Population Control: Good Idea? or Its too late anyway?

[nabrxx]

Discuss: Are there too many of us? The more people in the room, the less freedom for each. Discuss...

[catdaddy]

I don't buy the premise. When it gets crowded, the freedom loving pioneers find a way to find more room.

BTW- who's gonna tell who they can't have a child? That's the ultimate infringement on not only civil liberties, but basic human rights.

Granted, some expect to pop babies with no thought of their care and nurture, and expect society to handle their responsibilities for them, but, IMHO, that's a societal failure for making it a reasonable ASSumption that the rest of us will do just that.

Catdaddy

[Doctor D]

Originally Posted by nabrxx

Discuss: Are there too many of us? The more people in the room, the less freedom for each. Discuss...

Ask China...

I can envision situations where you would want to dissuade families from having an excess amount of children, either through taxes or some sort of monetary incentive for following the rules. China is the best real-world example of this; Singapore is another. Singapore is a representative democracy, too. In their case, their birth control policies were so effective they had to reverse the policy and encourage people to have children. Now I read that China is looking into relaxing its "one-child" policy, too.

I think it's a two way street; sometimes, during periods of an aging population, a government needs to encourage population growth. In times of overcrowding, the reverse may be necessary.

I don't follow you when you link personal freedom to population, though. I don't see a correlation there.

[bugs]

I've heard the greater-population-density-requires-less-freedom theory before, but never any reason for it except that people are intolerant so if there are more of them we need-more-rules-so-no one-is-offended. Bullshit. I find that fucking offensive.

Overpopulation certainly will make life more difficult for all of us, but who's gonna say who has the babies? Just more chapters in the book of life.

[catdaddy]

Originally Posted by bugs

but who's gonna say who has the babies?

Politicians and RABID ecologists-

IMO, two of the groups most in need of a good thinning...

Catdaddy

[bugs]

Don't forget the lawyers

[catdaddy]

Originally Posted by bugs

Don't forget the lawyers

I try not to think about them. Just makes my blood pressure soar.

Catdaddy

[Toecutter]

Originally Posted by nabrxx

Discuss: Are there too many of us? The more people in the room, the less freedom for each. Discuss...

Why dont you tell us your opinion?

[golly]

If technology could better help peeps who didn't want kids, not have them..Then the folks that do, would proly never need limits imposed...
Kids are great for the general economy but this crowded world can be a bugger at times.
Back in the 50s it seemed like the new frontier compared to today - geezer effect..heh

[tophatsaremagic]

Happiness, and success are the ultimate population control. If it weren't for immigration, the population of the U.S. would be on the decline just like japan

If it gets to crowded for me, I'm moving to the moon....you guys can crash on my moon couch, and chill with some moon mushrooms with me if you want.

[polypore]

I don't think they would ever get away with it (population control) in the US, although the draft comes mighty close . There are too many people with the "'gotta spread my seed" mentality, gotta keep the family name alive... etc. Although our country is in a bit of a pickle with resources, I don't think that telling people to keep procreation to a minimum is the right way out of it, (nor would they ever get away with it, like I said). Rather, we need to better our relationship with the resources we use, and not look at the earth as an object to be exploited, and to overall be more thoughtful in our design and production. (it seems like we are always praising ourselves for the infrasutrcture we have created, but we stop there, we stop trying to create more cyclical systems, instead taking the easy way out, the fast payoff...etc).

[August West]

Originally Posted by polypore

I don't think they would ever get away with it (population control) in the US, although the draft comes mighty close.

Eugenics was practiced in the US in the early decades of the 1900's. Today the U.S. gov't doesn't need to impose population control at home. Whenever a group of unruly brown foreigners gets out of hand the US imposes it on them...they made it a policy throughout the 1980's in central and south America - policy has now shifted to Asia.

[Beastmaster]

There's more to controlling population growth than just preventing people from reproducing, much more. I'm pretty sure I'm going to miss some stuff here, but stick with me and hopefully we'll all be able to share a bigger picture of the situation when I am done.

Mainly there is a difference between developed nations and underdeveloped nations, when looking at population data. This is because of differences in health care, types of jobs, general quality of life, etc is better in the developed nations.

