Overpopulation and possible answers.

[dannieyankee]

We're overpopulated. I'm not sure whether or not that's debated, but I think it's pretty obvious.

 

So, in a world where resources and the future could be severely impacted by how many people are on the planet, why do we still reject ideas of 'population control' such as overseas adoption, abortion, and homosexuality?

 

1st: China is limiting it's number of US parents adopting by saying you have to be married, in a certain age range, and at a healthy weight. Guess what? That means fewer adoptions in the US. That also means worldwide adoptions :Alien: And that basically says 'no' to all homosexuals who want to adopt.

 

2nd: Abortion is always debated. The fact that China forces a 1-child per family quota has angered many Bible-Belt Americans who believe the world revolves around making as many babies as possible. Although I don't like the idea of enforcement here in the US, in a place like China where at least 1/5th of the world population resides, they really need it. There needs to be some serious care going on here.

 

3rd: Homosexuality is seen as something bad because it does not follow religion, and does not produce children. Well, honestly, do we *need* anymore children? No. So wouldn't accepting homosexuality more be a better step than saying it's bad?

 

The encouragement of adoption over vitro-fertilization should be something that doctors do.

 

Another loosely related topic is that of birth-control. Since an Abstinence-only education doesn't seem to work, shouldn't schools encourage a Birth-Control and Safety in Sex education better? The fact that you need to be 18 to get B.C. on your own suggests something - America doesn't want your kids to take birth control. So when kids decide to have sex (and they will) there will be births. Is it so bad for teens to have sex, especially when they're protected?

[DougF]

Hello dannieyankee,

 

You bring up some very good points on the subject of overpopulation, some of them might of been brought up before but I can't remember where I read them,

 

dannieyankee

So' date=' in a world where resources and the future could be severely impacted by how many people are on the planet, why do we still reject ideas of 'population control' such as overseas adoption, abortion, and homosexuality? [/quote']

 

If we keep up the way were are going we wont have enough land to grow food or water to drink. we all need to make some changes before it's to late. :Alien:

[dannieyankee]

Hello dannieyankee,

 

You bring up some very good points on the subject of overpopulation, some of them might of been brought up before but I can't remember where I read them,

 

 

 

If we keep up the way were are going we wont have enough land to grow food or water to drink. we all need to make some changes before it's to late. :hihi:

I'm surprised that no one has pointed to overpopulation for the enviornmental problems we are facing. Increased energy use, consumption, and CO2 expellment is often blamed on increased technology, but in reality it's probably caused by the immensely large population, all of which use energy and increase green house gas emissions.

[Boerseun]

I think in the very first instance, overpopulation and how to deal with it, will require brutal honesty from all concerned.

 

For instance, the following:

 

1) In Africa, fathers are paid "lobola" by suitors for their daughter's hand. "Lobola" could come in many forms; a herd of cattle, a fat sum of money, a fancy car, it doesn't really matter. But this ancient cultural tradition have resulted in men (and their wives) having as many kids as possible, where their daughters are viewed as salable property - seeing as they bring in a handsome income on marriage. Everybody, including the Africans themselves and the Western Liberals who so respect African tradition and culture, should accept the fact that this particular culture is broken. It has no place in the modern world where advanced medical care and attention result in very low infant mortality and very long lifespans (very long relative to life without it). This cultural trait should be relegated to anthropology museums.

 

2) The same applies to big families in the West, as a result of completely idiotic principles like the Catholic distaste for Birth Control. They are simply wrong, and not in line with reality. People will have sex, and they will have it for recreation - sex for sex's sake. Regardless of what the priest may tell them at mass. With that being the case, you might as well face reality and approve of condoms (and various other means of birth control). Start at the fountainhead - get the Pope to appear in a Durex advert. Use photoshop if you must - the political fallout afterwards will just add fuel to the Catholic's impatience with their church, as it is.

 

3) Instead of getting the West to supply aid to Africa in the form of tons and tons of food, use the money to establish free vasectomy clinics all over the continent - paired with a massive advertising campaign as to the benefits of getting the snip. Let each couple in Africa have one child - if the child were to die through any form of misfortune, the vasectomy is reversable - the couple can try again. It sounds cold and heartless, but in light of increasing demand for an ever-shrinking pile of resources, it's the way to go.

 

Matter of fact, give tax-breaks to anybody undergoing a vasectomy after his first child all over the world. Enforce a one-child family policy all over the world, until the population reaches 1 billion. Then maintain a two-child family ad infinitum.

