Thread: The Human Overpopulation Of This Planet.

Ever since I joined this forum a few weeks ago,.. I have been wondering in what section, I could put this question. I have decided. It is the Environmental section.

I am 41, I have no children of my own. But my brother has one. I am concerned for my nephew,... in what kind of world he was put into.

I so vividly recall the 80-ties and early 90-ties. The newspaper were full with stories that overpopulation would be The Doom Of Humanity. It was the talk of the day,... back then.

But as the years progressed well into the deep 90-ties, the voices that warned about Human Overpopulation of this planet faded out,... and were replaced slowly but steadily by the voices that warned about global warming.

A new craze was born rapidly: "The hole in the Ozon Layer."

and as time progressed I saw the concern of Human Overpopulation never mentioned again. The environment suddenly became a new concern. Ow HORROR,... how to plug that darn freaking hole in the Ozon layer!

Cry Havoc,.... And Lets Slip The Dogs Of Environmental Issues!

Time progressed and it is now 2013. I have yet to see a media wide study presented to the world, of the real problem: Human Overpopulation.

Sure there have been studies presented... like... If the whole world had the energy consumption of the USA,... we would need 4 or 5 earth . Stuff like that. But to the core this is still environmental stuff. It DOES NOT concern itself with the basic problems.

I once heard a smart idea.... If all countries start spending their money not on armies and weapons,... but on education and better living condition for their populus,.. we would not have hunger or poverty and bad education. Well I do not know in what stupid world you live... But that is an idea which will never work in our current world or reality, with so many differences between countries and cultures. Save that idea for Eutopia,... a potential future.

Here is a website that has a counter of the current world population. I do not care about its accuracy,... fact is the earth's population DOES go up up up up up:
World Population Clock: 7 Billion People (2013) - Worldometers

Bah! Global Warming. That is a field of study much debated and contradicted.
In my honoust opinion it is utterly POINTLESS to just focus only on environmental issues,... if you do not worry about the real problem.

Why would I give a sh!t if I seperate paper, plastic, batteries and other electric appliances... if nothing is being done about the ever growing human populus on this planet? My personal efforts are completely NULLIFIED by the conitinous growth of the human population!

Get my point?

Sure there have been studies presented... like... If the whole world had the energy consumption of the USA,... we would need 4 or 5 earth . Stuff like that. But to the core this is still environmental stuff. It DOES NOT concern itself with the basic problems.

Not sure I see your point...the unsustainability is the problem. The planet's holding capacity is much higher for an austere living conditions, even a healthy one, than it is for the average American/Western lifestyle.

Bah! Global Warming. That is a field of study much debated and contradicted.

Not at all by scientist, who are the ones to most likely know. It hasn't been a serious discussion for decades.

The decreased clamor about population are still around though, perhaps softened a bit because rates of population increase have gone down in most nations and projected to level about mid to late 21st century.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

and as time progressed I saw the concern of Human Overpopulation never mentioned again. . . .

Time progressed and it is now 2013. I have yet to see a media wide study presented to the world, of the real problem: Human Overpopulation.

One reason is that the second derivative of population growth is now negative. That indicates that population growth is slowing down and will eventually stabilize at about 10 billion within about 80-100 years. (This is corroborated by declining birthrates in developed countries.) If that trend doesn't change it will then start to decline.

I once heard a smart idea.... If all countries start spending their money not on armies and weapons,... but on education and better living condition for their populus,.. we would not have hunger or poverty and bad education.

A good goal. The more developed nations, the lower the birthrate historically.

Why would I give a sh!t if I seperate paper, plastic, batteries and other electric appliances... if nothing is being done about the ever growing human populus on this planet? My personal efforts are completely NULLIFIED by the conitinous growth of the human population!

If everyone was like you, would the world be a better or worse place? That's the question you have to ask yourself at the end of the day.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

But as the years progressed well into the deep 90-ties, the voices that warned about Human Overpopulation of this planet faded out,... and were replaced slowly but steadily by the voices that warned about global warming.

A new craze was born rapidly: "The hole in the Ozon Layer."

Both the problem with the ozone layer and global warming were initially identified in the 1970s. The first steps to cut CFC product were made in the 70s through to the 90s.

and as time progressed I saw the concern of Human Overpopulation never mentioned again.

I see it frequently discussed.

The environment suddenly became a new concern. Ow HORROR,... how to plug that darn freaking hole in the Ozon layer!

It is (or was) a potentially very serious problem. I'm not sure why you are treating it as a joke.

Time progressed and it is now 2013. I have yet to see a media wide study presented to the world, of the real problem: Human Overpopulation.

Did you miss all the discussion when the UN released their most recent population forecasts last year?

Here is a website that has a counter of the current world population. I do not care about its accuracy,... fact is the earth's population DOES go up up up up up:
World Population Clock: 7 Billion People (2013) - Worldometers

Did you see the graph that shows the rate of increase falling? The growth in population is expected to peak (at around 9 or 10 billion) and start declining around the end of the century.

And some people think the UN's models overestimate the likely population.

I am not saying population is not a serious problem (especially coupled with the problems with water and agriculture that global warming will cause) but we are no longer facing exponential growth.

Bah! Global Warming. That is a field of study much debated and contradicted.

No it isn't.

In my honoust opinion it is utterly POINTLESS to just focus only on environmental issues,... if you do not worry about the real problem

I don't think anyone is focussing on only one issues. Any practical solution to climate chnage has to take into account the number of people who will need energy, food, water, etc.

Get my point?

Not really, no.

People have been complaining of overpopulation for over a hundred years! And as many folks have already stated, global warming is a real concern.

Cheers!

actually there is no real problem for humanity... in long term speaking... each problem will be solved... sooner or later except our purpose...

in long term speaking

Nonsense. As the great man once said (of economics) "In the long run, we are all dead."

John Maynard Keynes was talking about the silliness of economists claiming that sticking to their preferred policies would work out OK "in the long run". The same thing goes for conservation and climate. We know that the sun will blow up and take the earth with it several billion years from now. We know that even if there is a human population as that time approaches evolution will have ensured they'll not resemble us all that much.