This graph is a comparison of crude death rate vs crude birth rate over time as a nation changes from an undeveloped nation to a developed one.

The model is based on the change in crude birth rate (CBR) and crude death rate (CDR) over time. Each is expressed per thousand population. The CBR is determined by taking the number of births in one year in a country, dividing it by the country's population, and multiplying the number by 1000. In 1998, the CBR in the United States is 14 per 1000 (14 births per 1000 people) while in Kenya it is 32 per 1000.

The crude death rate is similarly determined. The number of deaths in one year are divided by the population and that figure is multiplied by 1000. This yields a CDR of 9 in the U.S. and 14 in Kenya.

Stage I
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, countries in Western Europe had a high CBR and CDR. Births were high because more children meant more workers on the farm and with the high death rate, families needed more children to ensure survival of the family. Death rates were high due to disease and a lack of hygiene. The high CBR and CDR were somewhat stable and meant slow growth of a population. Occasional epidemics would dramatically increase the CDR for a few years (represented by the "waves" in Stage I of the model.

Stage II
In the mid-18th century, the death rate in Western European countries dropped due to improvement in sanitation and medicine. Out of tradition and practice, the birth rate remained high. This dropping death rate but stable birth rate in the beginning of Stage II contributed to skyrocketing population growth rates. Over time, children became an added expense and were less able to contribute to the wealth of a family. For this reason, along with advances in birth control, the CBR was reduced through the 20th century in developed countries. Populations still grew rapidly but this growth began to slow down.
Many less developed countries are currently in Stage II of the model. For example, Kenya's high CBR of 32 per 1000 but low CDR of 14 per 1000 contribute to a high rate of growth (as in mid-Stage II).

Stage III
In the late 20th century, the CBR and CDR in developed countries both leveled off at a low rate. In some cases the CBR is slightly higher than the CDR (as in the U.S. 14 versus 9) while in other countries the CBR is less than the CDR (as in Germany, 9 versus 11). (You can obtain current CBR and CDR data for all countries through the Census Bureau's International Data Base). Immigration from less developed countries now accounts for much of the population growth in developed countries that are in Stage III of the transition. Countries like China, South Korea, Singapore, and Cuba are rapidly approaching Stage III.

The Model
As with all models, the demographic transition model has its problems. The model does not provide "guidelines" as to how long it takes a country to get from Stage I to III. Western European countries took centuries through some rapidly developing countries like the Economic Tigers are transforming in mere decades. The model also does not predict that all countries will reach Stage III and have stable low birth and death rates. There are factors such as religion that keep some countries' birth rate from dropping.

Ok, now for the nitty gritty. After reading the above little snippet, you should understand that population growth is dependent on the nation's economy.
Below is a brief explanation of the next type of population chart, the age/sex ratio. Mainly just pay attention to the three types of growth, and how to recognize them.

Age-Sex Pyramids
The most important demographic characteristic of a population is its age-sex structure. Age-sex pyramids (also known as population pyramids) graphically display this information to improve understanding and ease comparison.
Age-sex pyramids display the percentage or actual amount of a population broken down by gender and age. The five-year age increments on the y-axis allow the pyramid to vividly reflect long term trends in the birth and death rates but also reflect shorter term baby-booms, wars, and epidemics.
There are three key types of population pyramids:
Rapid Growth
This pyramid of the Philippines shows a triangle-shaped pyramid and reflects a high growth rate of about 2.1 percent annually.
Slow Growth
In the United States, the population is growing at a rate of about 1.7 percent annually. This growth rate is reflected in the more square-like structure of the pyramid. Note the lump in the pyramid between the ages of about 35 to 50. This large segment of the population is the post-World War II "baby boom." As this population ages and climbs up the pyramid, there will be a much greater demand for medical and other geriatric services.
Negative Growth
Germany is experiencing a period of negative growth (-0.1%). As negative growth in a country continues, the population is reduced. A population can shrink due to a low birth rate and a stable death rate. Increased emigration may also be a contributor to a declining population. To create your own age-sex pyramids for almost any country in the world using current and projected population, visit the U.S. Census Bureau's wonderful International Population Pyramids site. Enjoy!

Ok, so stay with me here, I'm almost done. Following are three pyramids per country, from 2000, 2025, and 2050 projected data.

