Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Control in human population

  1. #1 Control in human population 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3
    Increase in human population is the main cause to all kinds of problem (social problem, global warming and etc.) that we are facing right now. Therefore, is controlling in human population is the best solution to all the problems?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    The main cause of all problems is political and economical, and not related to population increase as such.

    If population increase would be the main cause of social problems there would have been less social problems 50-60 years ago.

    Clearly that isn't true.


    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    High population doesn't do much to help us though, it is undeniable that population increase should be controlled, however this can only be done with education. It has been shown that population growth in the western world is relatively controlled, this is a result of education and easy access to birth control. As developing countries become more stable and their middle class growths there should be a levelling off in their population.

    I don't agree with legislating birth limits like China has done.

    As spurious has pointed out, lowering population won't get rid of war or pollution, but it would lower our capacity to produce pollution to an extent and it would definitely help combat the world food shortage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The persistence, intensity, character, implications and dangers besetting humanity would all be diminished by many orders of magnitude if the world population were 10% of what it is. (Also you wouldn't have to queue at airline check in. 8) )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Yea I agree, lower population growth would certainly make a lot of problems less acute. There are plenty of countries that simply can't sustain more people: you can't increase the stock of drinking water, and increasing the crop yield of farmland can end up causing erosion.
    And the world as a whole has a limited capacity as well. CO2 emissions and global warming come to mind, but problems like oil shortage and price hikes for other raw materials can also be linked to population growth.

    Maybe the Chinese model of government enforced family planning is too harsh, but China's low population growth may have had some very positive effects on the country as well. Lots of developping countries have experienced economic growth over the past decades, but if the population grew even faster than the economy their poverty problems stay the same.
    Actually I can think of situations in which government enforced family planning can be justified. Imagine a village with 10 inhabitants and a water source that can provide 10 people just enough water to survive. If one family would decide that it'd be fun to have 5 children instead of 1 or 2 then you may die of thirst because of their decision. There are countries where this is actually not a completely hypothetical example, where water shortage and population growth are both very high (I saw for example Mali being described like this).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    The persistence, intensity, character, implications and dangers besetting humanity would all be diminished by many orders of magnitude if the world population were 10% of what it is. (Also you wouldn't have to queue at airline check in. 8) )
    Unless there would also be only 10% of the present number of airport personel :P But the argument holds for finite resources and overcrowding problems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    People.

    There was war, famine, social unrest when the world's population was a tenth of what it is now.

    You can wish the problems will go away with less people but it is nothing bu wishful thinking.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    People.

    There was war, famine, social unrest when the world's population was a tenth of what it is now.

    You can wish the problems will go away with less people but it is nothing bu wishful thinking.
    I think that's too easy to say.

    On the worldwide scale it's clear that there's a finite amount of resources (oil, iron, copper, etc), and that the earth has a limited capacity to cope with our waste (including co2 emissions). It's possible for say 1 billion people to squander resources and fill the air with co2 without much consequences, but if 6, or 10 billion people or more try to do that we end up with price hikes, shortages and global warming. I don't see how that's wishful thinking or simplicity. If 10 people eat a cake it's finished faster than if 1 person eats it, I don't see how global warming and oil shortage is any different from that.

    And on the local scale there's also a limit to the number of people that can live comfortably. Try squeezing another billion people in Africa, it wont work. Water reserves wont suddenly grow to meet demand, problems of soil erosion caused by overexploitation of farmland wont disappear. Again it seems simple math to me: how much water/food/resources do people need, how much is available and how much room for growth is there? If you go too far you end up with poverty and suffering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    We're supposed to be 'intelligent' beings

    We modify our crops and many other natural elements on our planet to suit our needs

    surely it's not beyond us to be able to control our output

    Yet when the idea of restricting birth rate is put into the arena as a suggestion then people throw accusations of nanny state and communism.

    But it makes sense!

    Better to allow a democracy and give people choice

    Otherwise there is a very realistic certainty that the rate at which the population is multiplying will only increase suffering and we could wipe ourselves out.

    So really there is no choice
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    We are currently depleting resources at approximately twice the sustainable rate. When individuals do this they go bankrupt. When companies do this they die or are swallowed up by other companies. When species do this they become extinct.

    The choice is simple and the choice is yours. (and mine)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Nice to see we are sometimes agree Ophie

    We must be psychically connected?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    We must be psychically connected?
    We are on the same planet. Also a statistical analysis of molecular movement in the atmosphere would likely demonstrate we have both breathed some of the same nitrogen molecules.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Sustainable rates, have determined the current populations today and will in the future. We produce more crops per acre than ever before, not to mention where these crops are grown. Fish farms to feed lots and chicken, hog, beef production is limited only to demand and demand could double with a doubling of production. Water supply, my goodness we have had less than -1-% fresh water on the planet for eons, while populations grew. Today we replenish water supply a hundred ways and for many uses and can make fresh water from sea water. Natural resources are not in short supply and those that could be are in the process of being replaced. Even today more aluminum is used than steel in many products, not because its in short supply, but in fact cheaper. We can, if need be reproduce (simulate) many resources or just use other product to alloy a metal or receive the benefit, say in insulation. Society lives primarily on 3% of the planets land mass and we have the means to support 10 billion people, with out any adjustments. There are less wars today than most of history, more democracies of shorts and cooperation of governments unknown to our ancestors.

    Just a few things...but we or the people on this planet are at the mercy of only our own ignorance IMO. Religion, would seem to be a problem for modern government to control population and your two largest factions (Muslim/Catholics) seem to dislike any form of restriction. Democracies are elected and promote family through deductions or benefits to the Family structure, to get elected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •