helpful; as a moral imperative, it leaves one blushing.

So, if you are in an exclusive prep school,...

NO.

If you are striving for self-importance...

NO.

This question is a self-serving tool that implies acquiescence and

You are better than that.

NO.

[blindpig]

39. None of the above.

Your assumptions are monstrous.

Why should you assume that I advocate such? Have you lack of wit? Can you not imagine other options?
Didn't say it would be easy, or quick. We can live with the planet, or else.

[WHAT]

42. Your premise is monstrous....

you don't legitimately wear the mantle of indifference, do you?

Are you above it all? Are you able to judge?

I don't think so. And, I don't trust your question.

[bloom]

73. 25 years ago - it was a pretty common notion

that couples strongly consider having 2 children or less.

Of course there was more talk of consuming less fossil fuels and all sorts of things.

And then Reagan got into office - and after that - there was a lot less talk of it.

I don't know how old you are - but I'm guessing you didn't live through the 70's or you were very young.


And now - there is all this evidence of global warming.

It sounds to me that you are advocating that people be clueless.

[Roho]

81. I agree 100%

I do not trust the question at all.

[skids]

40. It's kinda hard to say...

...it's a battle between whether I'm more concerned about overpopulation, or whackjob nutbags. I'm tempted to have a large family to promulgate the non-whackjob-nutbag genome. It might be worth the extra mouths to feed in order to prevent the entire race from being overrun by the whackjob nutbags and their large-ass litters.

[nonconformist]

64. My thinking exactly.

I have two children, and I'm really not sure if I'll ever have a 3rd. But one thing that I do put in the "pro" column when thinking about it is the fact that we need sane people to counteract the massive amount of fundie kids.

The way I look at it, if the sane people that actually do want children don't have them, then what is our country going to look like in 20-40 years when the younger generation is running it? I shudder to think.

[mandyky]

41. Other - I already have 5

and won't have more, but not for this reason. In America, over population isn't the problem.

Too many people live in urban and sub-urban areas, and don't know how to raise their own food anymore. The prepared foods we buy in the stores aren't all that good for us.

The bush environmental policies have our water supply at risk. We can't eat the fish we catch.

[unkachuck]

44. people can and will....

....learn to control their numbers but overcoming greed is almost impossible to teach anyone....IMO, a fair and equitable distribution of wealth along with a fair and equitable distribution of earths renewable/non-renewable resources is where peace and prosperity are to be found....

....no matter who you are or where you may live, playing in your backyard with your growing children after a fair days work causes you to lose interest in revolution and violence....

[The2ndWheel]

51. But then

the people who don't want to share will fight back.

[cascadiance]

53. Ultimately globalization will help "flatten" the world's workforce...

I want to limit outsourcing and other factors that lower our wages, but the fact is that it's going to be hard to avoid competing globally for our jobs and well being. The only way that's a positive is if the labor in the rest of the world gets up to at least close to our standard of living. We all also know that given the current world population, that this is not a possibility. So the only way that the world labor force would be "flat" at current population levels would be for us to all race to the bottom to the lowest common denominator of standard of living.

If we were somehow able to lower the population to the point that the world's labor supply isn't nearly as huge as it is now, then perhaps our global expected standard of living could be higher, and we'd be more apt to collect a "living wage". I of course am not advocating going out and "killing" people to achieve this, but we definitely have to cut down heavily on the birth rate globally. For starters, we HAVE to reverse the current administration's arm twisting of the U.N. and other countries of not offering birth control access in exchange for getting U.S. aid. That policy is insane in this context, and only serves to make a bigger (and "cheaper") and poorer global work force which serves their corporate buddies like the rest of their fascist policies do as well as the fundies who don't want to have any endorsement of sex other than that for making more babies.

[blindpig]

61. I've always thought than the powerful wanted population growth for two

reasons, labor and markets. An excess of workers makes for lower labor costs and more customers is more customers. They seem to be blind to any other considerations. That they may reverse that position when they finally realize the mess we're in is a considerable danger. They would probably pursue that goal with the same heedlessness that they have everything else. That's a good reason to pre-empt them with effective and humane plans before they start acting crazy. If it's not too late.