United States of America:




Japan:




France:




Colombia:




Chad:




Welp, there you have it. It seems to me that the best solution for reducing population growth is to help underdeveloped nations get through Stage II as fast as possible.

Now I would like to address what I see as fallacies from earlier:

I don't think they would ever get away with it (population control) in the US, although the draft comes mighty close .

Military service does not equal death. Maybe to cowards it does, but if you think about it, the vast majority of the military is paper pushing desk jockeys that never see the outside of a tent, bunker, or ship. I find that statement to be rather insulting, as I myself served in the military (combat arms even) and I never did so with the thought that I was doing so to die so that there would be less people. Ridiculous!!!
Infact, in 2005 alone, any American was more than 10 times as likely to die in an alcohol related automobile accident, than die as a soldier in Iraq during the entire 2003-Present deployment. (40000+ US deaths in alcohol related traffic accidents in 2005 as reported by NHTSA vs 4000+ US deaths in entire 2003-2008 Iraq war).

Who's gonna tell who they can't have a child? That's the ultimate infringement on not only civil liberties, but basic human rights.

Reading the previous posts in this thread it seems that 'population control' means to most people, some sort of government organized illegalization of reproduction, like guns. Ban babies, no more population growth. Just like ban guns, no more violent crime. It just doesn't work that way.

Speaking of basic human rights, how about having a choice about reproducing? In many developing countries, very young women are impregnated by dominant males in their villages as there aren't birth control measures, or education on how or why to use them.

Thus, education of young women in undeveloped nations is proving to be critical. In many such countries, women are not allowed equal rights, and generally get little to no education. This makes them particularly vulnerable to getting impregnated (and also AIDS/HIV) with out choice. This is a big problem in many African and middle eastern countries. As stated above, religion sometimes has an affect on that.

As far as the scary thought of Big Brother determining whether I can or cannot reproduce goes, I think that such outright bans as was done in China are a thing of the past. This brings in the concept of the "critical cohort'. This is the group of people age 15-24, the age most likely to reproduce at. Generally accidentally, if you look at the ages and think about teenagers getting knocked up at parties, that's pretty much what it is talking about. Kinda like how we waste as much energy in this country as is produced by all our nuclear power plants. Unnecessary births.

So rather than being outright prevented from reproducing, there are educational efforts, even in this country, to encourage people to wait until mid 20s to reproduce. By then most people are through college, economically established with a career, and less likely to reproduce.

This is not an unsolvable problem, in fact much has changed in the past 50 years. The world's growth rate peaked in the 1960s at 2% and a doubling time of 35 years. The world's current growth rate is almost half that, at about 1.3%, representing a doubling time of 54 years. We can expect the world's population of approximately 6 billion to become 12 billion by 2054 if the current rate of growth continues.

There, I think that's about it, now lets see how many people actually read that stuff up above.

[golly]

I did...!
Interesting post Beasty.... Education,technology and sophistication seems to be the stabilizing cure for growing pains .

[Beastmaster]

Wow, what a way to sum it all up in a nutshell. I couldn't have said it better myself, Golly.

[lawrencephaedrus]

I think that a lot of the growth has been built on fossil fuels which have allowed humans to grow more food and move it into previously uninhabitable areas. What happens when we run out? In 200 - 300 years (a short period of time in the bigger picture) things will look quite different, the growth pattern of the last 100 years is just not sustainable.

People have this idea that nature is this nice, warm and loving place. If anything is going to control our population, it will be nature. There is a profound imbalance that will be corrected. Drug resistant disease, global warming, desertification - the pendulum won't always be swinging in our favour.

I guess that my argument is that the human population will be controlled buy forces a lot greater than government policy. Some arse-wipe in an office in a government building can't ask people to renounce their nature. Eugenics / population control is always grounds for the most vile abuse.

Procreation is an instinct. It is nature. We are here because of it. Humans will always push to survive and ensure that there genetic heritage is passed on - we just won't always be winning, things will change.

[joecoolatc]

Originally Posted by Beastmaster

Infact, in 2005 alone, any American was more than 10 times as likely to die in an alcohol related automobile accident, than die as a soldier in Iraq during the entire 2003-Present deployment. (40000+ US deaths in alcohol related traffic accidents in 2005 as reported by NHTSA vs 4000+ US deaths in entire 2003-2008 Iraq war).

while true i'm sure this is not adjusted for population.

