In some countries population growth is down. Worldwide, though, it is not. Discussing it doesn't seem to have slowed population growth. Further discussion will not affect it, either. Mammals reproduce, and will continue to do so.

I'm afraid that battle is lost. That said, I chose not to reproduce in 1965, and have succeeded.

I have been perfectly satisfied with my decision. And I have no regrets for this decision. I only speak for myself.

at zpg. Even Saudi Arabia.

http://www.geoba.se/population.php?pc=world&type=010&year=2015&st=rank&asde=&page=2

The Americas (North, South & Central) should be fine. I see problems in Africa, parts of Asia and perhaps Russia and either war and/or mass starvation and probably some cannibalism before things level out.

What we really need are efficient grow towers / bunkers. It can be done, and would supply food for everyone. We also need a way to synthesize meat on the fly / quickly (lab steaks). Otherwise, the Malthusian catastrophe you're describing becomes a reality.

What we need for this is:

- The technology, of course, which is mostly there. We need to get towers / underground bunkers with UV lamps / climate control sorted out.
- Dirt-cheap electricity for all those grow stations: Humans would rather go extinct than spend a lot of money to save ourselves.
- The ability to create grow stations
- The political will to do so, which at the moment, is bordering on impossible

Basically, we can either succeed and be able to sustain ourselves, or a mass die off occurs and we return to earth-dwelling animals ready to try civilization again in another one hundred thousands years or so.

It's going to depend if the countries involved are ones we have treaties with or if there some significant reason that getting involved is in our best interests.

As for the rest, the countries that currently have the technology aren't really the ones that are going to need it. The U.S. produces more then enough food to feed the country, as does Canada. I really don't see mass starvation being a concern for the U.S. anytime soon

would turn away from resources that could be taken?

until forced to stop. Which will be fight tooth and nail.

Long term there are only three real classes of solution:

1) genocide on a scale of billions
2) a global tyranny that gets to decide who can reproduce - and who can't
3) getting the fuck off this planet and colonizing other bodies in the solar system (and eventually beyond)

20 years ago I'd have told you I'd expect #3 to be well under way by now, but it stalled out almost completely in that time.

#1 and #2 are of course completely unacceptable to any decent human being.

That's the Solution #2 I detailed. There's not going to be any peaceful way to limit the reproduction of people who want to have multiple children - especially in the context of the elites exempting themselves, which they are 100% guaranteed to do. On a global scale such a policy can only be effective if backed by widespread violence.

First the government will ask, then they will "encourage", then they will not be asking anymore. They will be telling.

ISIS, Boko Harum and other such persuasions demand women produce cannon fodder to expand territory.

Women will have no rights to their bodies, no matter their status in the system is. Those of higher status will support their men raping and having concubines for whatever they can get out of their place.

They are just a version of the Cows of Bashan who lived off their husbands ill-gotten gains with no care for those they killed and oppressed. This is a method that the GOP woman voter also supports for her own survival.

In most of the countries in the map on the thread, women will inevitably be subject to high rates of child mortality before their children come to an age to be slaughtered to further the cause of the warlords.

This has been done throughout history and is romanticized in a lot of fiction to acclimate people to this particularly brutal form of feudalism that does not acknowledge any rights for individual, and falls on both sexes but mainly on women used as the producer of a commodity.

As far as #3 goes, it would only make a bigger mess.

Pardon me if that is not well-thought out but it is my first post of the day, hastily cudgeled together and I have to go take care of business today.

Womens rights, civil rights, minority rights, and a whole slew of other things will fall by the wayside in anarchy.
-Airplane

It becomes a question of choice. Who can reproduce, how many children they can have....

Too difficult, too costly.

Lifting a very, very few humans off the earth and starting the whole thing on another planet might be possible, but moving billions in order to alleviate overcrowding will never, ever happen.

That, plus freedom of choice, sort of makes it that nobody will discuss it.

You can educate and empower women, but that won't decrease our consumption. Not in the short term anyway, which is of course when we would need to start consuming less.

We have 4 options:
1) More people doing more - That's what we're doing, and have been doing. That's how civilization came to be.

2) More people doing less - Not really an option, as more people will need more.

3) Fewer people doing more - That's sort of the developed world today, with non-immigrant populations falling. But we do keep adding through immigration, so we don't do fewer people well, since all that we've built was done with more people in mind.

4) Fewer people doing less - Society as we know it would basically have no reason to exist.

and that comes from educating women and supporting the businesses they start and join, raising their horizon beyond that of baby incubator charged with producing as many male offspring as possible.

If you want to drop fertility rates in the developing world where they are highest, join outfits like Kiva and guarantee loans to poor women in those areas. That their fertility rate drops like a rock once they have a small business to run is guaranteed.

Otherwise, a woman whose status depends only upon the number of children she has will continue to go through childbirth year after year until she is worn out and dies.

ETA: A large success story is Brazil. First, they supplied power to the slums. With that power came soap operas featuring strong, successful women with only one or two children, never any more, with the less successful women with larger families. Slum women got the point and the birth rate plummeted. Propaganda can help. Encumbered by fewer children, such women are now developing cottage industries and food stalls that will eventually become stores.

...a half hour visit to a urologist with a pair of fine scissors and a bit of lidocaine is another fine solution that's worked well for me since 1980.

No more bc pills for me.

Besides, without a rise in the status of women, that would only lead to more polygamy with the unsnipped men.

There's also the religious aspect of procreation.

but I won't say anything.

we wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

I once asked if I should put a bumper sticker on my car that says 'Two is Enough' and people lost their shit.

Many, even here on DU, don't like to be told how many kids they can have.

childfree and lovin' it bumper sticker.

They have their defenders, but just think if every couple chose to have 20 kids!

I'm a child of the sixties, myself, and this subject was actually addressed in my public school education. Somewhere along the way, that stopped being the case. The subject needs to be reintroduced into mainstream education and discussion. Thanks for bringing it up!

The individual family's right to grow as much as they want or the greater society's right to have a population of a proper carrying capacity.

As an atheist, I of course eat babies.

but, limiting women to one child ended up having some problems.

As has already been said, there are huge cultural problems to deal with. Even here, we can't properly educate kids about birth control because the asshole wing of the nation insists we hide sex from kids.

I say we build space arks and send our overflowing seed to the stars.

I bet people would line up for that.

Africa is where most of the outrageously high birthrates are... and parts of Asia. Western countries are pretty much at zero population growth with parts of Europe actually in decline.

so, i guess you need to go tell all those people where population growth is out of control to keep it in their pants? or perhaps you're willing to 'fix' people... forcibly? oh, and I hope you know where to start that process.

just playing devil's advocate... the only thing that slows population growth is education.

sP

It's much easier to talk about being child-free than it is to talk about how Africa is where the population growth is coming from.

Reducing the rate of population growth in Africa involves changing the culture through education. But if you promote that, you are a western imperialist / racist who is supporting eugenics.

but a relatively minor one compared to the global scale.

For instance, in the UK a lot of the hoopla in the upcoming general election focuses on perceived overpopulation in the South East of England and overcrowding in some cities (which parties like UKIP have dragged Labour and the Tories to identify immigration as a pressing issue), whereas Scotland, for instance, is desperate for more people to move and settle there, so that society can continue to function as the population ages, to compensate for outmigration etc. In these cases, the problems aren't so much overpopulation in itself, but the uneven distribution of population.

In the other regions you mention, poverty is an important factor, combined with poor survival rates, and cultural aspects.

Education is indeed a powerful remedy, but it needs to be coupled with fairer distribution of resources. You'd hope the latter would result from the former, but if it's happening, it's a painfully slow process.

The problem will self-correct. Of course we probably won't like the Horsemen much, once they get up real close.

OK so they act a bit arrogant. But it's show biz!

...giving half of the population the means to fill a role in society other than "mother" if they so chose. In nations with good education standards, the birthrates have dropped to sustainable levels. Most of the world's population increase has actually levelled off, much faster than projected by models from past decades.

There's been no shortage of study, initiatives and efforts over the last 100 years (recommend Connelly's "Fatal Misconception" as an excellent overview, and a very good read), but supporting education for women is the one solution, inasmuch as there is a possible solution.

Just take a look at the Former Soviet Union - Ukraine for example: 15 years to cut birth rates in half...

No one will touch it. Even if it means we all die.

Amazing how women too, will defend their "right" to be naught but incubators for keeping the "movement" well-stocked with obedient little adherents ie: "The Army".



We have Freedom OF Religion here (well....SORT of, kinda, halfassedly - and taking a look at the recent situation at Duke not really)

We do NOT have

Freedom FROM Religion (AT. ALL.)

And this is one issue where that is sorely apparent.

The human parasite is not so intelligent. Sad but true.

And everyone is sounding the alarms about how it's going to ruin the world economy and that it's going to be the death of their country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/22/japans-sexual-apathy-is-endangering-the-global-economy/

would be for the Pope to get a divine message saying stop you have achieved my goal of repopulating the earth after the flood. Now go take care of it because it might be a really long time before I come back- this tiny little biosphere is the only livable real estate in a really big volume.

body autonomy, access to science-supported reproductive healthcare choices, and eliminate rapes .... I bet we'd see a leveling off and eventual reduction of the population to levels compatible to resources available.

No one is "forced" to have children or not to. No one is a second class citizen.