Thread: Paying people not to reproduce

Suppose you've got the government of a highly overpopulated nation like India, China or Somalia, and they want to reduce that population over time. How effective would it be to simply offer people a lump sum of money, or perhaps some stipend payable over time, like a mini-pension, if they submit to have a medical procedure performed on them that will prevent them ever being able to reproduce (but still enables them to have enjoyable sex, of course). It's an optional and free procedure for everyone, but you only get the stipend if you agree to do it before your first child, so you will never in your whole life have any children.


How many people do you think would take the offer? How attractive would the stipend have to be?

Why not examine the factors that contribute to high birth rates and the factors that favor low birth rates in some developed countries, and see if you can act with education, free contraception and social measures on some of these instead?
I dont like the idea of cash for sterilization, it as a reactionary vibe, making it free for those that want to get it anyway sounds better to me.

I agree with icewendigo, I find the idea of 'paid' sterilization highly disturbing and I also think that better education and living standards would naturally lead to lower birth rates. Also contraception should be made available for free.

This is not the only way to reduce childbirth rates. Though in china and india, childbirth rates are already only 2,3 childs per generation. Which is low if compared to some afrikan countries. Some things can be done about lowering childbirth rates.

- Having heavy taxation on having more then 2 children. This taxation can be lifted if, yes both male and female get sterilised.
- Forced sterilisation on some people.
- Free anticonception.
- Better education, forced education until certain age (16).
- Making registrations mandatory before having a child, then having the parents dictate how they think to take care of it. If they can not, forced abortions.

Many seem very extreme though..

Why are some people so eager to take away people's rights?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Why are some people so eager to take away people's rights?

Specifically because I don't think reproduction should be a right. It's a dumb right to grant. You might as well grant everyone the right to a million dollars.

The right to create children is the right to create need. Whatever that child needs will be an obligation on the state. If the would-be parent doesn't plan to provide those needs, then they are essentially choosing for the state to spend X amount of money. Hence, why I see the two "rights" as being equally ridiculous. But, in reality, the right to reproduce unlimited children is slightly more ridiculous, because it's a blank check that each deadbeat is free to fill in with multiple values again and again.

No one should ever have the right to cause wealth they don't own to be consumed, especially not on an optional expense (optional beforehand anyway.)

[/quote]Specifically because I don't think reproduction should be a right. It's a dumb right to grant. You might as well grant everyone the right to a million dollars.[/quote]

I couldn't disagree with you any stronger. It's among the most fundamental of rights.

No one should ever have the right to cause wealth they don't own to be consumed,

That's a sucky argument that Romney might agree with, but apply it as a test for anything else. So only if rich can you have free speech, or practice your own religion (which cost us trillions in lost tax revenues), or the right to your own home so police just can't take it from you, or right not to incriminate...etc etc etc.

From a rights point of view I don't think you're position makes much sense. From an environmental point of view it doesn't make much sense because one rich kids likely to be more of a burden on our environmental than 10 poor nation kids.

And as already pointed out....we know how to lower birth rates. Empower women with birth control, education and a rights to control their own bodies--it's worked across the globe.

Originally Posted by kojax

Specifically because I don't think reproduction should be a right. It's a dumb right to grant. You might as well grant everyone the right to a million dollars.

By what authority do you decide what rights to "grant" to people?

Nah, i agree people should have the right to reproduce. Though it is the right for everybody else, to see that not a few people breed their asses off with 14 children, can't look after them, and then complain they need more money. There should be a balance. As having a good life, should be on number 1 for the child, not having a child, for the parents.

If proven, the parents can't support their child, they should not be able to have one to begin with. As a geneticist, i think this world is being flooded with the genepool of the few who are totally unsuccesfull in life. While leaving some who have no children's genes to die uit, while being succesfull in life. Isn't this reversed evolution?

Specifically because I don't think reproduction should be a right. It's a dumb right to grant. You might as well grant everyone the right to a million dollars.

I couldn't disagree with you any stronger. It's among the most fundamental of rights.