We don't really care about the planet and its inevitable destiny. What we care about is people and the planet as our life support system. And the few or several future generations we can easily envisage following us. It'd be nice to think they would look back on us kindly rather than curse us. The way we're (mis)behaving, I rather fear the latter. Shift to a new climate likely by middle of the century, study finds | Environment | theguardian.com

The key to population growth is average fertility. That is, the average number of children each woman has.

If we look back 50 years, it was 5.5. Today it is 2.4 and falling. 2.4 is barely above replacement rate, bearing in mind that some of those children will not produce children of their own. The United Nations predicts it will be 2.0 by the year 2050, which is definitely below replacement rate.

Assuming reasonable growth in human productivity, both in growing food, and creating other goods (this assumption is certainly true right now), population growth is too small to interfere with the long term trend towards a better life for everyone.

I had two......if people only did that fine...where did I read today that that couple that has 19 children are trying for their 20th? Frankly I think that is ******* sick!

Originally Posted by adelady

in long term speaking

Nonsense. As the great man once said (of economics) "In the long run, we are all dead."

John Maynard Keynes was talking about the silliness of economists claiming that sticking to their preferred policies would work out OK "in the long run". The same thing goes for conservation and climate. We know that the sun will blow up and take the earth with it several billion years from now. We know that even if there is a human population as that time approaches evolution will have ensured they'll not resemble us all that much.

We don't really care about the planet and its inevitable destiny. What we care about is people and the planet as our life support system. And the few or several future generations we can easily envisage following us. It'd be nice to think they would look back on us kindly rather than curse us. The way we're (mis)behaving, I rather fear the latter. Shift to a new climate likely by middle of the century, study finds | Environment | theguardian.com

well don't agree... I don't know where to start... but I would say just take a look how did humanity came so far... when you think of 100 000 years ago...

Originally Posted by babe

I had two......if people only did that fine...where did I read today that that couple that has 19 children are trying for their 20th? Frankly I think that is ******* sick!

An economy actually does better when individuals specialize, and devote their lives to that specialty. It just doesn't make sense to occupy half the population with raising kids, when a smaller segment can make a career of raising more than their share. You know what happened to the productivity of Europe after they invented kindergarten, nannies, public school and day-care?

Ideally none of us would reproduce, except for a minority of dedicated super-breeders. If you think that's wrong, just try squishing all the ants.



Okay, let me plainly illustrate what I mean. Suppose you have a country of just 3 women and 3 men. Consider national productivity in these scenarios:

A) 3 couples, 2 children each.

B) 2 couples, 3 children each; 2 dedicated professionals.

C) 1 couple, 6 children; 4 dedicated professionals.


Can anybody think of acceptable ways to accomplish scenario C ? I see several, that don't seem too unjust, but I'm curious if others see them.

Can anybody think of acceptable ways to accomplish scenario C ? I see several, that don't seem too unjust, but I'm curious if others see them.

Education of girls and women. There have always been women who've managed, or been forced by sterility, to be childless. (What do you think the attraction of a nunnery was to many women? They could avoid having children and many of them could get an education and a professional life, mainly as teachers and nurses - but restricted options are better than no choice at all, unacceptable inevitability.)

The best option is for girls to be properly educated and for later marriage to be acceptable. Women will then be able to make a genuine choice for a fulfilling life with no children. Or they can leave child bearing until their late 30s which strongly limits the number of children they're likely to have. Even women who'd prefer to have 4 or more can do so starting in their mid 20s.

It's just as, if not more, important to control total population by reducing the numbers of 4, 5, 6 generation families as it is to reduce the average number of children born to individual women. Unless we want to reduce life expectancy. If a woman lives to 90+ years old, even if all the women in her family had only two children each, the number of family members invited to the 90th birthday party changes significantly depending on whether they all had their first child at 18 or 25 or 32 or later.

(Spoiler:
If it's 18 there will be possibly 8 great-great-grandchildren there along with 14 adult children, grand and great grandchildren.
If it's 32 there will only be 2 children and 4 grandchildren who'll still be 4 years short of producing the next generation.)

Multiply that by every family in a city or region and you make a huge difference in the total population even though you've done nothing to change the average number of children born to each woman.

Originally Posted by babe

I had two......if people only did that fine...where did I read today that that couple that has 19 children are trying for their 20th? Frankly I think that is ******* sick!

I have no trouble with the effort they put into trying. I'm all in favour of that. I just hope they don't succeed.

Originally Posted by babe

I had two......if people only did that fine...where did I read today that that couple that has 19 children are trying for their 20th? Frankly I think that is ******* sick!

Large families are so far from the norm in developed societies, that this is not really significant. What really matters is the countries where people feel they have to have large families for reasons of infant mortality, short life spans, the need for more income, etc.

As education (especially of women) and living standards improve, the birth rate drops. This is one of the main reasons why the UN forecasts peak and then drop.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by babe

I had two......if people only did that fine...where did I read today that that couple that has 19 children are trying for their 20th? Frankly I think that is ******* sick!

Large families are so far from the norm in developed societies, that this is not really significant. What really matters is the countries where people feel they have to have large families for reasons of infant mortality, short life spans, the need for more income, etc.

As education (especially of women) and living standards improve, the birth rate drops. This is one of the main reasons why the UN forecasts peak and then drop.

educating women= end of the humanity???

Originally Posted by blackscorp

educating women= end of the humanity???

I don't know how you reach that conclusion. It is, arguably, the only route to saving the human race.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by blackscorp

educating women= end of the humanity???

I don't know how you reach that conclusion. It is, arguably, the only route to saving the human race.

well you said more educated women less children or none... so in long term we will probably get more educated women... and thus even less children? right? im not sure what you mean with the only route to saving the human race

Originally Posted by blackscorp

well you said more educated women less children or none... so in long term we will probably get more educated women... and thus even less children? right?

Well, it would be silly to extrapolate it to "no children". After all, that isn't what happens.

im not sure what you mean with the only route to saving the human race

As in, the subject of this thread. Economic development by itself will only be a partial solution. Without education for women, it will not be as effective (based on the evidence we have so far).