[Roho]

82. ...

"effective and humane plans before they start acting crazy. If it's not too late."

Who is THEY?

Where do you see the over population being a problem?

What inhumane plans do you think THEY have in mind and for who?

What humane plans do you suggest and for WHO?

[rman]

88. Global corporations could create regulations that benefit workers,

as opposed to only creating regulations that benefit themselves.

This global labor competition is anything but accidental.

Maybe the workforce will 'flatten' eventually, but not thanks to globalization.

[cascadiance]

100. There are two problems working against us here...

First, as you and I both identify, is that with the WTO, current right wing government forces, corporate lobbyists, corporate charters, etc., etc. the deck is stacked in their favor in making laws that favor them over workers in their drive to the bottom in terms of labor force costs to them. That can be corrected as you and I note by enabling more power for the workforce to reverse regulation, etc. to favor labor.

The second problem though isn't so much of a regulation problem, but a physical limitation problem. As many studies have shown, the rest of the world simply can't have the same standard of living and corresponding consumption patterns that we have or we'd be using up the world's resources in no time. It simply is physically impossible for us all to enjoy what we've been having. No amount of regulation will fix that.

There are two ways that this can play out then. First, we stick with the same population growth that we have now, and our global standard of living gets lower if we all become "flattened", with all of us having a more equal share of this limited pie to the point that we are all in survival mode with no middle class to help further society. Second, if the population were to be lowered in some fashion, then there would be more resources for a "flattened" global work force to consume. A third way is that if we revert to a "non-flattened" work force, where we in America and certain industrial countries consume most of the world's resources and legislate protection for us from being "flattened" by the rest of the world's workforce. Over the long haul though, that last will be chipped away at, and already has been recently.

That's why I say that part of the mission of a global set of unions or other means of organizing global labor should be finding ways to limit population growth, so that we can all benefit from a higher (and hopefully more of a middle class rather than a "survival" class) standard of living if everything is evenly divided. Ultimately I think that would also be the most stable from a world peace point of view too, if everyone felt more that they weren't in "survival mode" any more too.

How we get a lower population that we have now, and allow capitalism (or some facsimile) to work without a "growth" notion, but more of a "cyclic" notion, as well as this population being lowered without cataclysmic forces, or other forces that forcibly kill people are the challenges for us. As noted at a minimum we should be allowing better access to birth control and other means of limiting people from having kids when they aren't wanted. We should also take away tax deductions in our society after the second kid to keep people from having bigger families here. You should be able to reproduce yourself, but not be incented to have more than those that replace you and your spouse.

[wuushew]

57. kick

:kick:

[The Straight Story]

58. Not concerned really (NOTE: some sarcasms ahead/flame stuff/et al)

Lots of reasons one can throw out as to why:
1. Evolution - we will just adapt and evolve, no biggie.

2. Earth will die out anyway - The Sun ain't gonna last forever and since there is no god we might as well enjoy the one short time we are here and do whatever we want cause there is no real consequence - live, have fun, screw em all, die.

3. Most the world is uninhabited, not to mention we got the ocean we can build on/in. And the more people the more brains there will be to more quickly solve the problems of having so many people around.

4. Not having kids out of fear is darwin in action - people too afraid to have kids are weaker than those who will fight to make it a better world, especially those who bring kids into the world and teach them how to be better stewards.

5. Screw that being noble for future generations and helping them crap. Give em a few hundred years and they will make history what they want it to say and you will look bad anyhow. "Oh those people thought they were fighting the problems of the world and bush but they were still part of the system and the real fighting they did to get him out of office was whine about him everyday, if they spent less time wasting electricity generated by coal on their computers bitching they could have saved us a few more days, blah blah, blah"

5a. Future history "all that crap was a waste of time as the chinese and russians had major nuclear meltdowns and fucked up the world, bush was trying to save the world from this by grabbing the oil from countries that selfishly horded it but none would help him. So we had to use more coal and nuclear and many more died, why did they hate our freedoms??"

