Human Population control

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hmmmmm.

I would control population through space travel. It's an option we need to explore more thoroughly.

That would require that we develop a technology that makes it cheaper to ship a human being to another solar system than it is to feed them, clothe them and clean up after them for their lifetime here on earth. That's so far into the realm of science fantasy it isn't funny.

It was a cool premise for the setting of Blade Runner, though.

 

[toddjh]

Maybe I should expand a bit, though. We have enough resources for a bit, why not spend those resources expanded our species. I mean, unlikely as it is, the Earth WILL get hit by that comet/asteroid ONE of these fine days, if we wait long enough. What if a plague a la The Stand does strike Earth. It seems to be mor elogical to not have all our eggs in one basket, as it were.

Like Kevin_Lowe said, space travel as a means of population control is prohibitively expensive, and is likely to be for a long time, if not forever. With the energy it would take, even in theory, to send billions of people to another solar system, we could make this planet a paradise many times over.

Still, that doesn't invalidate your argument about not putting all our eggs in one basket. Colonization does seem a sensible long-term goal, even if we can only afford to send a couple hundred people.

Jeremy

 

[Chris O.]

None of the Above: The removal of all forms of safety devices. Handrails on high stairs, seatbelts, warning signs such as "No Smoking" at gas pumps, and speed limit signs.

 

[clarsct]

That would require that we develop a technology that makes it cheaper to ship a human being to another solar system than it is to feed them, clothe them and clean up after them for their lifetime here on earth. That's so far into the realm of science fantasy it isn't funny.

It was a cool premise for the setting of Blade Runner, though.

Well, as has been said, it's a long-term goal. But even the shortest journey cannot be finished if one stops taking steps.

I think we've stopped taking steps. And it's about damned time we did something about it.

I was prohibitively expensive to ship people to America and Australia. But it was done, and with fairly good results.


Humankind has spent too much time teetered on a single rock in space.

 

[toddjh]

I was prohibitively expensive to ship people to America and Australia. But it was done, and with fairly good results.

It was done to colonize and get rid of undesirables, but not to relieve overpopulation. And it was expensive, but obviously not prohibitively so. The cost of crossing an ocean, even back then, is completely insignificant compared to the cost, if not the downright impossibility, of sending people to another solar system.

There are two separate discussions getting lumped together here. The first is the wisdom of trying to colonize other worlds, even at great cost. That's open to debate, but there are some strong arguments in favor of it.

The other argument, however, is using interstellar colonization as population control. That, I'm afraid, will never be practical. Even if the energy were available, there'd simply be no incentive because that very same energy could be put to better use right here.

Jeremy

 

[RandFan]

Rand Fan you might recognize this link.

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Population/Result.asp

" Effects of Over-Consumption and Increasing Populations

The following are some of the areas of current and future tension. (Note how in the case of many of the regions mentioned below, wealthier nations have often been involved to extract and consume the resources leaving even less in the region for growing populations to contend with.)

* the various conflicts in Africa. It is also feared that conflicts involving water will increase.
* the Middle East where national interests in the vast oil fields have led to wars and influence from states like USA and UK.
* the 1998 riots in Indonesia fueled by the current global financial crisis.
* the Nile area, where Egypt rely on downstream water largely controlled by Ethiopia.
* Iraq, Syria and Turkey where there is tension surrounding the water flow of the Euphrates and Tigris.
* Israel and Jordan, where Israel cut water supplies to Jordan due to sever drought
* Israel and Palestine also are fighting over water resources as well. "

Thanks Electron,

Yes, please note that the site says that increased populations could exaserbate current problems. It certainly doesn't contend that poverty is caused by overpopulation.

 

[Electron #1]

Rand fan your comment is untrue.

Actually, what is plainly said is that increasing-population and over consumption are the ROOT of the problems listed which is greatly worsen by the extraction and consumption by wealthier nations.

I dont know where you came up with the"over population causes poverty comment. "(I didnt see that in Sez Me's comments either)
Its the exploitation of the impoverished that exacerbates and spreads poverty. Although the ,enviormental degregation , inadequate food and acess
to education caused by over population are certainly not helping making entrepreneurs.

 

[RandFan]

Rand fan your comment is untrue.

Really? Hmmmm.... I don't think so. I reserve the right to be wrong however. Let's have a look.

The thread follows under the heading "Population - Possible Effects"

Next it says:

The State of the World, 1999 Report from the Worldwatch Institute suggests that the global economy could be seriously affected by environmental problems, such as the lack of access to enough resources to meet growing population demands.

(emphasis mine) Please note the words "suggests" and "could be".

Next, please note that the article makes the following point.

Also, while famine is often said to result from effects that are said to be caused by over-population, it is often overlooked on how the impact of politics and economics have a far more significant impact on famines than do "over" population and that those impacted would have a distinct class distinction.

Note "far more significant" impact.

Actually, what is plainly said is that increasing-population and over consumption are the ROOT of the problems listed which is greatly worsen by the extraction and consumption by wealthier nations.

No, it does not say that at all on the contrary it is saying the opposite.

It is often claimed that population increases lead to poverty and this is why the poor suffer, but as shown throughout this site, causes of poverty are not in population increases, but due to economic and geopolitical reasons.

(emphasis mine) Please note the word "not". It could not be more clear.

I dont know where you came up with the"over population causes poverty comment. "(I didnt see that in Sez Me's comments either)

Well, let's look at that also.