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by blackscorp

well you said more educated women less children or none... so in long term we will probably get more educated women... and thus even less children? right?

Well, it would be silly to extrapolate it to "no children". After all, that isn't what happens.

im not sure what you mean with the only route to saving the human race

As in, the subject of this thread. Economic development by itself will only be a partial solution. Without education for women, it will not be as effective (based on the evidence we have so far).

well not by everyone but... there is significal number especially on educated women and I think its only going to grow in the future...

Originally Posted by blackscorp

well not by everyone but... there is significal number especially on educated women and I think its only going to grow in the future...

Sorry, I can't parse that sentence.

What is "not by everyone" referring to?

And what does "significant(?) number" mean? Number of what?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by blackscorp

well not by everyone but... there is significal number especially on educated women and I think its only going to grow in the future...

Sorry, I can't parse that sentence.

What is "not by everyone" referring to?

And what does "significant(?) number" mean? Number of what?

well what I mean is that there is a peak in statics showing that educated women don't have children at all and from a evolutionary view this aint that weird... you lack as mother/care much more than some others do...

Women should be educated but men as well sould be educated as new forms of contraceptives are now available to them too.

One goal of research is to develop a male oral contraceptive, a male contraceptive that can be taken in pill form by mouth, similar to the existing oral contraceptive pill for women.

• Calcium channel blockers such as nifedipine may cause reversible infertility by altering the lipid metabolism of sperm so that they are not able to fertilize an egg.Recent Research at Israel's Bar-Ilan University show that as of June 2010, such a pill may be five years away. Testing it on mice has been found to be effective, with no side effects.

• A compound that interferes with the vitamin A pathway has been shown to render male mice sterile for the course of the treatment without affecting libido. Once taken off the compound, the mice continued to make sperm. The mechanism of action includes blocking the conversion of vitamin A into its active form retinoic acid which binds to retinoic receptors which is needed to initiate sperm production.This can be done, for instance, by blocking an aldehyde dehydrogenase called RALDH3 (ALDH1A2), which converts retinaldehyde into retionic acid in testes. Past attempts to do this failed because the blocking compounds were not sufficiently specific and also blocked other aldehyde dehydrogenases, such as those responsible for the alcohol metabolism, causing serious side effects.

Another way is blocking retionic receptors themselves, although it can also have serious side effects.

• Adjudin, a non-toxic analog of lonidamine has been shown to cause reversible infertility in rats.The drug disrupts the junctions between nurse cells (Sertoli cells) in the testes and forming spermatids. The sperm are released prematurely and never become functional gametes. A new targeted delivery mechanism has made Adjudin much more effective.

• Gamendazole, a derivative of lonidamine, shows semi-reversible infertility in rats. The mechanism of action is thought to be disruption of Sertoli cell function, resulting in decreased levels of inhibin B.

• Multiple male hormonal contraceptive protocols have been developed. One is a combination protocol, involving injections of Depo-Provera to prevent spermatogenesis, combined with the topical application of testosterone gel to provide hormonal support. Another is a monthly injection of testosterone undecanoate, which recently performed very well in a Phase III trial in China.

• Research has been performed on interference with the maturation of sperm in the epididymis.

• Phenoxybenzamine has been found to block ejaculation, which gives it the potential to be an effective contraceptive. Studies have found that the quality of the semen is unaffected and the results are reversible by simply discontinuing the treatment.

• Silodosin, an α1-adrenoceptor antagonist with high uroselectivity, has been shown to completely block ejaculation in human males while permitting the sensation of orgasm.

• Trestolone is an anabolic steroid that has been shown to significantly reduce sperm count.

Many new "green" forms of energy are being developed. There are studies now being made that will help humanity in the futire to help with all environmental issues we face today. It will just take time and studies to learn more and understand better just what we need to do to insure that the Earth doesn't die.

Originally Posted by blackscorp

well what I mean is that there is a peak in statics showing that educated women don't have children at all

That may be part of it, but it is nowhere near as significant as the overall reduction in large family sizes. In the same way that the occasional family in the developed world having 20 children is irrelevant. Remember we are dealing with averages for the population here.

and from a evolutionary view this aint that weird... you lack as mother/care much more than some others do...

I assume (hope) you are not saying that education means women no longer make good mothers?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by blackscorp

well what I mean is that there is a peak in statics showing that educated women don't have children at all

That may be part of it, but it is nowhere near as significant as the overall reduction in large family sizes. In the same way that the occasional family in the developed world having 20 children is irrelevant. Remember we are dealing with averages for the population here.

and from a evolutionary view this aint that weird... you lack as mother/care much more than some others do...

I assume (hope) you are not saying that education means women no longer make good mothers?

im saying that there are various factors... why educated women indeed make no longer good mothers... and yes overall family sizes are smaller due to educating women as also males... and some other factors...

Originally Posted by blackscorp

im saying that there are various factors... why educated women indeed make no longer good mothers...

You really do think educated women make worse mothers? What on Earth do you base that on?

Prediction: blackscorp will say that edcuated women are more likely to seek a career and so will delegate a significant part of the child's upbringing to child minders and the like.

In this regard I would agree with blackscorp. What we need is more househusbands.

So educated men make worse fathers as well. Fair enough. </irony>

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by blackscorp

im saying that there are various factors... why educated women indeed make no longer good mothers...