6. The more people we make the more things will get deadly - viruses, war, murder, and so on and then the population will go down some.

7. Mother earth can be a mean biatch. We thought that god guy in the bible was bad, hell ME (mother earth) whipped out the floods, volcanos, and a host of other shit and wiped out men, women, and children like it was nothing. She cleansed the believers and faithless alike and set things straight (did and will, past and future tense here).

8. In addition to not having kids, jump off a bridge and reduce the population. If we get enough people to do this we are set. Instead of chickenhawks we have chickenpops.

:sarcasm:
laced with a bit of truth - if you think the above is absurd, I can assure you that you will hear much of it from your RW co-workers if you bring it up (or relatives and so on)

[blindpig]

59. Well, that about covers it.

Sure glad that was sarcasm, I haven't got all day.:P

[LWolf]

60. I've been concerned

since I was 10 or 11 years old. I haven't seen any indications in the last 3 1/2 decades since then to lessen my concern.

[triguy46]

62. Symbolic yet ineffective

Growth of population in US is insiginficant compared to third world. Whether you have a child or not will not alter the momentum of the nightmare pending in asia, africa and south america. How many of us not having kids will make a dent in the explosion in India, China, Brazil? But at least we'll become extinct for the right reasons?

[blindpig]

65. More than symbolic.

In that we consume so much more per capita. Breaking the carefully constructed mindset of half a century is absolutely necessary but won't be easy and will be opposed furiously. I expect that the oil producers and our creditors will see to it whether we like it or not.

In the meantime our landscape is shrinking, the flora and fauna native to this land is being pushed into smaller and smaller corners, if not over the cliff. We might deal with that smarter too but still the weight of numbers cannot be denied.

For us to preach population control to other peoples without applying it to ourselves would be the worst kind of arrogance and be greeted with the charges of racism too often heard when this subject is broached. While it may in some ways indeed be symbolism relative to the numbers in other countries if you're going to lead you've got to lead by example or not many will take you serious.

[triguy46]

68. You are right.

My point was that this is so much more than a birth control issue. Its one tied to economic development, education, freedom from violence and on and on. But from a macro view, IMHO, our population problem is nothing when compared to the 3rd world, where its implications are felt daily through starvation, diarrheal disease, and hopelessness. The impact of our small elective action is insufficient and without global dedication, of unmeassureable benefit to those dying today. The fact that I have two kids is not the issue, the issue is with worldwide agriculture able to produce annual surpluses, why can't we feed those who are hungry?

[blindpig]

72. The thing about those agricultural surpluses

is that they are wholly dependent upon petrochemicals. The Green Revolution is a castle built upon sand and it's implementation has put us that much further out on a limb. As oil and natural gas become more expensive so will the cost of fertilizer, fuel for farm machinery, transportation of product.

To be sure, it is disgraceful that people starve in this time of abundance. Between Peak Oil and Climate Change that abundance is going to take a big hit. We, and that means everybody, better get ready. As the old saw goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[rman]

63. If not poverty, what is evidence of supposed overpopulation?

And if poverty is caused by the disproportionate hoarding of wealth by a powerful few, then how much truth is there in the idea that there is a problem with overpopulation?

[blindpig]

67. A couple of things.

One is carrying capacity. To give all the world a middle class American would require 3 1/2 Earths(EO Wilson). Granted that we are extremely excessive in our use of resources, if we settled on a lesser level of consumption still the crunch would catch up to us, though in a longer time, as long as population continued to increase.

Never in the history of our planet has one large complex species so dominated the biosphere. We are displacing, disrupting or destroying whole ecosystems without having the slightest idea about the long term implications. Few would deny that Climate Change has our fingerprints all over it, what other messes are we making for ourselves?(as though that's not bad enough)

Then there is what I consider a moral issue. I find it deplorable that we drive other species to extinction as a matter of expediency, collateral damage in the march of humanity. We are destroying the matrix of our humanity instead of cherishing it. While this is a "soft" reason and some might consider it ultimately irrelevant I believe divorcing ourselves from Nature lessens us.