Libertarian
when the sheer number of people is the cause behind problems (food, crime, environmental destruction) then we have overpopulation

SezMe
I see those problems every day in the news. If you do to, then please explain why overpopulation is a myth.

I'm not sure how else one could interpret SezMe's words except that since he sees these problems then overpopulation must not be a myth. Could you suggest a different reading?

Its the exploitation of the impoverished that exacerbates and spreads poverty.

Huh? I thought you said overpopulation was the "root" cause? This is rather out of left field. (sorry please disregard this line)

Although the ,enviormental degregation , inadequate food and acess to education caused by over population are certainly not helping making entrepreneurs.

You've lost me. I agree with tis point. That IS what I said. That overpopulation exacerbates the problem.

Could you clarify your position?

ETA: Correction (see above)

 

[AWPrime]

I have misinterpreted something you said about global population. Do you believe global over-population is a problem? Or will be a problem? If so, approximately how much population is too much?

I think that global over-population might become a problem.

Clearly, I mean moving people to areas that do not have an overpopulation problem. For example, Europe's population is shrinking.

For a good reason.

The reality is that population growth is slowing more rapidly than anyone ever expected. The doomsday scenarios of the 60s to 80s have vanished. Global population will most likely peak at under 10 billion sometimes this century. We currently have enough land, food and water to feed this many people. With technological advances, it is absurd to talk about overpopulation.

At our current population we are doing a lot of damage to the enviroment, a lot of which is threating our support systems. I would like to give soil depletion and over fishing as examples of this damage.

I would like to see humanity at a sustainable level.

I do sort of agree with your "socialist wet dream comment." Leftists have been wrongly predictly overpopulation for decades. They have been advocating intrusive solutions for a non-existant problem.

I was talking about educating every person on the planet.

 

[AWPrime]

You know I am kind of surprised that 'Natural predators' is getting so many votes.

Over here when people hear that there is a puma or a wolf in the netherlands, they freak. With me wondering why they are over reacting.

I think that it might be a natural instinct.

 

[Electron #1]

I voted for set number of children allowed.

Although the first thing that comes to mind is Mao's one

child policy and all the daughters dashed on river rocks.


...Hmm maybe a new improved IUD or contraceptive that could be implanted for say ..10 years? All nations would have them available but instead of mandatory application apon puberty perhaps tax incentives or easier immigration
procedures for those participating.

The more wealthy nations could offer better trade
or have the most needful nations have ownership and production.


Having gone through immigration with my wife I think having the wait for those extra couple more years would well be worth the discount in time and money.


I imagine quite a few religious groups would not feel the same way i do though.

Although its hard to understand how a society that wont let a 17 yr old drink , smoke , or apply for their own library card thinks its ok for them to have a baby.
(Geez how are you supposed to read your baby Goodnight Moon while your drunk and their smoking a cig?)

People should ultimately have the choice though.( should be pill for either gender...not IUD!!! AHH!)

 

[RandFan]

FWIW, I did not vote since I don't see the best solution which is a combination of political stability, democracy and free markets coupled with modest governmental regulation and education.

As Julian Simon notes, humans are The Ultimate Resource.

Of course it is expected that populations will stabilize anyway. However if we could bring all nations up to speed with modern industrial nations it would go a long way to solving many of humanities problems.

 

[Beerina]

Overpopulation can happen but hasn't happen on global scale. It has been seen on local scale. But isn't that important to this discussion.

And even calling it "overpopulation" may be incorrect, as the starvation problems are frequently more related to economic and societal issues than to outstripping the local ability to feed.

 

[Beerina]

The flaw in your theory is that some gay people want to have kids as well.

But how many do? And those that do, how many adopt an already-existing child rather than make a new one? I think it would still put a pretty big dent in the population growth.

And how many want to have 3 children, which is the minimum required to cause the population to increase? Because not everybody has kids, if the average couple only has 2 kids, the population dwindles, generation after generation.

IIRC the average is 2.1 or some, and that ain't enuf to even maintain.

 

[Beerina]

Are we sure we even want to limit it, yet?

If 50 billion people could be supported (as could given a relatively free society), can you imagine the rate of technological development.

How about 100 billion? 500 billion?

I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.


When I said that once, boy did it hack off an environmentalist.

 

[AWPrime]

If 50 billion people could be supported (as could given a relatively free society), can you imagine the rate of technological development.

Or the scale of the new wars?

I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.

from link:
Land area of 75,000,000 square miles and was entirely covered by metal with the exception of the Emperor's Palace.

What a hellhole, I like my green and my snow.

It might also be considered to be unethical. Because you would exterminate every other land species on the planet.

 

[maddog]

Re: Re: Human Population control

I voted the Planet X option because I question the validity of the opening sentence's premise.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[Rob Lister]

What a hellhole, I like my green and my snow.

It might also be considered to be unethical. Because you would exterminate every other land species on the planet.

Your 'green' and 'snow' come on demand. You just pay a small entrance fee to the Disney Nature Mall near you. You can get annual family passes or a lifetime membership. Cheap.

They have lots of land species there on display.

 

[epepke]

The best way is wealth. People in wealthy areas don't even reproduce at replacement levels. If everyone were wealthy, the environmental degradation from the extra wealth and industrialization would be completely swamped by the limits on population.

 

[AWPrime]

The best way is wealth. People in wealthy areas don't even reproduce at replacement levels. If everyone were wealthy, the environmental degradation from the extra wealth and industrialization would be completely swamped by the limits on population.

Sadly if everyone had the same amount of money, none would be rich.