LokiTheDog wrote:
The impoverished folks might not be willing to take your meaningful help.
The only way they’re going to allow contraception in a predominantly Catholic country is for said country to break off from the Roman Catholic Church. It ain’t exactly an easy task to convince a whole nation full of people to give up the core religious beliefs that have held them together for centuries.
Are there any other kind? 
OK. Let’s look at the reality in India: where the standard of living has improved, the birth rate (and, therefore, the growth rate) has dropped–in some places to rates nearing Europe’s non-replacement level–and where the standard of living has failed to improve, the birth rate has failed to drop irrespective of government efforts either in education or mandatory sterilization.
It has already been pretty well established (as in an Indian (Amartya K. Sen) received the Nobel in Economics for demonstrating the point) that famines are a result of controlled economies or government interference with distribution. (This applies to LokiTheDog’s photos of children too weak to lift their heads, as well. Those children were not starving because their parents didn’t know about birth control, they were starving because some government decided to control food distribution or because some government or anti-government rebel movement chose to grab and hoard the food for themselves. Famines come and go. If a couple produces a child in a time without famine and a later famine takes the child, that couple is more likely to try to produce another child and hope that it escapes the next famine so that they will have a later generation to care for them in their old age.)
It is counterintuitive to people who have no experience of famine (or childhood disease) because we can see a different possibility. Our grandparents raised large families because they expected a certain number of their children to die of pertussis, tuberculosis, influenza, etc. When those diseases were conquered, the birth rate fell. If your entire experience says that children dying is simply part of life, then some outsider who tells you to reduce the number of children will be ignored because they are ordering you to abandon hope for grandchildren.
Moving from India to China, several researchers have noted that the birth rates were already in sharp decline before the “one child” law was enacted, because China had already begun to experience an improvement in the overall standard of living. From Peter Zhang in The New Australian:
I’m not sure who specifically LokitheDog is mad at, since I know of no country dominated by Christians that is suffering repeated famines.
Tom, a clarification. The Chinese birthrate started to drop after 1970 because governmental pressure to have large families started to abate. Mao was a great believer in giant patriotic families so there would be enough Chinese left over after either the USSR or the US attacked China. Mao is castigated by patriotic elderly Chinese today for this policy, of all the communist Chinese policies enacted, the most lasting and damaging legacy. Mao’s famous quote was “every mouth is born with two hands”, eg, one hand produces enough to support that mouth, and the other hand supports society. By the early 1970’s this policy of Mao’s was relaxed.
Thus, I don’t think it is fair to say that China’s birthrate was naturally falling off ahead of the introduction of the one child policy. Rather, China’s birthrate was reaching a more normal level following the artificially high level of the 1950-1970 era.
However, if Peter Zhang is correct, the birth rate levels fell below replacement rate prior to 1979 and have fallen no further. I’m fairly sure that China’s birthrate was higher than replacement level at some time in the past 2,500 years.
Mao may have artificially inflated the rate for some period, but it had to have been fairly high to begin with.
If people in the relatively recent past had large numbers of children because they expected that some would die of diseases, why then were we experiencing population growth?
If people, on average, produced only enough ‘extra’ children to compensate for attrition due to illness, then population should have remained stable.
I doubt that the partial elimination of disease was the underlying cause of the reduction in birth rates experienced in more advanced countries.
The following stats are quoted from my huge compendium at home called “Highlights of the 20th Century” - a tome compiled and written by hundreds of notable academics which includs their insights and observations etc on every major aspect of importance in the last 100 years. I am quoting these stats because they seem quite reasonable and eminently realistic.
(1) In 1300, the dawning of The Dark Ages, the world’s entire population was caluclated to be approximately 320 million people.
(2) In 1940, the world’s population was calulated to be 2.9 Billion people.
(3) In 2000, the world’s population was calculated to be 6.1 Billion people.
(4) For every extra Billion people the world supports, it is estimated that 10,000 species of flora and fauna become extinct.
My observations? Extrapolation would suggest a doubling of the world’s population in just 60 years. This probably won’t happen though to due to food production caps we’ll put into place.
Next, yes, it’s possible to fit the world’s population into a land area just 2/3rds the size of Texas - but here’s the rub - each person would only have an area of just 60 square feet - an area equivalent to the size of a very small jail cell - in a jail the size Texas! I for one find that fact a total rubbish fact because it is so ludicrous in it’s twisting of reality.
In short, my personal sadness is seemingly endless list of species which have become extinct due to our population explosion. It’s a source of much regret to have reached a point in my life where sometimes I’m no longer proud to be a human being - our self absorbed assertion that any, indeed every, human life is more important than the rest of the entire animal and plant world is just so incredibly arrogant for mine.