[The Stranger]

71. Excellent post.

Keep keepin' on.

[Roho]

83. none

None of that post has anything to do with over population.

It has everything to do with the disproportionate and glutenous use of resources by a tiny fraction of the earth's population.

[Zodiak]

84. I stand behind this post 100%

As a biologist, I cannot tell you how horrifying it is to know SOME of what is happening and to see how humans rationalize their demise rather than prevent it. This observation leads me to conclude that the ONLY way humans are going to get out of this mess is to learn to harvest extraplanetary resources, including space to live.

However, failing our resultion of the issue, I am fairly certain that our biosphere will continue long after a human-induced bottle-neck event. It will be a while again before megafauna return, b t it will survive us.

Or perhaps the Chinese will become dominant and, by economic pressure, force population control on all of us like we do the with the Drug War.

[Roho]

90. harvesting...

This is also a myth propagated to continue the raping of the earth by the very few.

The resources required to conduct such harvesting don't exists. More energy and resources would be required than ever possibly harvested.

Population levels have nothing to do with these problems either.

[Zodiak]

91. What are you talking about?

You might want to develop your post a bit. Is it a myth that there are extraplanetary resources or a myth that we can harvest them?

Without facts, your "myth" assertion is just that...an assertion.

Here is a link for the feasibility of harvesting space. There are many more...some well-planned, and some...not-so-well-planned.

http://ssi.org/?page_id=4

[Roho]

103. ok

For example the resources needed to harvest mineral resources from space would be cost prohibitive, resource prohibitive.

Some ideas being floated include building a tunnel from a space dock to earth to "shuttle" the harvested product, or building massive cargo space ships the size of our current tanker ships that currently travel the seas.

Like the rest of the ideas, the two above cost far more than we could ever hope to harvest.

Without first inventing a "cold fusion" type energy supply none of the space mining, or farming ideas would fly.

Of course if such a technology was created we wouldn't need to harvest space.

[Zodiak]

105. Mass Drivers

We have the technology for that and we can generate incredible speeds aided by the lack of gravity in most minable celestial bodies. In this way, fuel is not needed to exceed escape velocity.

Looks like you have looked at some far-reaching ideas....there are other ideas that are feasible and cost-effective (provided they do not make an industry of bringing all of this material to Earth).

[Roho]

107. Yes there are

But from what I've seen none of the ideas are viable with current technology.

I'm not referring necessarily to out of orbit travel, rather I'm taking about the energy and resources needed to get a large enough vessel out of our atmosphere.

[rman]

86. I see only one thing

Which is the claim that it would take 3.5 earth to provide every person on earth with a middle class american lifestyle.

The other two points you present do not pertain to overpopulation. They seem to be more along the lines of "we should be punished for misbehaving".

Back to your first point: middle class american life style is very wasteful. I think resources can be used much more efficiently then how we use them now, and if distributed fairly there will be enough for all people to live in reasonable comfort.

[The Stranger]

70. Keep up with current events?

The planet cannot support the billions and billions of people here and on the way.

[rman]

85. What's the basis for your assertion?

How can you be so sure of that if we've never had equal distribution of wealth?

[Deja Q]

93. A large population slurping up increasingly diminishing resources...

While the effects of doing so continue to skyrocket.

The planet is at 6.5+ billion people.

In 1980, it was at 3 billion. A small handful of shows mentioned overpopulation, but as with oil, anything to do with reality is more inclined to scare people into utter denial and beyond than to make them work at a positive solution. (I've observed that too often enough, and I'd rather work for a positive solution any day.)

Horading wealth has nothing to do with population. Thinking you're safe and secure means you see no problems in freely breeding just a little bit more. And that's rather how overpopulation came to be. Stability due to climate control (warming up freezing conditions, cooling overheated ones, easy transport of food to remote areas) and voila!