 

But that's just me.

 

But like I said, brutal honesty should be the very first step. And to expose cultural idiocies like the African approach where daughters are seen more as tradeable assets than individuals, and the non-sensical catholic approach to birth control, and the American Bible-belter's view of children being a sign of God's blessing where the more you have, the better for God, the better we'll all be off. It should be the very first step.

 

And hysterics like bitching about a "one-child" policy impeding on your privacy should be viewed in the light of increased resource usage your "privacy" will result in.

[DougF]

Boerseun

For instance' date=' the following:

 

1) In Africa, fathers are paid "lobola" by suitors for their daughter's hand. "Lobola" could come in many forms; a herd of cattle, a fat sum of money, a fancy car, it doesn't really matter. But this ancient cultural tradition have resulted in men (and their wives) having as many kids as possible, where their daughters are viewed as salable property - seeing as they bring in a handsome income on marriage. Everybody, including the Africans themselves and the Western Liberals who so respect African tradition and culture, should accept the fact that this particular culture is broken. It has no place in the modern world where advanced medical care and attention result in very low infant mortality and very long lifespans (very long relative to life without it). This cultural trait should be relegated to anthropology museums. [/quote']

This attitude is common in many parts of the world, we call it a Dowry

A dowry (also known as trousseau or tocher) is the money' date=' goods, or estate that a woman brings to her husband in marriage.[1'] Compare bride price, which is paid to the bride's parents, and dower, which is property settled on the bride herself by the groom at the time of marriage. The same culture may simultaneously practice both dowry and bride price. The dowry is an ancient custom, and its existence may well predate records of it.

Dowry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here but is know buy many names in as many places, it was a common practice to have a lot of kids so you had more hands to work your farm or ranch, but today we either need to curb our population or start sending the surplus in to space.

I don't see this happening any time soon, even though the alternative is sure DEATH if we don't.

[Boerseun]

There's a big difference in the Western practice, and the concept of "Lobola", in that the value of the "Lobola" is determined by the father of the bride, and if a suitor doesn't cough up, to the dime, the father simply refuses the marriage.

 

Big negotiations ensue, where the wedding ends up being organized more like a business deal than anything remotely to do with love.

 

But be that as it may, it's a broken culture. It needs fixing, and, like you say, the only alternative is death through a massive die-off if we keep going at this pace.

[DougF]

It would seem to me that what we need is a change but how do we convince the world to change there beliefs there religious beliefs in order to cut the population growth,

I don't know if it can be done, you can't force them into change we'll just end up with rebellion, we would want them to "want to change". :D

[dannieyankee]

Matter of fact, give tax-breaks to anybody undergoing a vasectomy after his first child all over the world. Enforce a one-child family policy all over the world, until the population reaches 1 billion. Then maintain a two-child family ad infinitum.

 

 

I agree with most of it, though maybe not QUITE as harshly, except that last sentence. Assume the following statistics: The population is one billion. 5% of the population is homosexual. That leaves 950,000,000. Assume the population is roughly 50% male, 50% female. Also assume that 80% of the heterosexual population will have children. 50% of that will have the maximum (2) children. So 190,000,000 couples will have one child, and 190,000,000 will have two. That will equate to 570,000,000 children born, on top of 380,000,000 parents, 190,000,000 people that did not have children, and 50,000,000 homosexuals who do not have children (by the way, assume 10% of homosexuals use vitro, which adds 5,000,000 children to the world.) In total, the population will be at 1,755,000,000 the following year, assuming the death rate to be at approximately 10% a year. Now, find the percentage increase and keep multiplying it.

 

At one billion, restrictions may still be necessary. The only difference is that right now, it is IMPENDINGLY necessary.

[Miranda]

We could just make it illegal to have children if under the age of 18 or perhaps 21...after all, technically speaking, drinking ages are put in place because younger individuals are too irresponsible. So why should it be any different when having children? A 16-year-old child can have their own child but can't even buy a glass of wine? This can at least clear up some teen pregnancy stats.

Matter of fact, give tax-breaks to anybody undergoing a vasectomy after his first child all over the world. Enforce a one-child family policy all over the world, until the population reaches 1 billion. Then maintain a two-child family ad infinitum.

But that's just me.

