China has a population that may be in decline. No way to know, but based upon years of one child policy, it is likely that they are.

Killing himself, not having more babies, or what?

and will continue to grow for a long time unless we do something.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/08/scientists-more-worried-than-public-about-worlds-growing-population/

between the growth of a number, and the rate of growth of that number, don't you? If you ever took physics, it's like the velocity and the acceleration. The acceleration can be negative while the velocity is still positive. Imagine you're driving toward a red light, pressing the brake pedal. The rate at which your position is increasing is decreasing, but your position is still increasing. Even though you're slowing down, you're still moving toward the red light.

Similarly, the world population is still growing, even though it is growing more slowly than it used to.

In decline in some parts of the world, which has led to a total overall slowing of the growth. As other parts of the world become more "advanced", they too will reduce their population growth. And yes, I've had a few post high school physics classes.

We are already consuming more than the Earth can sustain.
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/

As the rest of the world reduces its fertility rate, it will also increase its consumption rate. No matter how you look at it, we're headed for disaster. And it's precisely the children of those being most defensive in this thread who will have to live with the consequences.

Crops are being harvested at record rates, and not just in the US. We just can't get food to the right places that really need it. That is our fault as inhabitants of this planet for allowing that to happen. As populations level off, and they are, more and more WILL go into decline.

Also, your last little remark is very condescending. Who are you to make that assumption; and that is what it is.

We are already beyond the capability of the Earth to process our waste.

Your post is like saying, "I have no job and no savings, but I will have children anyway, because surely I will find a well-paying job or inherit a fortune or win the lottery." It is not what I would call a responsible way to plan things.

As for my last remark, it assumes only that those of us who don't have children don't have children. That is not what I would call an "assumption". It's really amusing that people are arguing with me, when I have no stake in this discussion.

In regards to the waste, that also falls into the "want to" category, just like getting food to those that really need it. Recycling is at an all time high, and growing every day. In fact, recycling has outpaced the need for those recycled materials in many cases. The prices for most metals at salvage yards and recycling facilities, has dropped to about half of what they were three years ago. Cooper, steel, aluminum, all commonly recycled metals aren't barely worth the fuel it takes to collect them. Newsprint and magazines sit in warehouses that are overwhelmed with those products. Even plastics have hit a wall.

Last edited Fri Sep 16, 2016, 03:55 PM - Edit history (2)

Not just for fuel, but for fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide.

To maintain current food production rates, you need to keep extracting and using fossil fuels. Yet, the very use of those fossil fuels is destroying the climate, which will lead to instabilities that make record crop yields far less likely in years to come.

Oh, and there's also the fact that modern agriculture, even using best practices, is stripping the planet of topsoil at an alarming rate: http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/The-lowdown-on-topsoil-It-s-disappearing-1262214.php

Food production possibilities aren't near completion. We aren't close to exceeding what the earth can sustain. Some catastrophic collapse probably could occur...at the same time the story of Henny Penny didn't spring from nowhere...

It's not just a matter of food production and energy but also a matter of dealing with the waste we produce.

China is investing in infrastructure. No, most is The Sky Is Falling need by some imo...

It's really difficult for some people to understand, apparently.

If you break down the growth by continent, Europe, Asia, North and South America are basically ok already, or projected to be ok in the short term; basically no population growth. If someone is really worried about and wants to address global population growth, it is Africa they are worried about.

So what would someone do there?

that more than anything will help stabilize or even reduce the population growth.

These continents are precisely where most of the pollution and carbon use are occurring. The one child you may have in the United States is the equivalent of 280 children in Haiti. One child here will pollute the Earth more than many children in Africa. It is very important for North Americans, especially, to think about their contribution to pollution and environmental destruction when they decide to have a child. Think of all those disposable diapers you will be sending to landfills. Think of all those plastic toys you will be buying, and then sending to the landfill a few years later. Think of all the clothes that will be replaced every few months and will also end up in the landfill just a few years later. Think of all the jars of baby food. Think of all the plastic bottles of fruit juice.

It's amazing that some people can't see that the problem is not just one of numbers; it's also one of consumption and pollution.

The single best thing a North American can do for the planet is to refuse to procreate.

One is biological, one is abstract imagination. Not that the word human isn't just a made up word.

Humans don't exist to save the planet, or to manage it, or anything like that. We've taken it upon ourselves to try and do that, at least recently, with mixed results. Humans exist for the same reason other forms of life exist, which is to make new life. That we've managed to divert into a larger sphere of interests and options doesn't change that basic biological fact for the majority of the population.