Regardless of WHATEVER method we use to decrease population growth rates, my opinion is that we simply should be ashamed of ourselves collectively as a species for all the harm we’ve caused this lovely planet thus far - in just less than 700 years - a mere fraction of time in comparison the length of Earth itself has existed. We humans can do lovely things - but we do not deserve to kill everything else just to support ourselves.
They did not only produce enough to compensate for attrition. They produced more than enough to ensure that some heirs would survive any unexpected catastrophes. In this way, the world population did grow. People living in subsistence situations continue to do the same thing. They produce large families in the hopes that if plague or famine wipes out most of the children, some will survive. If no plague or famine destroys the family, so much the better. I have seen no one claim that the world population has generally not been growing. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, however, the population was still small enough that growth was desirable. It was only when the growth rate jumped, simultaneous with the recognition that pollution was, itself, a danger that the notion arose that we would breed ourselves off the planet. (The notion first popularized by Malthus.) Most of the predictions that we will overflow the habitable world have been based on general extrapolation of births based on (recent) historical records. Boo Boo Foo alludes to those types of extrapolations.
However, if you go back to the previously mentioned thread on 6 billion? people, beginning most of the way down page 2, you will find repeated references to various extrapolations of the world population. If you look them over, you will note that they all predict a levelling off, followed by a drop in world population. If you very closely, you will note that the estimates have had to be revised downwards on multiple occasions. In other words, as the world has increased its overall standard of living, the people of the world have already begun reducing the number of children they produce. And the reduction has already beun to overwhelm the projected growth.
This is not to say that no one suffers–obviously millions do. This is not to say that we have no need to do anything–we should certainly do everything in our power to alleviate suffering.
It is to say that draconian measures that interfere with people’s lives are generally ineffective at achieving the goal and that providing the mechanism for people to improve their own lot will cause the population to recede without further action.
Statements suggesting that the ZPG folks are unrealistic alarmists are also not the same as saying that we have no obligation regarding stewardship. We are a race of polluters and we do need to address the issues of pollution, species elimination, destruction of habitat, etc. However, we should base our decisions on facts, not hyperbole or unconsidered extrapolations.
Although I agree with much of the information and ideas posted in response to my thread, the one posted by Boo Boo Foo is the one that has had the greatest effect on me.
The mere idea that as humans we can totally obliterate species that have taken millions of yrs to form is heartbreaking to say the least.
As 17 yr old, I have had these very same thoughts. Realizing that I can’t wave my hand and fix the world, I often wish I could just stop caring, get a high paying job, luxury car and pretend the rest of the world is perfect. Unfortunately I am reminded everyday that it is not and it is imperative that we as humans become more responsible to the world in which we live, not only for the sake of compassion of other species, but for the survival of our own.
The idea that we are damaging the overall environment with our existance, as far as I know is pretty new to us. I don’t think we realized exactly how bad it was until recently. Hell only in the last two hundred years have we realized bathing prevents disease (that reminds me I need a shower) I think we are doing a damn fine job of putting things into place that will make the environment safer. Population growth rates are in general decreasing and will continue to do so in my estimation, especially when we find that we can have machines do so much for us. I find that doomsday prophecies are generally as far off as the opposing utopian ones. We generally find ourselves in the middle. Life will never be perfect, that’s just a fact, but we do what we can with what we have. Maybe one day we’ll stop extincting flora and fauna, hell we’ll have the ability to repopulate extinct populations not too far in the future. As far as a species goes, I think we are one of the only species that actually CARES what happens to other members of it’s own species, let alone cares about OTHER species. You think a shark cares that that tasty school of fish is the last of it’s kind on earth?
As for overpopulation and poverty. Well, first the US is not overpopulated. So I have to agree with everyone else Bandanaman is a moron. Second welfare does not provide enough per child to make having a child a winning proposition. This whole myth of people having more money to get more welfare is ludicrous. 450 a month per child (That’s what it was when I was younger dunno what it is now.) is nothing compared to the cost of raising a child. Besides, why is it such a horrible thought that children are being fed with taxes that you provide?
As it relates to other countries, I am kind of on the fence with the issue of aid, part of me wants to only offer aid to countries that are pulling themselves up. Perhaps cutting off aid to a country that is undergoing any kind of war at all might be a good way to figure it. For instance I’d like to see Mexico become more viable, rather than giving aid to Somalia, sure people in Somalia will die, and that’s unfortunate but much of the time we’re just supplying the warlords with food, and they don’t have to actually support supply lines or infrastructure. Who does that do any good for?
I think overconsumption is a far greater problem than overpopulation. The US pays farmers NOT to grow crops to keep market prices up. So you can’t tell me that we are running out of food production. If there were some way to transport that food to be sold in far away lands that were more feasible, then it might be a good idea. Perhaps the government could start programs where instead of paying farmers NOT to work the government pays them the difference. Who knows what the options are. I think forced programs don’t work. Like I said go to the stable countries in a region and help them get stabilized and perhaps that will be a stabilizing force for the entire region.
Erek
mswas
I’m going to begin by apologizing cause I didn’t read your whole response (its 11:37 in Minnesota right now) but since I’m going to respond to the first part, I think I’m ok.
although you theory about the population leveling off is possible, i just dont thinks that’s the way it gonna happen
I don’t think currently it has a reason to level off, so why should it? For example, in India much of the poor population actually have deformed kids purposefully because they make for better beggars. In many countries the world over (not all) they make excellent farm hands, in still others you can have a kid and sell it (to sell your own child you have to convinve your self that it must not be human or have a soul) to a local sweatshop and get a little money to feed the rest of your family.
Obviously I should hope that I am wrong and you are right about the population leveling off. 
In response to the many comments about "over population in the US"
as far as i can tell, it is true, Currently there is no real threat of overpopulation in the United States. As a wanna-be member of the green party, I have noticed that the bigger problem is our response to over population in other nations.
According to the same issue of Popular science that I sited in the beginning my the thread initially Americas consume something like 30% of the world resources (this is Notexact). So although Americans wont directly be affected, they are essentially screwing the world over by having less than 10% of the population but using just under 1/3 of the resources.
These calculations where you fit the whole population of the world into Texas or wherever (exact place varies according to how many sq. feet each person is allotted) are idiotic.
Each person, in addition to a few sq. feet of living space, also needs FOOD. In the absence of Star Trek style replicators, it is not possible for the population of the world to live AND feed itself within the confines of the state of Texas.
Years ago (the '70s?) I remember reading that someone had calculated that if the whole planet were populated to the then-current population density of Holland, the earth could support some improbably gigantic number of people; and an even more gigantic number, if the earth were populated to the then-current density level of Japan. There was no famine in either country, it was pointed out.
What this overlooked or ignored was the fact that if either nation had to try to survive without food imports, they’d be in big trouble.
I think it’s a mistake to focus on how many people the earth can support. No doubt the earth COULD support far more then six billion. The question is, do we WANT the sort of world we seem to be headed for? Other species crowded off the planet, fragile ecosystems destroyed, loss of wilderness areas and open space, pollution, global warming, etc.
Well stated, and hopefully it will be well-received by those who need to hear it.
Best,
TGD
Yeah, the US has roughly 5% of the world’s population but we consume 30% of the resources that are consumed (this is not equal to 30% of the world’s overall resources) I agree however that, that is a bit excessive.
Erek
Then this should have been over in IMHO, should it not?
It has several reasons for levelling off that have been presented in this thread. In the spirit of fighting ignorance, please take the time to read the 6 billion? thread that has already been cited twice. If you find six pages of posts daunting, then begin on page 2 and limit yourself to posts by Akatsukami, divemaster, and dhanson. They have laid out (with citations) the arguments for the levelling off of the growth of population and the information indicating that is has already begun.
Regarding
Please note Akatsukami’s rejoinder to this bit of plausible-sounding-but-not-quite-logical assertion found near the top of page 3.
Arjun: It’s not just his opinion that the world population is leveling off - it’s the opinion of the U.N. Population Council, probably the best population forecasters we have.
I’ll stack them up against your gut feelings.
[aside]
You know, I’d just like to say that the best, most efficient thing an induvidual can do, to both make a difference and voice their dissatisfaction with the wayt the world is currently working, is to stop eating meat.
-TGD
[/aside]
…or stop eating.
When I was talking about the population leveling of, Sam Stone, I was posing as much of a question as a statement. I should have been clearer. Nevertheless thank you for the site; it makes thing a little clearer.
tomndebb: the people u suggested I read, I read some. dhanson talked about how the UN’s most probable model shows that the pop. Will reach 7.7 billion and then fall drastically to 3.6 billion.
Eventually the world population will have to fall. I didn’t mean that the pop. Would increase to 20 billion or something, rather that it will increase to such a level that the effects to the environment will be irreparable. For example the rate at which the rainforests are being cut down, or the constant conflict in India between man and beast (in which man always wins). Once angain thanks for the suggestions on who’s posts to read, it does make me feel better to realize that the situation in not quite as bleak some of the other sources that I read from.
The problem isn’t necessarily overpopulation, it’s that old people live much too long these days - living in rent controlled houses and driving around in huge cars, causing space problems for everyone else. If they could be isolated, this really wouldn’t be an issue.
So what do you suggest we do with our elderly? Besides grossly stereotyping them, you seem to think we should segregate ourselves from them in some form. Far as I know, most of the huge cars are driven by the younger set of people, as are the biggest houses.
Why is an increased lifespan a problem? There are so many issues about overpopulation that are more important to quality of life than simply “it’s getting worse because people are living longer.”
PS: I read through that 6 billion thread, and after making my way through that monster, I’m very glad that John John was before my time.