Put two animals (one M, one F) in a large cage with nothing. They'll ultimately become cannibals; the stronger one winning. And then dying because nothing's left. To lose is to win; and he who wins shall lose.

Put two animals (ditto) in a large cage with every necessity for living, you'll soon see lots of little animals running around, eating, and making little animals for themselves to boot. How do you tell the animals to be responsible and not waste the resources? Would they even be bothered to listen? No animal likes rationing.

Fortunately, we're human. Give us a valid reason and we'll happily comply.

[ck4829]

66. My Lover was born in a Developing Country

I love her with all of my heart and she is so smart. But, God knows what goes through her head when she says "I want 15 children".

I'd be happy with just 2 or something.

[Deja Q]

94. Try telling her that will do far more bad than good and see how she reacts

Population reduction also means not just curtailing the number of pregnancies, but curtailing the old. We can live up to 100+ years. After a certain age, people are automatically deemed "not economically viable" - hence lots of people in their 40s and 50s complaining about "ageism".

Or finding resources to support everybody that also won't be too harsh on the ambient environment in which we all live.

It'd be nice to find another Earth-type planet and evict any number of us to that planet; that way we all get to live. But I'm rather skeptical that's going to happen at all. :)

[The Stranger]

69. This issue, tied in with the destruction of the planet, is the most

important issue in the world today.

Those that realize this are stuck -- with the overwhelming masses who simply cannot understand this -- on an express elevator to hell.

[Deja Q]

97. Then get rid of the masses. (don't read if you're easily scared.)

We need intelligent people. Not mindless drones who prefer "american idol" when being told how reality is cruel.

I shouldn't sound so callous, but how do you re-engineer the populace so that they don't waste and squander and breed lots of children that nobody whatsoever can afford in the long run... middle run... even short run, I suspect... how do you do it without further harming the planet?

Energy sources to make the food are dwindling. As are space allotments. Never mind the environmental displacement we've caused.

Something bad is going to happen quickly. And it's not going to be nuclear because that would render the survivors in an even worse predicament... (unless there was a way to engineer a series of EMP blasts without emitting radiation. It'd be far more painful** than being irradiated, but the survivors who have their goodies shielded wouldn't have to worry at all. Rebuilding would be somewhat simple; just dispose of the decaying bodies...)

** No car. No refrigerator. No batteries. No external light sources. Anything electric/electronic would be destroyed by a strong, solid EMP or two... Nothing apart from existing bottled goods. And when they run out, where do you get fresh water and food? No heating either, so you can eat AND freeze in utter boredom. Anything you've taken for granted is, from your standpoint, utterly annihilated. You'd have to get a gun to fend off anyone going for your goods. And then use it on yourself when reserves run down to Zero.

Who needs a neutron bomb? An EMP is eminently more effective.

All of this is, naturally, aimless and mindless hyperbole.

[The Stranger]

98. We start with making birth control available in massive quantities.

Let people basically fuck one another into oblivion.

It is essentially the same thing that is going on now, except people will not get killed, and population growth will taper and begin to decrease.

And everyone will have such a pleasurable, good time.

[cascadiance]

101. Limit dependent tax deductions...

We should only provide tax deductions for the first two children in a family, and any additional kids will either get severely reduced or no tax deductions as a way of incenting people to have less kids. Now perhaps you could bend this a bit to allow for tax deductions for adopted kids, but even that as a loophole might screw things up where people "exchange" kids to get tax deductions which would be a bad thing of taking away kids from their natural parents, etc. But we need to stop incenting people to have big families, which put a burden on all of us.

[rinsd]

74. So what's the solution?

There's always a dance around solutions when this question is brought up.

Possibly because our most natural of all rights is the right to procreate.

[Gregorian]

75. Stabilization. (Plus, I have a comment on our society.)

We can't solve the problem until we put an end to the growth. It's like a patient in an emergency room. That's the very first step. Actually, there is no other alternative. The people who are here, are here.