You really do think educated women make worse mothers? What on Earth do you base that on?

well on of main things is that mothering its in your genes a instinct and this gives many times problems with what you learn (about behavior etc.) the second is that an educated women will have less time to take care of a child (lets get a nanny) and maybe most important (and I don't know if im saying this right) educated women wants garantys... something totally don't melt together with children and being mother... they get very late children think about other things than raising childs or being good mother... they rather read a book than playing or whatever with a child... I know you will this probally call assumptions

Originally Posted by Strange

So educated men make worse fathers as well. Fair enough. </irony>

wel maybe but less than mothers... because evolutionary seen father spends very little time with children and they teach their children most of things

Originally Posted by blackscorp

I know you will this probally call assumptions

I wouldn't dream of calling it anything so polite.

the second is that an educated women will have less time to take care of a child (lets get a nanny) and maybe most important (and I don't know if im saying this right) educated women wants garantys... something totally don't melt together with children and being mother... they get very late children think about other things than raising childs or being good mother... they rather read a book than playing or whatever with a child... I know you will this probally call assumptions

Speaking for myself - and a good many other women I know - the solution is simple. Choose a partner who's a decent person with no hidebound ideas about who does what in a house or with the children. It helps if they also have a job with some capacity to be flexible with taking kids to doctors and the like. It also helps if both parents can cope with the kids on their own when the other parent has to be away from home for a few days or weeks for work.

Choose your partner wisely, if they're any good they'll also be a good parenting partner. All else can be learned or managed.

anybody want to be my soulmate?

spoiler: i want at least 20 babies of my own.

Originally Posted by Strange

So educated men make worse fathers as well. Fair enough. </irony>

Properly educated parents living in a truly equable civilisation would recognise that child responsibilities should be shared, with the obvious exceptions - for the moment - of childbirth and breast feeding.

Originally Posted by adelady

Choose a partner who's a decent person with no hidebound ideas about who does what in a house or with the children.

*GF looks at list of chores*
GF: "Who's job is it to do the washing up?"
Me: "The dishwasher's."

GF: "Who's job is it to do the vacuuming?"
Me: "Not mine!"
GF: "We'll have to get a cleaner in then."

GF: "Who's job is it to do the cooking?"
Me: "Get the hell out of my kitchen!"
GF: "That's fine by me!"

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

anybody want to be my soulmate?

spoiler: i want at least 20 babies of my own.

You pitchin' or catchin' ? (wink wink)

Originally Posted by blackscorp

I assume (hope) you are not saying that education means women no longer make good mothers?

Actually mother education is the strongest predictor of child success of all other factors, even outweighing marriage and standard of living. Here's a summary representing one of several studies with that finding.


Mother's education trumps marriage or co-habitation when it comes to well-being of children, study shows


And an examination of meta studies about the same topic.
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/OR/ResearchRpts/parlit.html

Originally Posted by adelady

the second is that an educated women will have less time to take care of a child (lets get a nanny) and maybe most important (and I don't know if im saying this right) educated women wants garantys... something totally don't melt together with children and being mother... they get very late children think about other things than raising childs or being good mother... they rather read a book than playing or whatever with a child... I know you will this probally call assumptions

Speaking for myself - and a good many other women I know - the solution is simple. Choose a partner who's a decent person with no hidebound ideas about who does what in a house or with the children. It helps if they also have a job with some capacity to be flexible with taking kids to doctors and the like. It also helps if both parents can cope with the kids on their own when the other parent has to be away from home for a few days or weeks for work.

Choose your partner wisely, if they're any good they'll also be a good parenting partner. All else can be learned or managed.

what you are saying right here is that you have to find a male who is gonna play for mother... which is fundamentaly illness in thinking

Originally Posted by PhDemon

What century are you living in? Alf Garnett would be proud of you...

I don't know but not on metrosexual century...

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Just a bigoted sexist one then

well call it what you wish but I prefer realistic one...

Well done Strange.
Nice to see you presenting it how it is.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by blackscorp

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Just a bigoted sexist one then

well call it what you wish but I prefer realistic one...

Only to an uneducated neanderthal (and that's insulting neanderthals). You're going on ignore before I post something I won't regret but may get me in trouble with the mods -- life's too short to argue with bigoted morons.

lol just lol

Originally Posted by PhDemon

troll, just troll *ignore list edited*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Originally Posted by PhDemon

What century are you living in? Alf Garnett would be proud of you...

Hadn't heard of Alf before....interesting. Seems Archy Bunker might have modeled after him. Unfortunately there's still too many with that thinking around--pedaling fear and intolerance and non-scientific confirmation bias that point to disadvantaged victims of the very oppression they create.

And Blackscorp be careful before inferring others have an illness in thinking, particularly when that other poster has science on their side, unless you want more time to look for another forum. Adelady comments would be equally valid advise for either sex--children do best in homes of flexible income, well educated and loving parents (of any combination of gender).

Originally Posted by adelady

Can anybody think of acceptable ways to accomplish scenario C ? I see several, that don't seem too unjust, but I'm curious if others see them.

Education of girls and women. There have always been women who've managed, or been forced by sterility, to be childless.

I agree that's one way. With equal opportunities some women will find a calling and nevermind having any children. These are really productive individuals too.

Also a young woman who sees good career prospects for herself is not going to make herself dependent on a male breadwinner. She won't need to keep a husband invested in her by mothering a string of offspring. We saw this turnaround in China, when government policies essentially emasculated the male population women stopped sucking up to men.

Educated women also have a huge social impact. Many important small businesses, aimed at helping their local society, in India and Africa have been started by women. Men (and I hate this sort of generalization) tend to go for grander goals (i.e. making lots of money) than just helping people.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by babe

I had two......if people only did that fine...where did I read today that that couple that has 19 children are trying for their 20th? Frankly I think that is ******* sick!

An economy actually does better when individuals specialize, and devote their lives to that specialty. It just doesn't make sense to occupy half the population with raising kids, when a smaller segment can make a career of raising more than their share. You know what happened to the productivity of Europe after they invented kindergarten, nannies, public school and day-care?

Ideally none of us would reproduce, except for a minority of dedicated super-breeders. If you think that's wrong, just try squishing all the ants.



Okay, let me plainly illustrate what I mean. Suppose you have a country of just 3 women and 3 men. Consider national productivity in these scenarios:

A) 3 couples, 2 children each.

B) 2 couples, 3 children each; 2 dedicated professionals.

C) 1 couple, 6 children; 4 dedicated professionals.


Can anybody think of acceptable ways to accomplish scenario C ? I see several, that don't seem too unjust, but I'm curious if others see them.

All of those women could possibly not be able to conceive. Then there is no reproduction.