40,000/300,000,000=0.00013 or a 1 in 7500 chance of dieing in an alcohol related accident.

now how many americans have served in iraq? i don't now, i looked and couldn't find a number. i think over the course of 5 years 2 million is a more than fair guess.

4,000/2,000,000=.002 or a 1 in 500 chance of dieing in the iraq war.

[DocOc]

So yeah, we as a species grow exponentially from 2^x -x*deaths. But, Malthus assumed that our food supply would increase arithmetically, which it has not. Look at Semolina wheat for example. It produces ~2x more grain per acre/hectare. Is there a breaking point for food supply meeting the demands of mouths to feed? Yes. Is there a maximum population of humans that can live next to one another? Yes. I just don't think that we are near it. Will it come? Is this precipice over which we might inadvertently plummet do to careless and prolific breeding imminent? I hope not, but, I don't think we're quite there yet.

[polypore]

Beastmaster-
"Military service does not equal death. Maybe to cowards it does, but if you think about it, the vast majority of the military is paper pushing desk jockeys that never see the outside of a tent, bunker, or ship. I find that statement to be rather insulting, as I myself served in the military (combat arms even) and I never did so with the thought that I was doing so to die so that there would be less people. Ridiculous!!!"


I apologize... I didn't mean to offend, I sort of meant it as a joke (probably should have put one of those smileys...) and that probably wasn't appropriate either. Anyway I was trying to consider the more ethical/philisophical standpoint, but it's good to see some science. I read it all but don't have much to say about it, other than that it's cool that someone is thinking about it.

"As far as the scary thought of Big Brother determining whether I can or cannot reproduce goes, I think that such outright bans as was done in China are a thing of the past."

I agree with that, and that's pretty much what I was trying to say. People just aren't going to stand for it, and if it comes to that point (where there aren't enough resources), people will (of necessity) become more thrifty, for lack of a better word. I'm not sure if that will come before the huge shift in mindset or after... we'll see (or maybe we won't...too far into the future?)


lawrencephaedrus-
"I think that a lot of the growth has been built on fossil fuels which have allowed humans to grow more food and move it into previously uninhabitable areas. What happens when we run out? In 200 - 300 years (a short period of time in the bigger picture) things will look quite different, the growth pattern of the last 100 years is just not sustainable."


Also, I was trying to get at this, when I said the bit about our relationship with earth. Fossil fuels are a huge input into our farming systems, even organic and more holistic forms of agriculture, which use significantly less energy inputs in other areas relies heavily on fossil fuels for any mid to large sized cultivation operation (tractors as well as shipping if food is not local). We have developed a thirst for so many things, basil in the winter in our supermarket for 4.00 a bunch shipped from california (pretty much regardless of where you are in the country!). Blueberries and other fruits too. Coffee and chocolate are prime year round examples. Most people don't realize it but you are likely to come into contact with/consume so many things from another country before you even leave your house in the morning. Without fossil fuels (or other cheap energy) these liberties will be gone and people will have to actually start thinking where these things come from. I am not sure about where the statistic came from but I was in a farming class at school last year and a girl from alaska told us that if the transportation was cut off, they would have a 10 day food supply (reserve) before they starve.


"People have this idea that nature is this nice, warm and loving place. If anything is going to control our population, it will be nature. There is a profound imbalance that will be corrected. Drug resistant disease, global warming, desertification - the pendulum won't always be swinging in our favour."

Yeah, the future can look pretty grim if you choose to think about certain things. I am reading this book about composting human manure, a really interesting book called the humanure handbook by joseph jenkins. Which can be downloaded for free in its newest edition off his website. He has some really interesting perspective. He considers the qualities that a "pathogen" has : they consume resources endlessly with no thought of future generations, (in the case of the bacterial pathogen, they kill their host without regard for their life), and they create endless toxic waste (many pathogens are deadly because of this quality, rather than just eating you sort of thing). Then he says that the immune response is to send all sorts of things at the pathogen, including increasing the temperature. Then he considers that the earth is one organism (instead of a big dead rock, which is i'm sure the way a lot of people think about it, if at all) and says that it sure is a striking coincidence that if you look at the earth as one organism, the humans start looking like the pathogens (i.e. that we fulfill all the requirements set above). So his whole book is about how you can safely compost your own shit, a very taboo subject in our society, and create a nutritious product for a garden instead of flushing it down the toilet "away". But enough on the tangent. So I see those things that you list as the earth's way of saying STOP! and if our population continues to grow with the same mindset that we have now... well, we are surely fucked to put it bluntly.