It wasn't long ago that women could not vote. They were not a part of our society, as such. And they were beholden to their husbands. We're a young society, if you look at it that way. I am not blaming (ok, I'm blaming), but between anti-choice laws, the Catholic church, and women being property of their husbands, essentially, population has skyrocketed.

Also, the population has not been an issue until now. So it has gone unchecked. Plus, when in combination with a modern society (ie. petroleum), the planet can not sustain it.

The patient has just stumbled into the emergency room. The first thing to do is stabilize it. Then figure out what to do next.

[Deja Q]

95. Don't be coy. Define "stabalization".

I have a sneaking suspicious I know what you mean. (though religion is merely a useful psychological tool, there are too many other resources to freely allow an exploding population)

Population was an issue some 30 years ago. Nobody listened or cared. Ditto for energy sources that are as essential to our survival as the air we breathe and the food we eat.

[Gregorian]

115. I think it means limiting family size.

I don't think there is any other interpretation. In China, they say there is a one child limit. But that is not true. If one lives in the city, or if one has female babies, then the one child limit is not binding. I think they know the danger, but can't really enforce it.

The problem is this is a very serious "right". Unfortunately, so is living on this planet. Unless we change our impact, or reverse our modern lifestyles, limitation on family size is the only alternative.

This issue has absorbed my entire life energy for over a quarter century. Don't be fooled- I'm not doing something to solve the problem. I'm trying to run from it. Even that, is a full time effort, if not impossible.

Anyways, I think I made myself clear. Without empassioned and intelligent leadership, we will have to enact some kind of "draconian" law that will attempt to preserve the planet so that future generations can live here like we did.

[wuushew]

77. Increase the availibilty of birth control

or in this country limit the rate of immigration to at or below population replacement levels.

[Deja Q]

96. Didn't our fascist friends in China impose something similar? Hmmm...

It didn't work very well, now did it? ...

As for immigration, it seems (from the grapevine) our own politicians would rather bring in people from outside and educate them than tend to their own. Using our tax dollars to do so. I can't entirely blame them, what with too many americans giving more of a damn about the american idol show than anything useful. Mindless drones. It's still sickening how they squander tax money like this. Especially when it's the corporate elite making commercial after commercial saying how you're cool if you do this, or cool if you play this game, et cetera. We're a nation of game addicts as well. You'd think fixing the problem would be better than bringing in cult addicts from other countries... never mind the worst reality; the environment we grew up in makes living in the natural world impossible. Not until we read any nmumber of books and then prepare ourselves in the fact that with no electricity, running water, plumbing, refrigeration, automobiles, and a shitload of other items, survival alone is very hard on its own. No electronic frontier to make us feel happier. (that's why we need each other.)

OTOH, our own American history over the last 40 years has shown what being honest does TO politicians. Most people do not want to listen to, never mind talk, about callous reality. They prefer watching people eat reindeer testicles on "Fear Factor". I know a few who do prefer talking about reality, and they are the ones I'm inclined to talk to these days. And the gamut of their political views couldn't be any more diverse; politics is a lame duck, people need to work together to survive.

[stepnw1f]

76. Researching a Way to Neuter Right Wingers

Pocket held device I can aim at people without them feeling the immediate effects. :evilgrin:

[shanti]

87. well, i apparently wasn't THAT concerned

as i had four sons! but i wanted a daughter (that i never got) :shrug:

if i had to do it over again, i'd stop at two, regardless.

[Deja Q]

92. Extremely - and I believe we're all beyond recriminations now...

So many people; you can't control them all.

So few resources, to save what's left for the few who are left, the masses must be exterminated or a huge paradigm shift must take place. But the latter means EVERYONE, including "the few who are left", must change. Who's going to want to change and give up their tvs and their ipods and their PCs? Especially when it's vastly more profitable to build big sheetrock houses with faux brick veneer than farming? And who decides who is worthy of survival? IQ test, current fiscal value? How well you can speak? How well you can make flapjacks?