Who gets to chose who has a baby(ies) and who doesn't. That takes away freedom of choice and why can't a person who has children NOT BE A DEDICATED professional. I happen to know of many who have children and very successful careers.

Who died and made you king anyhow?

Don't care too much for society's geared around maximizing the economy...it's fundamentally flawed and a bad hangover from hard industry. The best possible future isn't one where everyone is working...but a future where almost no works but still has plenty.

That being said, I think it's far better off if the stay-at-home parent becomes the dedicated professional at raising their child and is well supported and recognized for the value of that profession.

Originally Posted by blackscorp

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by blackscorp

well what I mean is that there is a peak in statics showing that educated women don't have children at all

That may be part of it, but it is nowhere near as significant as the overall reduction in large family sizes. In the same way that the occasional family in the developed world having 20 children is irrelevant. Remember we are dealing with averages for the population here.

and from a evolutionary view this aint that weird... you lack as mother/care much more than some others do...

I assume (hope) you are not saying that education means women no longer make good mothers?

im saying that there are various factors... why educated women indeed make no longer good mothers... and yes overall family sizes are smaller due to educating women as also males... and some other factors...

That is ridiculous. I know many educated mothers who are exceptional mothers. Being educating has nothing to do with ability to nurture.

Does a child benefit from having one or other parent available to them almost continuously throughout their formative years? Yes, or no?

I believe the answer is yes. An equally satisfactory (possibly superior) alternative is to be raised within an extended family, by aunts and uncles and older cousins. This is rare in western society.

Does anyone wish to dispute this? If so, would they please provide citations to support something that would be, as far as I understand it, pretty unorthodox thinking within this field.


Now, I do not have research at hand to establish my next point and I shall happily concede that I mistaken if someone produces solid evidence to the contrary, but I suspect that well educated women ar more likley to continue working after they have children than poorly educated women. And they will do so even though their partner continues to work.

If this is the case (and you see I recognise it is a large if) then it follows that well educated women will make poorer mothers as part of a marriage partnership that makes poorer parents.


It seems to me that several of you are arguing with blackscorp because you dislike what you perceive as bigotry, not because you have objectively assessed the facts. That's very noble, but it's not logical and it's not science. So, does anyone have data on the tendency of the well educated women to work through that key development period?

I'll post a few extracts from a literature review about some of the good questions. The is both a strong positive relationship between education and child success, as well as time at home.

"Parental time with children is both an important and necessary component of families. The positive influence of parental time with children on child outcomes is well established in the existing literature (Amato & Rivera, 1999; Cooksey & Fondell, 1996; Hofferth, 2006). Research has clearly demonstrated the amount of time spent with both mothers and fathers each independently predicts fewer behavioral problems later in childhood (Amato & Rivera, 1999; Hofferth, 2006). Parental time with children is also positively associated with better academic performance (Cooksey & Fondell, 1996). Moreover, Hofferth and Sandberg (2001) suggest that time with parents provide opportunities for children’s social, cognitive, and emotional development. Additional research provides evidence that loss of parental time with children is associated with a host of negative child outcomes, including dropping out of high school and teen pregnancy (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994)."Wrinkles in Parental Time with Children: Work, Family Structure, and Gender

I suspect that well educated women ar more likley to continue working after they have children than poorly educated women. And they will do so even though their partner continues to work.

If this is the case (and you see I recognise it is a large if) then it follows that well educated women will make poorer mothers as part of a marriage partnership that makes poorer parents.

Why should it? It's strongly dependent on the childcare arrangements I would have thought - as well as what parents do and don't do when they are with the children.

And the childcare arrangements / time spent by parent with the children is highly dependent on the working hours/ travel times of those parents. For a small child, there's a world of difference between both parents being obliged to leave them in care (of someone - and it probably makes a difference where and who with) for 10+ hours a day and parents having distinct or overlapping work/ travel arrangements that mean only 5 or 6 hours a day with neither parent available.

Originally Posted by adelady

And the childcare arrangements / time spent by parent with the children is highly dependent on the working hours/ travel times of those parents. For a small child, there's a world of difference between both parents being obliged to leave them in care (of someone - and it probably makes a difference where and who with) for 10+ hours a day and parents having distinct or overlapping work/ travel arrangements that mean only 5 or 6 hours a day with neither parent available.

Such childcare arrangements do not match our evolutionary requirements.

Such childcare arrangements do not match our evolutionary requirements.

Evolutionary requirements? I thought the latest thinking on this was that the reason for our reproductive success was the role of grandmothers in particular and "aunties" in general. Women without infants of their own who can look after toddlers while mothers are fully occupied with babies and/or harder work in obtaining food.

oke the next thing im gonna say is gonna give people headeaches... evolutionary males wins always from women... (if they will stood one against other...) that said the the women her education etc is all only made because of man wanted to give this... just for the beauty of the women and her mothers possibilitys ITS only the male who gived in... trought evolution don't get me wrong I love educated women far more than some bimbo... but women education and mothertallents aint going well together thats why male mostly brought things like washing machine etc etc so the women could combine both... and maybe somewhere in the future we got such devices that much more is possible.... in combining those two this being said I think a little bit respect is on its place instead of rude words of Bigotry

I think a little bit respect is on its place

Respect has to be earned. In the unlikely event you ever deserved any, you have given that up with your posts here. Attitudes like yours should not be respected, they should be condemned.

I chose not to return to work, with my husband's total "blessing" after our daughter was born. I continued to do music and special projects.

It is a very personal decision. Financially, it was difficult at that time.

Do I regret it.

Not one single moment.

The best laid plans don't always work out.

We'd planned that I'd stay home with the first baby for 6 months, and then for as long as possible - open ended - after the second. Hah!

Baby number 1 was as sick as a dog with chronic reflux so I stayed home until she was securely walking and not choking in her sleep - well over a year, especially when you add in the last 10 plus weeks of the pregnancy with me more or less immobilised by crook joints. Just remembered. Her wonderful first birthday celebration - I was in hospital with a virus, she came to visit in her cute little red dressing gown. (The doctor's insistence on hospitalisation didn't work. I got pneumonia a week later anyway. So my first couple of weeks back at work were a bundle of laughs.)