Along with your idea of tax breaks, anyone who wants to have children should have a mandatory yearly fee imposed for each child. Or perhaps the number of children allowed per houshold should be dependent on household income. This could maybe reduce the amount of children living in poor conditions, on welfare, or even homeless...key word being maybe.

[Boerseun]

I agree with most of it, though maybe not QUITE as harshly, except that last sentence. Assume the following statistics: The population is one billion. 5% of the population is homosexual. That leaves 950,000,000. Assume the population is roughly 50% male, 50% female. Also assume that 80% of the heterosexual population will have children. 50% of that will have the maximum (2) children. So 190,000,000 couples will have one child, and 190,000,000 will have two. That will equate to 570,000,000 children born, on top of 380,000,000 parents, 190,000,000 people that did not have children, and 50,000,000 homosexuals who do not have children (by the way, assume 10% of homosexuals use vitro, which adds 5,000,000 children to the world.) In total, the population will be at 1,755,000,000 the following year, assuming the death rate to be at approximately 10% a year. Now, find the percentage increase and keep multiplying it.

 

At one billion, restrictions may still be necessary. The only difference is that right now, it is IMPENDINGLY necessary.

Dannieyankee, I think you've got the cat by the tail, so to speak.

 

Yes, a population of a billion might have, let's say, 100,000,000 couples interested in having kids (the rest of the population is too old, too young, or already up to their 1-kid limit). That'll bring the population to 1,100,000,000. But it seems as if you're calculating as if the very same people will have kids every year.

 

It's a simple exercise: A kid's got a father and a mother. There are two people involved in creating a child. Now, if those same two people were to create two children, then they would replace the mother and the father after their respective deaths, resulting in a 0% population growth. This is, of course, ignoring such things like extramarital sex, but any offspring from those kleptogamic encounters will be made impossible via enforced vasectomies. Now, it should be abundantly clear that if a 1-child policy were to be strictly enforced world-wide, the global population must come down - because the new generation is now only replacing one of the parents.

 

The biggest problem lies in convincing the global population to the benefits of such a scheme - and how to enforce it.

[SugarMoses]

There is evidence that suggests as education and standard of living increases, parents decide to have less children. It is the quality over quantity argument. This said, I think it is important to continue to improve quality of life throughout the world, especially in undeveloped/developing countries, in efforts to help with population issues. As education and standard of living increase, the lure of the dowry system is reduced, as there are other means of earning money, etc.

 

As far as tax incentives or fines... I'm currently in China and have been for over 4 months now. I've talked with many Chinese about the 1-child policy (which is limited to urban areas. If you live in a rural area and your first child is a girl then you can have another. Furthermore, it's important to remember there are still parts of rural China that are more-or-less out of Communist control and therefore still have as many children as they want/is necessary) and i feel that the general consensus here is that the fee imposed upon a family that has two children (10,000 RMB which is not a small amount of money to the monetarily conservative Chinese people) is a good deterrent from having more than one child. Thus, I think that this method of population control could realistically be pursued by many countries in the not-too-distant future.

[dannieyankee]

Dannieyankee, I think you've got the cat by the tail, so to speak.

 

Yes, a population of a billion might have, let's say, 100,000,000 couples interested in having kids (the rest of the population is too old, too young, or already up to their 1-kid limit). That'll bring the population to 1,100,000,000. But it seems as if you're calculating as if the very same people will have kids every year.

 

It's a simple exercise: A kid's got a father and a mother. There are two people involved in creating a child. Now, if those same two people were to create two children, then they would replace the mother and the father after their respective deaths, resulting in a 0% population growth. This is, of course, ignoring such things like extramarital sex, but any offspring from those kleptogamic encounters will be made impossible via enforced vasectomies. Now, it should be abundantly clear that if a 1-child policy were to be strictly enforced world-wide, the global population must come down - because the new generation is now only replacing one of the parents.

 

The biggest problem lies in convincing the global population to the benefits of such a scheme - and how to enforce it.

 

You're right, I suppose I was pulling new adults out of nowhere. Thus, this is why I should never be a mathmatician ;D

 

While it is true that things such as extramarital affairs seem uncommon NOW, you forget to calculate how humans react to strict mandates. That number of children might possibly increase. I assume you understand that a global mandate would increase the number of world-wide kids in the adoption programme, correct? Which brings me to another correlated concept from the first post - adoption versus in-vitro fertilisation. Clearly, with the number of children needing to be adopted increasing and the mandate decreasing, you will see an increased number of adoption.