Whatever happens, I only hope it's quick and painless. :(

[blindpig]

104. A few thoughts.

First, I'd like to thank all who have participated in this thread, it has been illuminating and a little surprising.

If we are to dodge this bullet we must use all means at our disposal: birth control, education, raising the standard of living for the poor, equal rights and opportunity for women. A glance at that list says that we on the Left have the answers, the Right will ignore the problem or worse. To be honest I fear that it may already be too late, but goddammit, we've got to try.

To those of you who might believe that my position on this matter is misanthropic or "malthusian" I can only say that I share your concerns. That's why I'm discussing it here. Friends, we must apply our ideology to the physical reality that we face.

And to those who voted "be fruitful and multiply", please get your heads out of the sand.

[Roho]

109. Nowhere

have you offered ANY evidence that the planet is over populated.

Period.

What you have proved is the raping of the planet by less than an eighth of its population can not continue while sustaining life.

There is no evidence that populations in the third world are having a negative impact on the environment.

[blindpig]

111. Sigh....okay, here ya go.

Alright, I went and hunted up some stuff for you:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0809_wireowilson.html

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

http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/content/v13.1/10-sessions.html

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

http://dieoff.org/page67.htm

I'd strongly suggest that you read the pertinent works by EO Wilson, Paul Shepard, Paul Erlich and Paul Sessions.

I don't know your age but I'm 51 and I've spent my life watching the world becoming more and more crowded. Are you paying attention?

[Roho]

113. Yes I am paying attention

Ok I’ve read each one of your links. Let’s go through them.

Over-Consumption, Poverty Will Squeeze Out Species
"bottleneck of overpopulation and wasteful consumption" that could drive half of Earth's species to extinction in this century, eminent biologist Edward O. Wilson told more than 2,000 ecologists meeting in Tucson this week.

"A civilization able to envision God and the afterlife and embark on the exploration of space, for heaven's sake, can surely find a way to save the ecological integrity of this planet," he said.
"hot spots" for biological diversity tend to be in the same parts of the developing world where poverty has created "oppressed, land-hungry people with no other place to go."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0809_wireowilson.html

Wilson only mentions over population in the first paragraph and never supports it or ties it to bio-diversity. I agree the degradation of the earth’s “bio-sphere” is the number one problem facing man kind, but I argue that there isn’t any evidence that the resources to sustain human life at current levels are dangerously lacking.

POPULATION GROWTH,
OUR QUALITY OF LIFE
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABLITY
More people means each person gets less. As the numbers of humans increases, we all get poorer and more crowded.
OVERVIEW: OUR GARDEN OF EDEN IN DANGER


The goal of limiting population growth is not racist. It can be seen all over the world that countries and cities and communities that have the highest growth rates have the highest levels of poverty. It is in the best interest all ethnic groups to limit their growth to gain a higher level of prosperity. Minorities and majority races must ask themselves, what is our goal? Is the goal greater numbers and thereby more political power, but it also brings more crowding, more competition for existing resources, and less resources per person. Or is the goal quality of life? Quality of life is more quickly achieved by lowering birth rates.
http://www.overpopulation.org/paul.html

Here it is in black and white. Prosperity and population levels are directly correlated. So, if we want spread our over indulgent wasteful lifestyles to the rest of the planet we need to depopulate the poor regions of the world.

You third link it truly bizarre and I’ll let this passage speak for the rest. If you can find a more applicable quote from that link I’d be happy to consider it.

The Trumpeter (2001)
Reinventing Nature, The End Of Wilderness?:
A Response To William Cronon\'s Uncommon Ground

George Sessions
At a Green conference in the late 1980s, I was discussing the global ecological/human overpopulation crisis with a leading Ecofeminist writer. Her response was to say she didn’t believe there was an ecological crisis or an overpopulation problem. “Given the present intellectual climate,” she claimed, “isn’t it all a matter of how you look at it?” At the time, I felt that I had just stepped, like Alice, “through the looking glass”! In retrospect, I now realize I had come face to face with the views of postmodern deconstructionism, an orientation held by many academic Ecofeminists.

Snip…

Given that most academic philosophers have been trained in Western anthropocentric ethical traditions, philosophy textbooks and anthologies designed for courses in ethics tend to reflect an anthropocentric social justice environmental bias. In sections on “ethics and the environment” in these textbooks the standard whipping boy used to be biologist Garrett Hardin with his “Lifeboat Ethics” paper calling for human population control. Now most of the sections in these textbooks close with the paper by the Indian Social Ecologist Ramachandra Guha
http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/content/v13.1/10-sessions.html

Your fourth link is a mystery to me, and to be honest I stopped reading it once I came across this outlandish claim which the author uses to create a false perception of the real causes of population growth and the possibilities of sustainability.

The world's population has tripled since 1980, to the current 6 billion people, and is expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050.
http://www.overpopulation.org/impact.html

In fact the United Nations estimates for the world's population in 1980 was 4,453,831,714
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html


Again the author predicates all discussion with the assertion that western lifestyles are not only irrelevant to the problem of environment degradation but also beyond the realm of examination when discussing solutions.

Your final link was the most compelling

THE COMING ANARCHY
by Robert D. Kaplan
How scarcity, crime, overpopulation, tribalism, and disease are rapidly destroying the social fabric of our planet
The Atlantic Monthly, February 1994

In those cities African culture is being redefined while desertification and deforestation--also tied to overpopulation--drive more and more African peasants out of the countryside.

Snip…

While a minority of the human population will be, as Francis Fukuyama would put it, sufficiently sheltered so as to enter a "post-historical" realm, living in cities and suburbs in which the environment has been mastered and ethnic animosities have been quelled by bourgeois prosperity, an increasingly large number of people will be stuck in history, living in shantytowns where attempts to rise above poverty, cultural dysfunction, and ethnic strife will be doomed by a lack of water to drink, soil to till, and space to survive in. In the developing world environmental stress will present people with a choice that is increasingly among totalitarianism (as in Iraq), fascist-tending mini-states (as in Serb-held Bosnia), and road-warrior cultures (as in Somalia). Homer-Dixon concludes that "as environmental degradation proceeds, the size of the potential social disruption will increase."

Snip…

Whereas rural poverty is age-old and almost a "normal" part of the social fabric, urban poverty is socially destabilizing. As Iran has shown, Islamic extremism is the psychological defense mechanism of many urbanized peasants threatened with the loss of traditions in pseudo-modern cities where their values are under attack, where basic services like water and electricity are unavailable, and where they are assaulted by a physically unhealthy environment. The American ethnologist and orientalist Carleton Stevens Coon wrote in 1951 that Islam "has made possible the optimum survival and happiness of millions of human beings in an increasingly impoverished environment over a fourteen-hundred-year period." Beyond its stark, clearly articulated message, Islam's very militancy makes it attractive to the downtrodden. It is the one religion that is prepared to fight. A political era driven by environmental stress, increased cultural sensitivity, unregulated urbanization, and refugee migrations is an era divinely created for the spread and intensification of Islam, already the world's fastest-growing religion.
http://dieoff.org/page67.htm

National Security implications seem to carry the day in The Coming Anarchy.

[Roho]

112. test

having problem posting reply maybe html formating?

[DaveinMD]

106. Progressives

need to have more children. The conservatives multiply live rabbits.

[LibertyLover]

108. I voted concerned enough not to have kids -

which I didn't. However, my husband and I did adopt our daughter.

[Dawgs]

110. Apologies to anyone with children, but...

because of overpopulation and global-warming(cooling) I don't think this world last, as it is, for another 50 years. Yes, many people will survive, but the scale of the global destruction will be devastating to millions upon millions of people.

[sarcasmo]

114. Between my two sisters and I we have a total of two children.

To many people in the World as it is no sense of bringing another half dozen of your own into this mess.