Human Population control

[Rob Lister]

I always wonder...what exactly is wrong with controlling population while there are still some pristine areas left? Would that really be so bad?

If you feel there is nothing wrong with it, then you are free to do it. There's nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, in your case, I encourage it.

 

[Mark]

If you feel there is nothing wrong with it, then you are free to do it. There's nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, in your case, I encourage it.

What a very intelligent response; you must be a conservative.

And for your information, I did. My late wife and I made the decision to limit ourselves to 2 children, and that's what we did. And on their worst day, both my kids are smarter than you on your best.

 

[Rob Lister]

What a very intelligent response; you must be a conservative.

And for your information, I did. My late wife and I made the decision to limit ourselves to 2 children, and that's what we did. And on their worst day, both my kids are smarter than you on your best.

I'm sure they are. But as to your other point, why did you "limit" yourselves to 2 children? Why not zero? You should have set the example.

 

[Mark]

I'm sure they are. But as to your other point, why did you "limit" yourselves to 2 children? Why not zero? You should have set the example.

Because controlling population growth, is not population reduction. Duh. If you would like to discuss my question intelligently, that would be great. If you want to keep being a childish cretin, then go right ahead.

 

[Rob Lister]

Because controlling population growth, is not population reduction. Duh. If you would like to discuss my question intelligently, that would be great. If you want to keep being a childish cretin, then go right ahead.

Ah. I see. So certain growth is okay. You and your wife decided that for yourselves. And you resent me even hinting that that you decided wrongly. Wow. What if, instead of just hinting at it, I mandated it through force of law? Surely then I'd be much worse than a childish cretin.

 

[toddjh]

The difference in reproductive rate is not relevant if all people would be able to freely move from boat to boat (country to country). The reproductive rate would then average out over the total carrying capacity of all lifeboats. The article assumes however that all people are fixed to their place of birth: if one country's population grows it will eventually reach its carrying capacity without being able to move its "surplus of people" to a country that has not reached its carrying capacity or has a shrinking population. If we assume a free movement of people the problem of countries reaching their carrying capacity disappears and only thing that is relevant is the total carrying capacity of the entire Earth. Something that is not likely to be reached.

This assumes that simply removing the excess population from one country to another will solve the problem. That's just a band-aid. You need to look at why these areas experience local overpopulation. They reproduced beyond their carrying capacity once; who's to say they won't just do it again? Your suggestion brings up the possibility of large-scale "baby factories;" countries that export population in the long term. Eventually, this kind of thing will tax the carrying capacity of charitable nations that agree to take in the excess population, and the standard of living there will begin to drop. Other countries will see what happens when you allow unrestricted immigration and not allow it (assuming any would to begin with).

Also, it's impractical to expect total freedom of movement, especially since local overpopulation correlates with poverty. How is a starving nomadic herder in Niger supposed to pick up and move to Canada? He has no means to pay for the travel and, frankly, little to offer modern Canadian society.

ETA: In other words, eventually countries with excessive reproductive rates will have to reach an equilibrium, one way or another. Isn't it better that they're encouraged to do it sooner rather than later, before they adversely affect quality of life in regions whose population size is under control?

Jeremy

 

[Mark]

Ah. I see. So certain growth is okay. You and your wife decided that for yourselves. And you resent me even hinting that that you decided wrongly. Wow. What if, instead of just hinting at it, I mandated it through force of law? Surely then I'd be much worse than a childish cretin.

Are you this much of an imbecile? When 2 people have 2 children, that is zero growth (excluding for the moment death rates).

Where did I suggest mandating it as law? (Which will happen eventually, as it currently is in China.) I don't want to see that happen here, and I did not suggest it.

All I asked was, what is wrong with controlling growth while there are still some pristine areas left? You never even adressed the question, just went on your little insult orgy.

 

[toddjh]

Are you this much of an imbecile? When 2 people have 2 children, that is zero growth (excluding for the moment death rates).

Where did I suggest mandating it as law? (Which will happen eventually, as it currently is in China.) I don't want to see that happen here, and I did not suggest it.

All I asked was, what is wrong with controlling growth while there are still some pristine areas left? You never even adressed the question, just went on your little insult orgy.

Well, no insult orgy here, but I'm curious how you recommend controlling growth without government intervention? It doesn't seem to be happening very well on its own, at least in areas without a developed economy.

Jeremy

 

[Mark]

Well, no insult orgy here, but I'm curious how you recommend controlling growth without government intervention? It doesn't seem to be happening very well on its own, at least in areas without a developed economy.

Jeremy

As you point out, it is already starting. Education...the more educated a population is, the lower their birth rate tends to be. More or less. The world wide birth rate (or the increase in the birth rate at least) is slowing.

And by education, I do NOT mean indoctrination. Simple education---the 3 Rs---lowers the birth rate.

So I ask again...what would be wrong with limiting our birth rate while we still have some pristine areas left? If you like, we can ammend that to "voluntarily lowering our birth rate." It's a philosophical question, NOT a proposal for legislation.

 

[Rob Lister]

Are you this much of an imbecile?

When 2 people have 2 children, that is zero growth (excluding for the moment death rates).

Where did I suggest mandating it as law? (Which will happen eventually, as it currently is in China.) I don't want to see that happen here, and I did not suggest it.

All I asked was, what is wrong with controlling growth while there are still some pristine areas left? You never even adressed the question, just went on your little insult orgy.

para1: Possibly. I'll leave it to others to decide.

para2: Why would you exclude death rates? Besides, And since we're talking about personal choice, and since others will not make that choice, should you take up their slack and have zero kids?

Para3: There are only two possibilities: 1) force of law or 2) personal choice. If you were arguing in favor of personal choice, then I can't see why you are arguing with me. I specifically said "there is nothing wrong with that". I even encouraged [you] to make that personal choice.

para4: I did address it, specifically in fact. I encouraged you to do as much as you possibly and personally could to effect a successful realization of that goal, if you think that goal is worth.

 

[toddjh]

As you point out, it is already starting. Education...the more educated a population is, the lower their birth rate tends to be. More or less. The world wide birth rate (or the increase in the birth rate at least) is slowing.

Sounds good to me. How do you propose improving education and the economy in areas where it could use improvement? I'm sure people the world over would love a practical answer to that.

So I ask again...what would be wrong with limiting our birth rate while we still have some pristine areas left? If you like, we can ammend that to "voluntarily lowering our birth rate." It's a philosophical question, NOT a proposal for legislation.

I don't think anybody objects on philosophical grounds. And you're talking to somebody who did make a choice not to have any kids, so I hope you don't think I'm arguing with your basic point. It's just the notion of "making it happen" that I think needs to have some practical problems addressed.

Jeremy

 

[Mark]

para1: Possibly. I'll leave it to others to decide.

para2: Why would you exclude death rates? Besides, And since we're talking about personal choice, and since others will not make that choice, should you take up their slack and have zero kids?

Para3: There are only two possibilities: 1) force of law or 2) personal choice. If you were arguing in favor of personal choice, then I can't see why you are arguing with me. I specifically said "there is nothing wrong with that". I even encouraged [you] to make that personal choice.

para4: I did address it, specifically in fact. I encouraged you to do as much as you possibly and personally could to effect a successful realization of that goal, if you think that goal is worth.

I am glad we are leaving the insults behind (for now!). I do have to run out the door, but real quick, your points:

para2: Because it was tangential to this topic, and far to complicated to throw it in here.

para3: Your comment about personal choice was phrased as an insult. Did I take it wrong? It was phrased that way, but maybe it's not the way you meant it. That would be cool.

para4: I do think it is worth it and I am. As far as I can tell, you didn't share how you feel about the idea. I already know my own views.

Cheers.

 

[Mark]

Sounds good to me. How do you propose improving education and the economy in areas where it could use improvement? I'm sure people the world over would love a practical answer to that.



I don't think anybody objects on philosophical grounds. And you're talking to somebody who did make a choice not to have any kids, so I hope you don't think I'm arguing with your basic point. It's just the notion of "making it happen" that I think needs to have some practical problems addressed.

Jeremy

If I had the answer to your first question, I would woin the Nobel Prize! One short term solution would be to stop letting religious leaders set our policies with the W.H.O.

But I'll work on it!

 

[Rob Lister]

I am glad we are leaving the insults behind (for now!). I do have to run out the door, but real quick, your points:

para2: Because it was tangential to this topic, and far to complicated to throw it in here.

para3: Your comment about personal choice was phrased as an insult. Did I take it wrong? It was phrased that way, but maybe it's not the way you meant it. That would be cool.

para4: I do think it is worth it and I am. As far as I can tell, you didn't share how you feel about the idea. I already know my own views.

Cheers.

para1: we? I haven't insulted you. You, on the other hand, have used insulting terms such as "imbecile" and "childish cretin". But don't worry. I didn't really mind.

para2: the first sentence (question) may or may not be tangential, but the second certainly was not. It demonstrated a fundamental flaw in your logic. i.e., If those that wish to maintain/reduce population want to effect their goal in the absense of force of law then having two kids will not be as effective as having zero because someone has to take up the slack for those that could personally choose to have 2, but instead have four (6/8/10/12). Without such sacrifices you cannot achieve your goal.

para3: Why would you think that? I simply recommended a course of action that would effect your stated (implied) goal.

para4: I did share how I felt about it. Reread the thread.