Tricky one.

In one way, rather than making more space, I think it's a good idea to improve what we already have (creating nicer surroundings, allowing larger room).

On the other hand, I find having so many people creates more of a market and diversity of ideas.

Either way - I'm not sure any government would be popular trying to control population growth ;)

twinbee

you are right. a government would not be popular.

the political, social desire for popularity is a big problem, and increasingly so.

not what i am advocating at all.

but if everything is done for a slap on the back, nothing gets anywhere. Might as well have government policy decided by an Ant and Dec phone-in


desperate times and all that.

Trouble with population reduction measures (e.g. foxes) by reducing (or even stopping) birth rate, rather than by culling, is that the existing population continues to live and get older, while the supply of young'uns to support them in old age reduces or stops. So even if dramatic birth rate reduction could be achieved, the very best outcome would be, long before the benefits of reduced population were felt, a growing 40yr (in case of humans) problem of ageing population.

I tend to think that, similar to other animals, when things get bad we actually start popping out more sprogs to make up for it. This seems to happen in African communitites with a high infant mortality rate.
So for us to find some equilibrium, we really need to be maxed out on a critical resource, whether it be food, clean water or whatever.
Problem is with humans is that we're smart little sods and will come up with solutions to many of the resource issues that we encounter (e.g. GM crops). So I can see the population limit being pushed and pushed higher and higher...unless we do something so prevent it that is.

I don't see it as needing 'big brother' policies or anything. Incentives are always a good way to make unpopular things happen (in a similar way to cutting emissions).
Problem that I can see is how to agree that on a global scale when there currently seems to be a race to get bigger.

The elephant is in the room because we destroyed its natural habitat

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: fostertom</cite>Trouble with population reduction measures (e.g. foxes) by reducing (or even stopping) birth rate, rather than by culling, is that the existing population continues to live and get older, while the supply of young'uns to support them in old age reduces or stops. So even if dramatic birth rate reduction could be achieved, the very best outcome would be, long before the benefits of reduced population were felt, a growing 40yr (in case of humans) problem of ageing population.</blockquote>

Logan's run comes to mind. Which means I should have been bumped off 6 years ago. I guess I've found "sanctuary".

I wonder if people would sign up for a voluntary euthansia, soylent green style, given a big cash incentive / food suply for their children. Obviously this has all been thought about before (in the 1970's) when these films were made, probably due to the energy crisis they had then. Wasn't the 70's the start of the green movement - as in resource depletion VS sustainable consumption.

In reality what will happen is the west will buy up the food and the africans / central asions will starve. Especially when their glaciers melt. Which menas the net effect of climate change for Britian will be immgration the like of which we've never seen. Imagine 500 million people a year trying to get in! Which reminds me of another recent [British] film - Children of Men. This is probably how the world might end up -although in this film it's nothing to do with climate change - but mass infertility.

Population just adds to the problem - more emitters = more CO2. What we really need to do is 100% CO2 cut in the west - so that everyone can have sustainable energy. Still limited in supply - so not free, but not likely to run out.

Ultimately you should read Lester Browns Plan B 3.0 - Mobilizing to Save Civilization. It's available either in Book form - or if you google you can download the PDF for free. The man has a plan, which costs about 5% of the world's defence budget IIRC. Huge reforestation, education on birth control, mass renewable roll out, electrifaction of the transport system. It would be rude not to.

My favourite parts of this book were where he uses examples frmo different parts of the world to show change is possible. from 0-80% forest cover (can't remember where ,but the government implemented a crash programme to prevent flooding), cars taken off streets in south america when the mayor said "Cities are for people not cars", so lots of tree lined bike tracks with shops / cafe's along them, zero tillage agriculture still getting significant yields.

I'm very optimistic that before I reach old age, the world will be a much nicer place. I've vowed if nothing changes in 10 years I'll retire (46) and I'll get into politics, but would prefer not to - lobbying and campaigning is better ;-).

PS. We need PR so the greens get a bigger voice in parliament. 5% of the vote and 1% of the seats isn't a fair system. Sod "convenience" and hung parliament - if we want popluation "control" someone needs to get in there and raise it as a debate.

Simon.

Just to jump in and say I'm another one who thinks there are already far too many people, and also glad there is a possibility that we just might fix it, thanks Simon.

The difficult part is going to be fixing it equally - some cultures, and religions, are against birth control so will be a hard sell to put it mildly. Then if they won't do it, some people who do not have a culture or religion which is against it, will be annoyed and inclined to say if they can have three kids, why not me.

Science fiction - there is one solution that is a bit of background detail to Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series. One world, Beta Colony, has to control its population due to very limited viable living space. So everyone has a birth control implant at puberty. They have to go on training courses to be parents, and only when they have shown themselves as fit to be parents will a couple be granted a licence - for one child. Its a thought.
If you are into science fiction, and on this type of subject, I recommend Sherri S Tepper. She has strong ecological views and writes a good story. The two themes she explores are social re-engineering (e.g. The Gate to Women's Country) and saving the planet (usually involving aliens). Some of her stories tend to the grim in places - e.g. The Companions with its follow-on The Margarets and others are more cheerful e.g. The Fresco. She keeps coming up with very different plots on the same theme. The Fresco, to give away a little bit of the plot, features a bunch of well, cheery do-gooder aliens really, with a blunt approach to making the planet settle down - for example they start their solution to the wars fought over Jerusalem, by making the city disappear. Everyone in it wakes up round the edge of a large hole where it used to be.

A big family in the UK is normally a bit of a luxury afforded by only a few or those on benefits with no sense or responsibility. Doing a bit of genealogy has shown me how poor people had big families in times gone by but lost many of there offspring in infancy. Those that survived went on to have smaller families and sometimes had no children, leaving little old me as the last of the line (Ilost my young son last year). I think things balance themselves out one way or another over time.

If we are saving the planet for just a few to enjoy after our lifetime, can we dictate that others shouldn't be born to enjoy it too?

Had to cut the last post short as an old friend arrived.

To explain my points: There are people in the world, having children for reasons OTHER than for the actual joy of being a parent.

There are also people in the world - who - given a level playing field - might choose not to have a biological child of their own but foster or adopt (if it wasn't so blooming well difficult).

I have no problem with people having as many children as they want. What I have a problem with, is people having children, for money, to help them in their old age, because they don't have access to birth control, by accident, because they have 5 boys and want a girl, because they have left their first spouse and want new kids to go with their new spouse, and all the other reasons that are not valid.

I also think that 2 kids is the 'ideal', because you can hold hands with 2 kids at once, you can fit 2 kids in a shopping trolley, you can have (if you're lucky) a boy and a girl (one of each). . . . . and other stupid reasons.

But at the end of the day, I haven't worried about population explosion for decades, because I'm confident natural occurrances will level it out sooner or later.

<quote>Even if we rapidly mend our ways, there's still an 80% population reduction to be faced, on a timescale that, whether by voluntary or by disastrous means, goes far beyond mere birthrate reduction.</quote>

Could you point me to where that figure comes from?

Incidentally - another book recommendation - Emotional Intelligence, Why it can matter more than IQ by Daniel Goleman. The discussion further up touched on education as part of the solution. Transition Town philosophy includes training on how to put your ideas over and get people on board. Goleman's book charts all the layers of the human brain and how they work together, and the end result. Also includes information on experiments done to see the emotional aptitude of people, and the overall finding, that children's performance in later life can be better predicted by measurement of their EQ than their IQ.
One example of an experiment described in the book is this -

Child - about age 5 I think - was seated at one side of a table in an interview room, psychologist the other side. Interviewer put a sweet on the table, but before anything else could happen, the interviewer was "called away". Before leaving, the child was told that if the sweet was still on the table when the interviewer returned, they could have that sweet and a second one. Then the interviewer left and the child was watched. Some children snatched the sweet and ate it the moment the door closed, others held out until the interviewer returned - many had to use distraction tactics, of singing, looking away, anything to keep their mind off the sweet, but they did it. A few years later, it was the ones who understood "more later" and had the control who were doing better.

There were also descriptions of applying what was learnt, on training children to understand other people's responses - a few schools in the US have classes on it. If I remember rightly there was also a program re-training violent offenders - which was having measureable results.

Anyway, point of this semi-diversion, is that I think we need to vastly improve that side of education, just to help people to get more from life, get more from their lessons, so we can move towards a population which is far less wired towards the sweeties in life, to put it crudely. (Something else that I think was discussed in the Transition Town thread.)

Posted By: ShepherdCould you point me to where that figure comes from?

My gut feeling! What reduction wd you think - or is increase OK?

The point is, however much or little is done by birthrate reduction, will show little or no result for decades, while ageing-population problems will get overwhelming.

EQ is spot-on - but no amount of enlightenment will change the preceding para. What should high-EQ do about it?

Sorry if this has been floated but...the planet's systems will sort it out...there WILL be a pandemic...many will die, many will survive, so worry about something else.

I don't like benefits paid to families either - now we have effective birth control, babies are not inevitable and this should be planned properly. However, while most of the voters in this country have families I don't see any government wanting to rush out and alienate their supporters. For this kind of policy, I think you'd have to have an all party agreement - as in every party has that policy and implements it when in power so no party is disadvantaged by doing something necessary but unpopular.

<quote>Link aid and trade deals to cutting population and your start a virtuous circle of fewer mouths to feed, more money per capita for education and health care etc.</quote>

That is definitely one of many approaches needed.

One tragedy in the story of Africa is the good intentions from westerners that have caused so many of the current problems - so I think major tact is needed. A while ago I read Four Guineas, Travels in West Africa by Elspeth Huxley (better known for Flame Trees of Thika). She was writing in the 1950s and round about then there was a big programme to treat maleria. The difference was literally visible as having malaria in your system takes some of your resources and having treated all the children for it, you could see they were growing bigger and stronger - and none of them were dying of malaria. Elspeth Huxley talked to the people running the aid programme, to the effect of "This is great, but what is going to happen when these all are adults and start having children? What about the population explosion?" Their response was to shrug - it wasn't in their remit, they were fixing malaria.

In this country, as energy gets more expensive, I think we are going to see a shift back to more manual labour - and therefore any benefits system will be based on results. Same thing as the foreign aid policy really.

I do wonder for how much longer foreign aid will be happening - as resources get scarcer will the haves continue giving to the have-nots?

I'd like to see the effect of humanity on this planet reduced through sustainable living and a smaller global population and I think it is worth trying to see what ways we can achieve this in a way that is humane and effective. It may just all happen through pandemics and wars over resources (which will further trash the planet) but it is worth TRYING to minimise this. Its not a pleasant topic to look at, but not looking at it will make the outcome worse.

I was not objecting to eradicating malaria in Africa, I was objecting, or repeating a very knowledgeable person's objections, of doing so without trying to prevent the resulting population explosion. Elspeth Huxley was making the point that the doctors or decision makers should be looking at a wider picture and dealing with the consequences of their actions.
There appears to be a western perception of countries in receipt of aid as being responsible for having too many children - in some ways they are - but I was also making the point that the intervention of the west, with the best of intentions, without thought of other consequences has contributed to the problem.