The single best thing a North American can do for the planet is to refuse to procreate.

But I'm not sure I agree that people have children to populate the planet. After all, we also don't exist to build bridges, go to the Moon, or understand the laws of the Universe. My impression is that people have children because they see their peers having children. I was amazed to see two of my friends, who never expressed any interest in children, get fertility treatments as they approached the age of 40. Women have children because society tells them that they will be unfulfilled otherwise. They are afraid of missing out on something important. The message is extremely strong; if I had not been adamant about not wanting children, it would have worked on me as well. We just have to make it more acceptable for women not to have children. Of course, that's going to be difficult because half the population (i.e., conservatives) is intent upon maintaining the status quo, according to which a woman's most important goal in life should be to get married and have babies.

That might happen if you're a very successful species, but the goal is to just keep the generations going. We have so many people now that not everyone has to do that, but our bodies were adapted primarily on a world without a 7+billion person global civilization where we had to worry about polar bears and the distant but existential threat of climate change. If the climate changed back then, we sort of rolled with it in a way. If a species went extinct, we sort of rolled with it in a way. Today, these are things we have to actively worry about, and morally judge ourselves against.

Looking at the rate of increase in population and its projection forward for the great majority of nations, basically things are ok.

Looking at the behaviors of those populations is a very different issue, and one with very different solutions. Much easier in a way.

If climate change is the reason for the decrease. If its nuclear war, probably no more than 250-500 million.

global population has more than doubled in my lifetime.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html

We need to increase consumption(women need more options) to decrease population. So it's always going to be a little from column A and B.

Climate change isn't even an objective problem. The planet doesn't care if we overshoot anything, and neither does the universe. Other species don't care, because it's not like the lion even knows the shark exists. So it's all subjective, and that means people and nations will have a tough time agreeing on much, since everyone is looking out for their own interests, and interests can clash. If it's a finite planet, everyone can't have everything, but the only way we agree on anything is if everyone can have everything, with none of the downside to anything, because we all want what we want.

Last edited Mon Sep 12, 2016, 08:50 PM - Edit history (1)

and vice versa. Genetics is not a simple thing. As my grade-11 biology teacher explained decades ago, the human gene pool is large enough that you don't have to worry about having children to make sure your genes don't die out. Your genes are already out there, many times over.

A child born in the U.S. is like 280 children born in Haiti, in terms of the amount of the world's resources it will consume in its lifetime. Having children in the U.S. or Canada is an extremely selfish thing to do. Those who have had children and are feeling defensive about this can go ahead and flame me, but that will not change what is a simple truth.

Edited to fix the number, which I initially got wrong.

Then it's not going to be any better off/closer to being saved by places like Haiti making the next generation. I'll take my chances.

but to some people, that doesn't seem to matter at all. And it's we, the child-free, who get called "selfish".

Not having them to offset someone in Haiti having 12 or so is silly, IMO. The solutions for fixing world hunger and overpopulation won't likely come from places like Haiti. Like I said, I'll take my chances. I keep hearing that the world is fucked no matter what, so I guess it couldn't hurt.

Wow. So much for humility and the belief in the fundamental equality of all human beings.

I'm not sure where you got the number 12. By having two children in North America, you're adding the equivalent of 560 children in Haiti. You're saying, effectively, that your two children deserve more of the Earth's resources than 560 children who are unlucky enough to have been born in Haiti.

ETA: I remembered wrong. The number is not 500-something but 280. One child born in the United States will consume as much of the Earth's resources as 280 children born in Haiti.
http://www.capsweb.org/pop-facts/just-facts/environment

Because the article you link acknowledges a simple statistical fact, namely that current population growth in the US is not being driven by "too many people who think their genes are superior having babies even when strangers on the internet tell them they're not allowed to", but rather by immigration. (from your link)

Any side is always trying to make the other side do what it wants. One side says you should make as many babies as you can, and you're morally wrong if you don't. The other side says you're morally wrong if you have more than 1, or even any kids at all. That's always going to be the issue with morality. Should and shouldn't are tough words to agree on.

We may live within a system that has the ability for long term planning, but we're still short term forms of life. You can make plans for a big dinner out at a restaurant at the end of the month, but if you don't eat between the start and end of the month, you're not going to make it to the big dinner out.