Baby number 2. The joints and muscles were causing problems before I'd even had the pregnancy test. A few weeks in hospital before she was born, then we came home. Couldn't bath the baby, couldn't play with the toddler, couldn't do much at all apart from get to the physio a couple of times a week. Gave up breast feeding fairly soon.

And gave up on the whole happy families dream of mummy making playdough for the kids at home. Went back to work after just 6 months because I could, just, sit at a desk most of the day but I couldn't look after my kids.

We had a happy family life but it wasn't the one we'd envisaged.

Originally Posted by adelady

The best laid plans don't always work out.

We'd planned that I'd stay home with the first baby for 6 months, and then for as long as possible - open ended - after the second. Hah!

Baby number 1 was as sick as a dog with chronic reflux so I stayed home until she was securely walking and not choking in her sleep - well over a year, especially when you add in the last 10 plus weeks of the pregnancy with me more or less immobilised by crook joints.

Baby number 2. The joints and muscles were causing problems before I'd even had the pregnancy test. A few weeks in hospital before she was born, then we came home. Couldn't bath the baby, couldn't play with the toddler, couldn't do much at all apart from get to the physio a couple of times a week. Gave up breast feeding fairly soon.

And gave up on the whole happy families dream of mummy making playdough for the kids at home. Went back to work after just 6 months because I could, just, sit at a desk most of the day but I couldn't look after my kids.

We had a happy family life but it wasn't the one we'd envisaged.

Life doesn't always hand us roses w/o thorns. That you had a happy family life, is the bottom line!

Originally Posted by Strange

I think a little bit respect is on its place

Respect has to be earned. In the unlikely event you ever deserved any, you have given that up with your posts here. Attitudes like yours should not be respected, they should be condemned.

I wasn't talking about me but males and women in general...

I wasn't talking about me but males and women in general...

If you want to do that, back it up with some published research because [citation needed] for the stuff you've been saying.

husband and wife are two sides of same coin. male has harsh responsibilities to look after wife and children and protect them economically and socially. and wife is at least supposed to add some "softnes in children" by being with them at least while they are "small and stupid and in need of love". wife has supporting role while husband is leader. leader has to take some tough decisions keeping in view the social conditions and wife has to support.

usually higher education (not literacy )affects the role played by woman as wife and as mother. she expects from her husband to even perform/share her soft duties of taking care of "stupid little creatures" (children) in house. slowly this become troublesome and married life ends and children lives destroyed. this creates chain reaction in society.

the balance between profesional life and home life, for a wife, is very delicate matter.

Originally Posted by adelady

I wasn't talking about me but males and women in general...

If you want to do that, back it up with some published research because [citation needed] for the stuff you've been saying.

i don't have nice move to make me look unbelievable but it doenst make it less true...

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

<primitive views deleted>

Has the forum been transported back to the 19th century? Should we stick some gears on it and call it steampunk?

Originally Posted by Strange

Should we stick some gears on it and call it steampunk?

No - because steampunk is cool and misogyny is not.

Though I can imagine what my husband's face would look like if I informed him that he was now obliged to act as a "leader".

Perhaps I'll write up a suggested list for his "leader" responsibilities and for my "support" role. Maybe not. It'd be one of those passing jokes that doesn't improve with extended telling.

Originally Posted by adelady

Though I can imagine what my husband's face would look like if I informed him that he was now obliged to act as a "leader".

Or imagine divorcing them because helping to look after the children was "troublesome".

this is male dominant society and will remain forever. it is usually the choice of male to reproduce more babies.
this is my observation , i am not women hater. but women lover

overpopulation is mostly due to male mentality.

1- some people want male child desperately and probablity does not favour them.
2- some people live in joint families where bringing up a child is an easy task. so they enjoy making more babies.
3- religion is against contraceptive usage. and most people are religious (except on this forum)

love you all - old thinker
(sir ir r aj)
(observation on Asia)(but in west there is no need of marriage for increasing population, because of freedom of sex and dating)

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

this is male dominant society and will remain forever.

Oh right. And lets not try and change that.

Hey, there are children starving, but there probably always have been so why bother to try and improve things.

With attitudes like yours, it is surprising we don't still have slavery. (Or maybe you do in your country.)

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

this is male dominant society and will remain forever.

Oh right. And lets not try and change that.

Hey, there are children starving, but there probably always have been so why bother to try and improve things.

With attitudes like yours, it is surprising we don't still have slavery. (Or maybe you do in your country.)

I think the last thing an western europian or American Australian would be blame other countrys for things like slavery... nuclear power genocides etc... that's THE REAL ATTITUDE and for those who wanna know im europian...

Originally Posted by Strange

Hey, there are children starving, but there probably always have been so why bother to try and improve things.

(Or maybe you do in your country.)

yes we are responsible for everything.
but my country has not invaded other countries like afghanitan, iraq, vietnam, and did not change others' fate by black operations of CIA. you kill innocent children by drones because you want to decrease world population. please feed starving children do not kill them. a woman general in your army cant make such decisions of brutality. (is there any woman general in USA army?).
and you talk about my country's slavery. we , here in my country, dont make slave women, but also cant allow them to be showpiece in public places as our society is male dominant. but this discusion is irrelevant.
your(west) population is decreasing and Asia's increasing, balance is shifting to Asia. what weapon will you make to counter this or whole world's problem?
i try to stick to main topic

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

this is male dominant society and will remain forever. it is usually the choice of male to reproduce more babies.

Only in a society where rape is accepted.

1- some people want male child desperately and probablity does not favour them.

Nor does it hinder them. Your odds of having a male child are around 50/50.

2- some people live in joint families where bringing up a child is an easy task. so they enjoy making more babies.
3- religion is against contraceptive usage. and most people are religious (except on this forum)

Most people in first world countries use contraception.

I think that genetically modified foods would be a solution to human overpopulation.

On religion

Religion does not prevent contraception. Italy has a fertility rate rapidly falling towards 1. Yet it is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, and they are forbidden to use contraception. Fortunately Italians, religious or not, are not stupid, and contraception is widely used.

The data shows clearly that poverty is what prevents contraception. Nations with people struggling to survive; with uneducated women (and men), with corruption in government, with medical care scarce or non existent, with hunger and occasional famines - well, these are the places with maximum population growth.

The key to population control is to get such places to a state of relative prosperity. Provide non corrupt government, universal education, the internet, food security etc., When people are educated and secure, the rate of reproduction falls.

Originally Posted by skeptic

On religion

Religion does not prevent contraception. Italy has a fertility rate rapidly falling towards 1. Yet it is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, and they are forbidden to use contraception. Fortunately Italians, religious or not, are not stupid, and contraception is widely used.

The data shows clearly that poverty is what prevents contraception. Nations with people struggling to survive; with uneducated women (and men), with corruption in government, with medical care scarce or non existent, with hunger and occasional famines - well, these are the places with maximum population growth.

The key to population control is to get such places to a state of relative prosperity. Provide non corrupt government, universal education, the internet, food security etc., When people are educated and secure, the rate of reproduction falls.

its a society where people rather play with tamagochi than get kids...

Originally Posted by blackscorp

its a society where people rather play with tamagochi than get kids...

Far more that women given a choice would rather raise one or two kids well, starting when they are financially and emotionally ready to give their children the best nutrition, medical care and education than have large families they cannot do the best for.

Originally Posted by skeptic

When people are educated and secure, the rate of reproduction falls.

No, the North American baby boom contradicts that. The population explosion was planned - with women driven out of the workforce and "family men" given higher salaries. This during a time of unprecedented affluence, and women better educated than ever.

We could repeat it again, regardless of national prosperity or education, by again forcing women to consider "housewife" the best bet for a secure future.

Skeptic, if you'd think that women are actually responsible for their lives and choose to have babies, you needn't grope for indirect causes driving a nation's birthrate.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Far more that women given a choice would rather raise one or two kids well, starting when they are financially and emotionally ready to give their children the best nutrition, medical care and education than have large families they cannot do the best for.

It depends on how competitive their kid's environment will be. In Japan for example, children with many siblings are sorely disadvantaged because they start competing for better careers even in preschool. But in traditional farming families one more kid requires little more than an extra plate at the dinner table. Notice this difference alone does not affect whether women will aim to be full-time mothers, since a Japanese mother of one may actually invest more energy in her prodigy than a rural Thai mother of five.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Far more that women given a choice would rather raise one or two kids well, starting when they are financially and emotionally ready to give their children the best nutrition, medical care and education than have large families they cannot do the best for.

It depends on how competitive their kid's environment will be. In Japan for example, children with many siblings are sorely disadvantaged because they start competing for better careers even in preschool. But in traditional farming families one more kid requires little more than an extra plate at the dinner table. Notice this difference alone does not affect whether women will aim to be full-time mothers, since a Japanese mother of one may actually invest more energy in her prodigy than a rural Thai mother of five.

We can dispute the reasons or the validity of mother's perceptions but the evidence is very strong and in nearly every culture: when women are allowed contraception, a choice in marriage, and even a bit of economic freedom, they choose to have less children--even in otherwise relative poor agriculturally based nations. Their children also do far better, suggesting "mothers know best" (had to say it....lol)

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by blackscorp

its a society where people rather play with tamagochi than get kids...

Far more that women given a choice would rather raise one or two kids well, starting when they are financially and emotionally ready to give their children the best nutrition, medical care and education than have large families they cannot do the best for.

we just said the better education and income social eviroment the less children...otherwise you have to discuss it with skeptic

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

husband and wife are two sides of same coin. male has harsh responsibilities to look after wife and children and protect them economically and socially. and wife is at least supposed to add some "softnes in children" by being with them at least while they are "small and stupid and in need of love". wife has supporting role while husband is leader. leader has to take some tough decisions keeping in view the social conditions and wife has to support.

usually higher education (not literacy )affects the role played by woman as wife and as mother. she expects from her husband to even perform/share her soft duties of taking care of "stupid little creatures" (children) in house. slowly this become troublesome and married life ends and children lives destroyed. this creates chain reaction in society.

the balance between profesional life and home life, for a wife, is very delicate matter.

What century do you live in? Seriously! Are you MAD?

To Pong

The connection between poverty and lack of education of women, with reproduction, is not really open to question. It has been well demonstrated. Therewas a boost to reproduction in western nations after WWII, but nothing like what is happening in impoverished third world nations.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

We can dispute the reasons or the validity of mother's perceptions but the evidence is very strong and in nearly every culture: when women are allowed contraception, a choice in marriage, and even a bit of economic freedom, they choose to have less children--even in otherwise relative poor agriculturally based nations. Their children also do far better, suggesting "mothers know best" (had to say it....lol)

That's all right. Sorry I get my hackles up when third world women are regarded as a sort of passive landscape animal whose breeding can be regulated by airdropping books, contraceptives, or (?) toppling a dictatorship. If you reckon babies mostly come by women's conscious, personal decisions, I'm okay with that.

Skeptic, I'll quit contradicting you year after year if we agree that births are basically caused by women's choices.



Not much interest in my post #11 that claims humanity optimally employs procreation "specialists". Does this mean the current ways we're doing this is are unacceptable? DO we want a world of couples, each couple raising one or two children? Let's reconsider the 1950's American dream of nuclear family with 2.5 kids... is this the best ideal we can imagine?

One possible solution I had in mind is having some negative birthrate countries, for immigration; and some positive birthrate countries, for emigration. You have a work-oriented culture in one, and a family-oriented culture in the other. Given the ease of international trade and travel, we get the best of both worlds.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by skeptic

When people are educated and secure, the rate of reproduction falls.

No, the North American baby boom contradicts that.

This is a statistical trend for populations. It is not some sort of absolute law that says that an extra of hour of school will mean an individual girls has 0.01 less children. (I know you don't mean that...)

The fertility rates in developed countries vary hugely and change over time (in both directions) as other factors change. But, they all have fertility rates lower than developing countries.

Originally Posted by Pong

That's all right. Sorry I get my hackles up when third world women are regarded as a sort of passive landscape animal

I don't think anyone thinks that (apart, perhaps, from some of the Neanderthals who have posted their mysogynistic views).

Skeptic, I'll quit contradicting you year after year if we agree that births are basically caused by women's choices.

The point about improved wealth, health and education is that it enables women to make different choices.

Births caused by womens choices?

Yes, to a large degree. That is not the only factor, of course.

Can't argue with that.

well choices like in abortus... pretty bad if such things realy have power on fertility static

Originally Posted by blackscorp

well choices like in abortus... pretty bad if such things realy have power on fertility static

I see no evidence that that is a significant factor.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by blackscorp

well choices like in abortus... pretty bad if such things realy have power on fertility static

I see no evidence that that is a significant factor.

I think it does... for about 25% of 100%total factors and about 40 45% conception I don't know but I thought it was about 1 on 3 women had at least once abortus...this is what I just found http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]it says 4 of 10 (which is 40%) than it says 22 procent.. hmm

Yes abortion effects and opens up choices for women... when they think they aren't ready to have a child, as well as when there are a severe health problem with the fetus.

Is it possible that the earth is not over populated but over greedy and over dominated by masculine ideals?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Is it possible that the earth is not over populated but over greedy and over dominated by masculine ideals?

the earth is over populated by its natural biological way of life...etc... the earth is overpopulated by todays living standars... big home pool big garden car boat etc etc... this greedy and masculine ideals is why humanity stil exist

I think the planet would eliminate and balance everything if it became necessary. I think big cars and flashy boats could be here and still enough would be there for everyone. I want to think that its power that is causing the problem. Some people should be dead, but the need to make money is greater than the idea of letting nature take its course.

Originally Posted by blackscorp

Originally Posted by Stargate

Is it possible that the earth is not over populated but over greedy and over dominated by masculine ideals?

the earth is over populated by its natural biological way of life...etc... the earth is overpopulated by todays living standars... big home pool big garden car boat etc etc... this greedy and masculine ideals is why humanity stil exist

Viability of sexual species depends on behavior and evolutionary adaption by both sexes.

Overpopulation is a subjective and unscientific idea. There is no way to determine an 'optimal' population. My own view is that it is about how well we can care for the people in a nation. A place like Singapore has a very high population density but is not 'overpopulated' because their society is productive enough to provide a good standard of living for all. I have, though, recently returned from a visit to the Philippine Islands, and they cannot. So the Philippines can be said to be overpopulated, while Singapore, with a much higher population density is not.

A place like Singapore has a very high population density but is not 'overpopulated' because their society is productive enough to provide a good standard of living for all.

Depends on what you think does and doesn't qualify as overpopulated. Singapore imports 90% of its food. By my own standards, that's a precarious position to be in. Others might think differently.

Importing food is a reality of the 21st Century. So is international trade in all its forms. There will be food producing nations, like NZ and Oz, and food consuming nations. I see no problem there. The more important thing is for each nation to have some means of generating money, so that it can buy what it needs.

Originally Posted by blackscorp

Originally Posted by Stargate

Is it possible that the earth is not over populated but over greedy and over dominated by masculine ideals?

the earth is over populated by its natural biological way of life...etc... the earth is overpopulated by todays living standars... big home pool big garden car boat etc etc... this greedy and masculine ideals is why humanity stil exist

And so? Why is that greedy?

You work. You succeed. What is your point and why does that have anything to do with "overpopulation"?

Originally Posted by blackscorp

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by blackscorp

well choices like in abortus... pretty bad if such things realy have power on fertility static

I see no evidence that that is a significant factor.

I think it does... for about 25% of 100%total factors and about 40 45% conception I don't know but I thought it was about 1 on 3 women had at least once abortus...this is what I just found Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]it says 4 of 10 (which is 40%) than it says 22 procent.. hmm

Perhaps Japan's a glitch, but it contradicts a lot of popular wisdom: Less than 1% of women use birth control pill, abortion is rare (quasi-legal IIRC), yet the nation has a low birthrate.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Importing food is a reality of the 21st Century. So is international trade in all its forms. There will be food producing nations, like NZ and Oz, and food consuming nations. I see no problem there. The more important thing is for each nation to have some means of generating money, so that it can buy what it needs.

International trade in all its forms must include the movement of people. Canada draws population from Southeast Asia and other emigration regions. And we send back ... well actually we don't send much back... mostly just kids who finished their student visas... but you get my point. Better look at Silicone Valley, the IT exporter. International brain drain to Silicone Valley is fair trade, isn't it? This is regional specialization. When regions specialize as motherlands they free other regions (and cultures) to be geared toward different occupations.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by blackscorp

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by blackscorp

well choices like in abortus... pretty bad if such things realy have power on fertility static

I see no evidence that that is a significant factor.

I think it does... for about 25% of 100%total factors and about 40 45% conception I don't know but I thought it was about 1 on 3 women had at least once abortus...this is what I just found Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]it says 4 of 10 (which is 40%) than it says 22 procent.. hmm

Perhaps Japan's a glitch, but it contradicts a lot of popular wisdom: Less than 1% of women use birth control pill, abortion is rare (quasi-legal IIRC), yet the nation has a low birthrate.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Importing food is a reality of the 21st Century. So is international trade in all its forms. There will be food producing nations, like NZ and Oz, and food consuming nations. I see no problem there. The more important thing is for each nation to have some means of generating money, so that it can buy what it needs.

International trade in all its forms must include the movement of people. Canada draws population from Southeast Asia and other emigration regions. And we send back ... well actually we don't send much back... mostly just kids who finished their student visas... but you get my point. Better look at Silicone Valley, the IT exporter. International brain drain to Silicone Valley is fair trade, isn't it? This is regional specialization. When regions specialize as motherlands they free other regions (and cultures) to be geared toward different occupations.

Every region needs a lot of the minds of Silicone Valley. Think about it.