 

I have just discovered two flaws in my logic; one about the acceptance of homosexuality, the other about production and industrialised nations.

 

1) While attempting to bring the population down, there is no doubt that homosexuality will probably be very well supported - after all, they love and STILL don't make babies. In this modern world where nationalism is not a big idea, love is still something they could consider well to benefit the population. However, at a population of one billion, who says it will still be popular? Overtly religion people will already be in a flux, because babies aren't being made OH GOD WHAT NOW!?. The idea of also accepting homosexuality as a natural prevention of birth would be horrid to them and their blissful ignorance.

 

2) Many industrialised nations were built on hard labour. Making countries such as Africa and rural parts of India more industrialised will have to use that same method, unless another method is suggested. That would sorely hurt the population.

 

I agree about the idea of limiting the number of children instead by income level. I also suggest a screening of the parents - this is an opportunity to not only decrease the population, but to also severly shrink the population of children being abused in their households. This is a chance to increase the quality of living not only for the adults giving birth to the children, but of the vulnerable, the ones who cannot protect themselves. While I agree that the world should not be held back by its' weakest, children are our future. It is common that abused children could turn into abusing adults, whether or not they realise it. I know emotionally abused children turn into insecure, fearing children who shy away from their parents and quiet, bullied adults not able to take care of their own children, either from being emotionally abusive to them, or too lax for fear of being that same parent. Overpopulation is caused by both low education and stupidity - both increasing the chance of a weaker, more depressed population.

 

:hyper:

[Theory5]

Population control? There are quite a few reasons why it is wrong. Take China for example, over 1 billion people right? They strictly enforce a policy where a family can only have one child. if they have another one that one has to die or be adopted or something that takes it out of the country.

 

Why dont we just eat our children if we are worried about population growth? :-P

 

Most of the things you guys are suggesting would be too controlling, and would impose on our freedom. Its logical, sure, but you need to look at the moral implications as well. I say we look at places that are considered uninhabitable. Alaska, the ocean, space, under the ocean, stuff like that. This is pure speculation but we could have cities underwater or on a giant barge :-) or we can do what they used to build up boston and other cities: expand the land further into the bay. It would cost a lot but it would allow population centers to expand, giving more housing oppertunites to everyone. But to do this we would need to take better care of other resources, such as the ocean. Think about it; expanding into the water will cause debris to be lost in the water, more oil would be polluting the water, etc. Have you ever been to Boston? Would you swim in the bay they currently have? Of course not, its disgusting. I suggest that we build more permanent versions of those orange things workers use when working on a building where there is a chance stuff will fall into the water.

[SugarMoses]

Population control? There are quite a few reasons why it is wrong. Take China for example, over 1 billion people right? They strictly enforce a policy where a family can only have one child. if they have another one that one has to die or be adopted or something that takes it out of the country.

 

In an effort to avoid offending our fellow forum mates, I urge you to read the post two posts above yours (mine). I would like to clarify that the Chinese to not kill babies nor do they deport them. They impose fines. I find your statement to be inflamatory and ill-supported.

[Miranda]

Its logical, sure, but you need to look at the moral implications as well. I say we look at places that are considered uninhabitable.

It is not just a problem of where to put everyone... it is a problem of how to feed everyone, right?

[Doctordick]

There is evidence that suggests as education and standard of living increases, parents decide to have less children.

You have hit the nail on the head. If you check historical records you will discover that, when education and standard of living gets high, all societies have exactly the opposite problem, population decline. Even ancient Rome had serious problems with their educated and well off people not reproducing. They actually passed laws requiring marriage.

 

The solution to over population is advanced education for everyone. But it won't happen; my prediction is that the solution will be left to nature and nature's solutions are usually quite painful.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

PS A billion is way over the correct answer. With modern technology I think the human race would do fine with a population around a hundred million and the optimum population could be as low as twenty million. That would be enough to provide a sufficient number of people to carry on every activity we currently enjoy plus enough people to support those efforts and, if the population were that low we wouldn't have to worry about much.

[dannieyankee]

Unfortunately, until we are able to actually do something about it aside from few 'charities' that work very little and only help a very small portion of countries for a very short time, we are screwed.

 

You know, I think the main problem with all of the world is that the UN has no power. It can't do anything. It can't overtake a government that is corrupt or starving and torturing its people. Think Cuba. What is it doing there? Nothing. Why? Because it can't do anything.

 

As soon as the UN has power, things like education can be enhanced, especially in third world countries.