We also don't think in terms of 7+billion people. None of us will meet anywhere near that. We'll never know anywhere near that. We think of ourselves, and those we know. We want that group to be happy. If you want children, why would you think about how undeserving they are because you and they lucked out, over kids and adults that you're not really going to think about on a daily basis, since you'll never meet them, speak to them, or know them in any intimate way at all?

With no banana smeared on their shirts or dried barf in the back seats of their cars, so they can heckle them for not having children.

Happens all the time.

Every child, even of idiots, being born naturally with far more neurons than they have any use for - the developing brain does more pruning and refining than growing.

I enjoyed the movie, but the premiss is fundamentally wrong.

one factor. human beings are not immune to the influences of DNA.

fast people. people used to die. less adults. DARWIN. we REMOVED darwin. hell. i love the stupid anti vax people. it brings back darwin.

The planet will continue on long after we're gone, we need to do it to ensure the planet is sustainable for human life so our species may continue lest we cause our own extinction.

Please provide a reference for your claim that the writer of the article is a hypocrite.

Straw man.

You should read the article, by the way. It's very good, and it actually responds to all the points made by the pro-procreation crowd in this thread (suggesting that no one objecting has actually bothered to read the article).

immediately means that those in favor of it are proposing a "culling of the herd"? It's about responsible reproduction, better access to birth control, more education and economic opportunities for women (especially women from cultures that see them as nothing more than brood mares) and common sense distribution of resources. There is no magic bullet but it is something we need to start to work toward.

and reducing family sizes?

I see it all the time, people taking a discussion about over population as a personal attack. Weird.

And it is a real problem, it's not something to ignore or pretend is going to go away.

Look up above you see idiots with comments like kill yourself first or sterilize all poor people, which is just a way to attack the messenger because they don't want to face the issue.

Granted not all the solutions may not be pleasant, but the alternative is much much worse.

Usually threads on over population sink like a stone around here because it's uncomfortable, so thanks for posting this.

nobody should breed at all or we should start killing people off, which is not what I am talking about at all.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing that the earth is at carrying capacity and it's is the responsible thing to do to use a macro approach (education and opportunities for women, particularly in the 3rd world; wider availabilty of birth control, opportunities for economic advancement, etc.) so that women aren't spending their lives in reproductive slavery and children aren't growing up in abject poverty because their parents can't afford to care for them.

The more of us there are, the more economically desperate we become. The more economically desperate we become the more easily we can be exploited by the 1%.

The more of us there are, the more economically desperate we become. The more economically desperate we become the more easily we can be exploited by the 1%.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing that the earth is at carrying capacity and it's is the responsible thing to do to use a macro approach (education and opportunities for women, particularly in the 3rd world; wider availabilty of birth control, opportunities for economic advancement, etc.) so that women aren't spending their lives in reproductive slavery and children aren't growing up in abject poverty because their parents can't afford to care for them.

And literally, no matter the cost - look at the cost of various fertility treatments and private adoptions, not to mention the costs associated with raising a child today.

Even today, in the 21st century, women like me who do not have nor want children are regarded as somewhat suspect and are often assured that we don't know our own minds and will want to be mothers once all is said and done. Even at my age I'm told I could adopt or foster.

We're supposed to be here to serve others: first our husbands, by cooking, cleaning, and providing moral support, and then our society, by bearing and raising children. It's sad that the majority of the people out there (both men and women, including the majority of DUers) still hold this view. This view, of course, dates back to a time when overpopulation was not a concern, and few people are able to engage in enough independent thought to be able to recognize that there is a problem with it.

We have to save the planet. That's somewhat vague. If we don't do X now, by 2050 this or that will happen. We can't know for sure what will happen 3 months from now, let alone 30+ years from now.

The biggest issue with the environmental movement is the lack of certainty, which of course is inherent in trying to predict the future, which is why the movement doesn't actually win. We may try and make things work with clean and green energy, but even that isn't certain, because we've altered environments when we hunted with sharp sticks or picked a few berries. We now want a global civilization that is able to take care of all the needs and wants of however many people are alive at any given time. Plus save every other species.

And I'm sure there's a racial aspect to it too. The environmental movement is mostly white people with money. The movement starts talking about controlling fertility and reducing family size, well since white people with money have already done that, that basically means the non-white people have to start having fewer non-white babies, and that's a lovely ground for a battle. What with racial history being what it is around the world. Poor whites are of course racist, so they don't even count in any of the equations.

Quite the contrary. All the people I see around me having too many babies are white. And the babies who consume the largest portion of the Earth's resources are those born to rich white people.

It's not in what you would call white majority countries. Otherwise the US and Europe wouldn't need so much immigration to keep the numbers up.

without people taking it personally.

One of the interesting things is many experts expect the world to peak at around 10-12 billion in 2050 and then start a very gradual decline.

The rate of population growth has plummeted in many of the developing regions of the world over the last 40 or so years. I'm shooting from the hip and don't have the exact numbers, but around 1970 the average woman in South America had roughly 6 kids. Today it is down to 2.6 children per woman. Some nations in South America even have birth rates lower than the US. Another example worth looking up is Bangladesh. The had a similar trend during that same time.

From what I read, it seems the driving factor to reducing reproduction rates is increasing literacy rates of women. In areas where people are historically dealing with high levels of starvation most energy and time is spent trying to secure the next meal. As soon as people have regular access to decent foot they have time to devot their focus on other endeavors - like education.

Typically the first generation of people who just received this benefit will have the same number of children as their historic norm. However, the second generation of people with this benefit typically have greatly reduced birth rates.

Population growth is alarming and needs robe addressed, but we are slowly heading in the right direction. The biggest thing that concerns me is that the rate of consumption in the world will continue to rise for quite some time even if/when the population decreases as the standard of living increases throughout the world. I can go on and on about consumption, but that is a topic for another thread.

It is worth noting that with a global population of roughly 12 billion that the population density of the world will be about the same as that of France.

It's Indians (from India), Chinese, Middle Eastern, and Africans that have exploding populations.

Which is ironic.

We're the first species on earth that doesn't follow survival of the fittest, since many of the least educated, least capable groups of people are the ones with staggeringly high population growth rates.

We try to save every child that is born, and try and keep every old person alive as long as possible, all the while wanting to give all people in between as many options and opportunities in their lives as possible. That's why there are 7+billion people on the planet.

The 1st world got there first, so we've been able to curb our number of children by using so many resources. It doesn't look good if the 1st world is telling the 3rd world what to do, so our only choice is to increase the 3rd world's consumption, so that they have more options and opportunities. Since the total number of humans will keep growing for at least a little while, and not all people currently alive are completely hooked into the global machine, total consumption will need to go up before it goes down, just like the total population.

Unfortunately, every institution we've built is based on growth, both corporations and governments, so we won't even be able to stop once all people alive have everything they need and especially want. It'll be an interesting century no matter what.

We can't even promote birth control in this country thanks to the religious lobby.

many babies and children used to die off at a young age so it made sense to encourage families to have large broods. That isn't true anymore, but the attitude in many traditional and religious communities still hasn't changed. It just doesn't make sense to have large families anymore. It's not economical in any sense of the word.

One, I'm pro-choice. Period. Mic Drop, thread over. That's it.

But just because it's apparently necessary to run through all the bullet points which must be run through every fucking time we have this utterly pointless debate (I highly doubt any meat eater has stopped eating meat due to a lecture from a vegan on DU, however, I am absolutely certain there's not a single person who was going to have a planned, wanted child and then read one of these threads and got a puppy instead) here is the cliffs notes version:

Population isn't fungible. the so-called "Population problem" isn't a global phenomenon, but a localized one. If that's not true, then why aren't fertility rates even across the board?

"Population isn't fungible. the so-called "Population problem" isn't a global phenomenon, but a localized one." - Sorry but you are wrong. Most studies on a ecologically sustainable world population puts the number between 1-3 billion people. It is a GLOBAL problem.

As for 1st world resource usage, do you really think all the 3rd world populations aren't already increasing their usage as they develop?

"Lastly, "why are you so defensive"?" - The problem exists even if people won't change or want to pretend it's not a problem. Yes, people get defensive when faced with uncomfortable truths. So be it. Saying people won't change or be "lectured by strangers" is the exact same response the right wing uses to address greenhouse gas usage "Who are you to tell me if I'm allowed to drive a hummer around all day?".

Basically, I took your post as a simple "over population isn't a problem, but if it is, well, it'll all sort itself out naturally" response. You are wrong.

Who are you to tell me to do this and that?

Who is the mainstream media to tell us what's important? Who is the white hetero male to tell me what to do? Who is the religion to tell me what I should or should not do? Who is the Democrat, Republican, man, woman, American, Chinese, fat cat in Washington or Brussels, wealthy, poor, white, black, Christian, Muslim, scientist, teacher, cop, whatever, to tell me what I can or cannot do with my life? Isn't pro-choice the good one?

There an upside and downside to everything. The downside to freedom is that it gets more and more difficult to tell other people what they can and cannot do. The more people involved, meaning the more interests involved, the more complicated it gets. Something as amorphous as climate change/saving the planet only adds to the complexity.

That argument "well 'you cant tell me what to do' is what right wing hummer drivers say", yeah, its also what terminally ill grannies who use cannabis to treat their chemo nausea say, as the cops haul them off to prison. Its also what the woman says as she walks through the gauntlet of screaming fundies, into planned parenthood. Its what the author with the fatwa on his head says, when he publishes the "blasphemous" book.

i love it when people here try to spin being pro-choice as some kind of character defect. Yeah, whatever.

It just depends on what the topic is. If it's what they like/agree with, they're pro-choice about it. If it's what they don't like/don't agree with, I guess they'll be absolutely miserable about it and try and tell you want to do.

It's what you're passionate about. If you don't care, you don't care. If it's something you really believe in, then if other people don't do it that way, it can become a problem. Even being pro-choice or not falls into it. If you're not pro-choice, then you're wrong, and our side will try and force society to make you at least outwardly accept our choice, whatever it is. It's being so pro-choice that you can end up anti-choice.

It's the age old debate between the individual vs. the collective. I'm sure tribes had the same arguments. It's endless. Is what you're doing better for you, or for us? Which is more important? The extreme of either one can be damaging, depending on who you ask, and a compromise can just as easily not function, depending on who you ask.

The subjectivity of existence. It can be fascinating, and maddening.

Birth rates in countries with high standards of living and personal freedom have already, across the board, reduced their fertilty rate to at or below replacement levels. So it's not an "uncomfortable truth" that's being floated here, it's an argument with no basis in reality.

What exactly is the point of these "arguments", unless they're directed at the people in places like Guinea-Bissou, where the fertility rate is around 7 or 8? There isn't one. Is the idea that a fertility rate of below replacement levels still isn't good enough? Is the idea that 1st world people are such a problem that the argument is they should all go away?

What is the exact uncomfortable truth, here? Like the fact that what population growth there is in the United States for example, is being driven by immigration? That's a statistical fact.

The fact that when given the tools and freedom, people manage their reproductive rates on their own? Yeah, mentioning that sure drives some folks bonkers.



You want to talk truth, great, deal with the truth. The truth is that the so-called population problem is concentrated in a few countries.

You're assuming that the Earth can sustain a high standard of living for its current population. If everyone lived like North Americans, we would need four Earths; our one Earth would not suffice.

See my post earlier in the thread.

ETA: No one is suggesting passing a law to limit child bearing. Some of us simply believe that most humans are smart enough to recognize that overpopulation is a problem and voluntarily avoid having children. (This thread suggests otherwise. Perhaps we are not so superior after all and will end up suffering the same fate as other animals, whose populations eventually plateau or decrease as a result of disease and famine.)

What about financial and other rewards to women who choose to not have children?

Get sterilized and have a guaranteed income and/or free university?

At the very least, we should not be providing tax incentives for having children. But to make sure we don't punish the children of those who decide to procreate, we also have to provide free child care, free health care, and increase the minimum wage.

I'm afraid going further, though, gets a little close to sterilizing the poor. I really think it's the rich who should avoid having children. The children of the rich are much worse for the environment than the children of the poor.

Government doesn't work without taxpayers.

It's funny though. People should get money to not have children, and people should have more money available if they do have children. You want everyone taken care of, which if we live in a finite planet, can't happen. Except the rich, but they're already rich, so it doesn't really matter.

No one should feel they should have children to keep society functional.

Of course, if you don't care about taking care of people, you should have as many children as you wish. Populate the Earth as much as you want. After all, it's probably not you who is going to have to deal with disease, famine, starvation, wars, and possibly even cannibalism as society descends into chaos.

Actually, I wouldn't be so sure that this will not happen within our lifetimes. I worry about that sometimes. But at least my conscience is clear, in that I didn't bring anyone else into the world who will have to put up with all that.

"Immigration provides plenty of taxpayers."

I guess just the people from the baby making countries need to keep popping them out then, while the richer North Americans without as many kids enjoy the fruits of society.

as society descends into chaos

That's what you're doing.