[Hippie3]

the earth is one organism

the earth simply doesn't meet the most basic criteria of being a lifeform-
it cannot replicate / reproduce itself.

so while it's fun to portray the earth as a living entity
with an immune system riding to the rescue
to save it from us evil viral humans-
the notion is just pure fantasy
and the earth indeed is an inanimate ball of rock.

[polypore]

Hippie,
That's cool if you feel that way... and I'm not going to try to dissuade you from that opinion, but hear me out. Can you have the perspective to look at the earth from ...well outside the earth? Not only that but in a certain time frame that could give you a real understanding... unfortunately, none of us do. But I feel that when it comes to the basic biological definition, those are just parameters, set by humans to differentiate rocks from animals, and of course the earth isn't alive by those sterile reductionist definitions. But to say for sure that there isn't some kind of consciousness belonging to the earth as a whole is based on so many assumptions that may or may not be true (like that only higher life forms have some kind of consciousness, that the process of evolution isn't minded...etc). I am not suggesting that the earth is sitting there cursing us and things like that, but that it is a kind of consciousness that we couldn't possibly fathom, because of scale and mainly just huge difference in experience. I will say that I am a strong believer in science. I have taken (and still am taking) many chemistry, physics and biology classes and have a good understanding of the way natural systems work.

I also used to believe that everything was mechanical as implied by the laws of physics, you know that everything is billiard balls and survival of the fittest. After reading several books on quantum theory and relativity, I realized this mindset simply doesn't perpetuate the best picture of the universe that physics has today (people still want to look at the world with the newtonian perspective, even after we realize that there are more accurate descriptions. People still want to think a rock is the same from second to second, even though it is only relatively invariant and that everything is made of seperately existent particles, when indeed relativity and quantum theory deny this). So perspective is everything, and while the theory of evolution does provide a good picture form our frame of reference, i.e. that the more 'fit' species survive and outcompete the less fit ones, it should not be taken to be absolute, because no human has the perspective to look over a sufficient area or time frame to really say for sure that it is that way. Science, or any theory, or any world view is by necessity limited to some certain domain or perspective.

Now, I understand that by the standard definition of biological life, yes, the earth is indeed dead (although I meant it as more of an interesting way of looking at it than anything else). However, even the whole of biology is built on the assumption that we can know all the possible interactions and reduce everything to molecules (essentially that no relativistic or quantum effects have any effect on biological systems, that it's, all chemistry plain and simple). So while biology is incredibly useful for applications such as studying studying drugs, helping us grow food, making dow and monsanto billions, It only applies in a limited domain. To apply that way of thinking to something so much larger than our physical bodies seems a bit of a stretch to me, and to worship it, like so many people in our society do inevitably leads to an incoherent existence.

I hope you realize that this is just my perspective, or opinion and I'm not trying to attack or discredit yours (which you are certainly entitled to), this is just my reasoning for coming to this viewpoint. I think it's a pretty neat way to look at the world, thinking that it's not all billiard balls. It sure allows for good reasoning to act in a holistic way and kind of unites science (of which for certain issues I am a die hard believer in) and spirituality, truth, god whatever you want to call it. Take it or leave it, but hopefully take some of it, because I think new perspective is what it's all about. If you are interested in more readings on the incompleteness of science see Wholeness and the implicate order, and on dialogue by david bohm. He studied quantum physics and also worked under Einstein, so the first is pretty dense with multivariable calculus (which I don't know myself, so I skipped over it, but there is a ton of good insight there), the second on the nature of opinion and thought. Cheers.

[Hippie3]

you sure took the long way to get to the fact

...by the standard definition of biological life, yes, the earth is indeed dead...

Q.E.D.

as for the rest,
believe whatever you want,
re-define words to suit your needs,
it's all good since
it's just personal opinion.