Currently, as everyone has so cheerfully stated, the rates of reproduction are much higher in Africa and certain other parts of the world than they are in North America and Europe. The solution is to stop having children in North America and Europe and instead bring people in from the countries that are overpopulated, so as to maintain the population at its current level. At the same time, we must provide aid to those countries to increase the education level and empowerment of women and thereby reduce their rate of population growth. This way, we can virtually stop reproducing in North America and Europe and not suffer any drastic consequences. Over time, however, we have to change our economic system to one that is not dependent on exponential population growth, which can only lead to disaster in the long term.

It seems to me that those who have chosen to procreate are extremely defensive about their choices because they are worried about the world their progeny will have to live in. They feel they have no choice but to engage in wishful thinking. Nothing else explains the level of irrationality in this thread.

As for your last comment, when people are starving to death or dying of disease, the last thing they will be thinking about is who will pay for their retirement.

Europeans and North Americans will stop having children entirely, and simply airlift people from Guinea-Bissou to replace us. (doesn't transporting millions of people produce greenhouse gasses?) Sure, that could TOTALLY happen.

But scalable fusion, clean energy, or continuing advancements in farming technology to feed a large but stable global population? A crazy pipe dream!

We need to at least keep the current level of population through immigration, even though the current level is causing problems. The 1st world needs to subsidize the 3rd world so that all of the people that are left there can increase their consumption in order to reduce their population. Then we need an economic system that doesn't require growth, even though they all do, especially because we'll increase our wants in correlation with what we're able to do. All that, and save the whales, and polar bears, and the oceans, and the land, and other various species and ecosystems, etc, etc. Not only retain the modern concept of retirement, but probably lower the age too, since we'll have all these people consuming so much, generating tax revenue, keeping people employed, etc, in the non-growth economy.

I stand by my catch 22 comment. There's no out in this equation. I agree, when people are starving or dying of disease, they won't be thinking about the long term. That's how we got to where we are today. Our ability to find a way to keep more people alive, whether it's through medicine, or increased agricultural methods, or whatever else, has resulted in the world we live in today, with all these issues that we're aware of. There's little reason to think we'll find some perfect equation where if we just move X amount of people here to there, and provide Y amount of money to people here and there, that it won't just cause different issues that we'll have to deal with then. We're prisoners of history.

'different issues' is right.

That is what is unrealistic. Humans love to solve problems. That's what makes us human. Expecting people to throw up our hands and accept that we're no better than animals is what seems unrealistic.

Furthermore, your argument that we need to keep having children to keep society "functional" conflicts with your other argument that we have no choice but to succumb to environmental collapse. By definition, society will not be functional if we run into the Earth's carrying capacity (which will inevitably happen if we keep growing exponentially) and end up decimated by war, famine, disease, floods, hurricanes, etc.

Namely, freedom and reproductive choice combined with greater autonomy for women and independence from religious or other authorities who would presume (cough) that they have the right to dictate people's individual personal life choices to them.




If that's still not good enough, in terms of public policy, we should make oral contraceptives available OTC. No good reason they couldn't be.

Yes, humans love to solve problems, but every solution we come up with creates the next problem to solve. Plus I'm not sure I would call what we do solving problems. What humans think of as problems and solutions are only problems and solutions in our own minds. I think it's more like we change some variables in the environment, which changes the environment, which we then change, then it changes, then we change it, and that's the loop. We haven't solved hunger(we still have to eat), we just made more food available. We haven't solved death(we still die), we just made it possible to live for a few more years.

Furthermore, your argument that we need to keep having children to keep society "functional" conflicts with your other argument that we have no choice but to succumb to environmental collapse. By definition, society will not be functional if we run into the Earth's carrying capacity (which will inevitably happen if we keep growing exponentially) and end up decimated by war, famine, disease, floods, hurricanes, etc.

all the people that need and want them. And then those surplus people are the ones the existing taxpayers need to support. No job, no income tax. No job, no disposable income to spend to fuel the economy. You just have a lot of extra people placing a burden on the system.

Our coming issues with automation will only make that more pronounced. Our past and current issues with automation have done the same thing.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem, I'm just saying there's no real solution. Governments and businesses were created based on the idea of more people. If we get to the point where we actually have fewer people, no matter where they are or come from, that's going to be a massive change. If more and more people are made unnecessary, that's going to be a massive change.

There must be good rewards for not having children and there should be at a minimum some negative to having children (sort of like a gas guzzler tax).

There are sticks and carrots options to the rich too. Large tax penalties for the rich to have children for example.

Large tax penalties for the rich to have children. Seriously. It would be great to pass such a law.

I think that we somehow need to change the attitude that every woman needs to have a child. (It's an incredibly sexist attitude, but we live in such a sexist society that most people can't recognize the sexism of it.) Years ago, when I went in for a certain medical procedure in preparation for another procedure that required sterilization, the nurse who was wheeling me into the operating room lectured me about how important it is to have children, what a wonderful experience it is, etc., trying to dissuade me from having the procedure I was considering. It just shows what level of pressure there is on women to have children. Even if you never had any interest in children, the pressure makes you wonder whether you're making a mistake. No one ever puts pressure on anyone in the opposite direction, even though having a child is a much bigger commitment, and a much bigger potential mistake, than not having one. We need to change things so that not having children is not only incentivized but also respected as the more responsible choice.

"I love my children, but if I had to do it over again I never would have had any."

We have problems, the first world has problems- the big one being finding clean, non-renewable ways to power our civilization, stat: but "population" or namely the fertility rate, isn't one of them. Not when simple choice and reproductive freedom and contraception have already drastically lowered the fertility rate.

So as for humans being "smart enough", yes- they are. They have been, already.



If people are concerned about overpopulation, there ARE places in the world where it's an issue. But like I said upthread, the humane way to address that is to try and improve the standard of living for those people and hopefully encourage their societies to empower individuals and particularly women to be free from authorities who would dictate their personal life choices to them (cough) particulary WRT sex and reproduction.

The human race needs to figure out our resource and energy problems, absolutely- and it's no slam dunk that we'll be able to crack that nut- but arguing about population is a distraction from that.

You're proposing a "solution" to a problem that doesn't actually exist, but seems more about virtue signalling and allowing "childfree" people to assert some kind of moral superiority for their life choices. But really, if someone is genuinely happy with their decision not to have kids, fundamentally, they shouldn't need to do that. And just like no one can make you feel inferior without your consent, you also don't need the validation of others to feel superior- you think you made the better call, hey, good for you!

Great, for people who didn't have kids. Congratulations.

If someone wants to feel better about not having children, pick up and take a trip to a fancy restaurant, or an R rated movie, or Thailand on a whim without having to arrange logistics on the level of a moon launch. Enjoy.

Talking about the rate of growth slowing down in developed countries is nice but avoids the fact there are already too many humans on the planet.

It's a global total so talking about it being an issue with a few countries is meaningless.

And if it's as dire as you say, telling people to stop having kids is whizzing in the wind anyway.

Just google the scientific studies on the topic, you'll be reading for hours. However, I doubt that will change your mind. Deniers are seldom swayed by facts they don't like.

That's not the consensus. This is just like arguing with a climate change denier.

Waste of time because you won't even admit there is a problem.

"Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson" doesn't have the authority to make a scientific calculation on the matter?

It says that 9-10 billion is the absolute maximum carrying capacity of the Earth, assuming everyone becomes vegetarian. It then states that since everyone is unlikely to abruptly become vegetarian, the actual carrying capacity is in fact much lower. Note that we are already at 7.4 billion.

After making the above dire statement, the article, which is not a scientific paper, by the way, goes on to engage in wishful thinking, saying that most scientists believe the population will make a U-turn before we hit disaster. This is not a scientific result; it's a statement of belief. Scientists, like everyone else, are prone to bias and wishful thinking, which is why we need the scientific method to come up with reliable results.

Given that this article says we have less than 2-3 billion to go before hitting the absolute maximum carrying capacity of the Earth assuming a totally vegetarian population, it's interesting that you think this article supports your view that we have nothing to worry about and that the problem will magically solve itself. All you're doing is demonstrating the level of wishful thinking among those who don't want to recognize that overpopulation is a problem.

I'm not saying there's no problem, I'm saying that the solution to the problem is already apparent because we've made it work, here, in the US over the past few decades. The answer is allowing people the freedom to make their own family planning decisions, helped by contraception and reproductive choice.



From the article:

You ask a question and assume the answer without waiting to hear it? That's .... a bit lame.

I actually did have a year or two where I ate no meat. But even when I was all vegan'd out, I never told anyone else what they should or shouldn't eat. People's lives are their own business.

I'm pro-choice. Period.

Again, the carrying capacity is speculative, but what isn't speculative is the birth rates, and how in the US they have reduced themselves to below replacement levels just by giving people the tools to run their own lives.

I'm sorry if that's not good enough, but the fact is, if one wants to address the population problem one needs to address it in places where fertility rates are high.

And for the people who are convinced the US has a "population problem" because a screaming baby once ruined their fine dining experience at TGIFs, as someone said in one of these threads, here's the world's tiniest violin.

And by the way, not eating red meat is far from being vegetarian. If you can't be vegetarian yourself, what makes you think the entire world will suddenly go vegetarian?

The current UN prediction is that we will reach 10 billion not in 2100, but in 2056 -- that is, forty years from now.

A child born on Earth is a child born on Earth. Saying that "if one wants to address the population problem one needs to address it in places where fertility rates are high" is not only illogical but is a way of denying one's own responsibility -- especially since the children you have here stress the planet much more than children in those countries you wish to blame for overpopulation. We all share the same climate, the same air, the same water, and the same biosphere. You might think you and your progeny are protected from the consequences of overpopulation and overconsumption by virtue of living in a relatively wealthy and powerful country, but all that could change very quickly.

The rest of your post devolves into personal attacks. For someone who first puts all his hopes on vegetarianism and then gets upset when I ask whether he's a vegetarian, it's funny that you should suggest those of us who worry about overpopulation are only concerned because "a screaming baby once ruined their fine dining experience at TGIFs". That claim is so outrageous, after everything we have posted, that it shows off the weakness of your position better than anything else possibly could.

Enjoy living in a universe where you can continue to procreate and pollute, and where all the problems will magically solve themselves just before disaster is able to strike. At this point, it's clear that the pro-procreation crowd is not really interested in logical arguments.

I also didn't get upset when you asked me if I was a vegetarian. I said it was lame that you asked the question then presumed to answer it for me. You assumed you knew the answer, which was lame. If you had asked me the same question a few years ago, the answer would have been yes, but all my opinions would have been identical. So I'm not sure where you get that you have enough data to assume one way or the other.

I said what's on my plate is none of your business, and neither are my "progeny". Frankly, one of the most personal decisions a human can make is whether to have kids or not, and it's awfully fucking pretentious to try and tell people - whether they are in your family or if they are strangers on the internet - what they "should" do or not do in that regard. You didn't like it when it was done to you, so why would you expect it to go over well when it is done to others from the other direction?

Again, if the problem is that "the children you have here stress the planet much more", you should be against immigration. Full stop. None of this imaginary nonsense about importing all the people from high fertility nations while somehow "convincing" North Americans to stop breeding- the importation would just create NEW North Americans, with one salient difference- they would be coming from places where (unlike here) their culture doesn't have a recent track record of lowering fertility rates to below replacement levels. So how does that fix anything?

No, if you are serious and want to be consistent on that, not only do North Americans need to stop breeding, we need to close the shutters on the place and slap a big "CLOSED" sign in the window of the entire continent.

Logical Arguments? There aren't any coming from the "I want you to stop breeding" side, that's the whole thing. It's not logically constructed, it's axe grinding from people who either feel the need for some external validation for their life choices, for whatever reason, or else- like I said, I'm just quoting the endless prior threads on this issue which unfold exactly like this one- people going "of course we have a population problem here, I'm always seeing strollers and hearing crying babies on airplanes".

Which makes it all the more important to stop having kids, because those kids will grow up to inherit a world of increasingly harsh living conditions and mounting suffering, both physically and psychologically.

If you listen to the scientific consensus that we have likely passed or will shortly pass the point at which catastrophic climate change is now locked in (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28430-the-climate-fact-no-one-will-admit-2-c-warming-is-inevitable/), the most humane thing you can do is either have no children at all, or just have one child and devote as many resources as you have to ensure they can survive in the mass extinction event we've already kicked off.

That seems like a sensible plan, given all the impending gloomy doomitude.

If given the choice between not having children at all (and if they never exist, they never suffer), or raising a pack of feral, bloodthirsty inbreds, I'd choose to have no children.

Again, we're talking about what's the most humane option for a world of catastrophic climate change.

I was just about to, I had a couple hours blocked off this afternoon in fact... but I think I'll watch Ice Road Truckers or something, instead.

Fear that I might have to see those Boohbah deals again.






speaking of Zing Zing Zingbah.