No one should ever have the right to cause wealth they don't own to be consumed,

That's a sucky argument that Romney might agree with, but apply it as a test for anything else. So only if rich can you have free speech, or practice your own religion (which cost us trillions in lost tax revenues), or the right to your own home so police just can't take it from you, or right not to incriminate...etc etc etc.

In all honesty, nobody can ever be rich enough to independently pay the costs their future generations will put on society. If Romney has 6 kids, and each of them has six kids, and ... etc... his fortune would quickly be depleted. By the 10th generation, nobody would even remember what the first guy's bank account looked like. So even he is "causing wealth to be expended which he doesn't own".

A fair way to do it would be to forbid everyone equally to have more than 2 kids. Rich, poor, smart, dumb, fat, slim ..... all equally limited to 2 kids. Try it any other way and the kinds of unfairness you're pointing out will almost inevitably creep in.

But either way, it still needs to cease to be a right. Calling it a "right" implies you're entitled to unlimited usage of it, and there's no way the environment or world economy can support unlimited usage of the right to reproduce. "Right to two kids" might work for me. Or "right to equal reproduction" (where the equality is to a small number... like .... 2?) that works too.

And as already pointed out....we know how to lower birth rates. Empower women with birth control, education and a rights to control their own bodies--it's worked across the globe.

The ability to achieve that decreases proportionally to the economic poverty of a nation. If your country is already languishing at a level where you can't improve your people's rights very well, and they're having gadzooks of kids (because that tends to be what impoverished cultures do), then the solution you just proposed falls under the category of "100% pure wishful thinking".


If the government decides to borrow or tax its way to being able to do what my OP suggests, and pay people of birth age to be sterilized, then on the one hand, the odds of people accepting the arrangement is very high, and on the other hand the money they receive may act as a small stimulus to the economy improving their own quality of life in a way where everyone could (maybe won't... but could) agree that they earned it.

If they still want to raise kids, they're free to adopt. Nobody is losing out on the opportunity to be a parent, only the opportunity to do so biologically.

Originally Posted by kojax

In all honesty, nobody can ever be rich enough to independently pay the costs their future generations will put on society. If Romney has 6 kids, and each of them has six kids, and ... etc... his fortune would quickly be depleted. By the 10th generation, nobody would even remember what the first guy's bank account looked like. So even he is "causing wealth to be expended which he doesn't own".

That assumes a zero sum game. Societies continue to get wealthier and more efficient at using what they have. Modern societies problems have to do with insatiable consumption which so far tends to overwhelms those dramatically increased efficiencies.

A fair way to do it would be to forbid everyone equally to have more than 2 kids. Rich, poor, smart, dumb, fat, slim ..... all equally limited to 2 kids.

Well that's better than just basing it on the person's wealth. It's also more consistent with how we view other rights.

And as already pointed out....we know how to lower birth rates. Empower women with birth control, education and a rights to control their own bodies--it's worked across the globe.

The ability to achieve that decreases proportionally to the economic poverty of a nation. If your country is already languishing at a level where you can't improve your people's rights very well, and they're having gadzooks of kids (because that tends to be what impoverished cultures do), then the solution you just proposed falls under the category of "100% pure wishful thinking".

Here's the thing....those techniques work EVEN IN POOR nations.
"In the 1970s only 24 countries had fertility rates of 2.1 or less, all of them rich. Now there are over 70 such countries, and in every continent, including Africa. Between 1950 and 2000 the average fertility rate in developing countries fell by half from six to three—three fewer children in each family in just 50 years. " Fertility and living standards: Go forth and multiply a lot less | The Economist
We tend to make the mistake of thinking poverty is what makes people want to have large families when in reality it has a lot more to do with oppression of women in those same places. Time and time again we see when women are given power over having kids, they choose to have smaller families or no family at all regardless of their wealth.

Many people in third world countries live in environment in which they just
do not listen to any ideas that fertility could be reduces or controled.
What developed countries could do about it is at least supply all inhabitants of
those countries with free, cheap, attractive looking radios (maybe even
satellite radios) and make them listen attractive music channels. On the same
channels they would get know about Western lifestile and fertility reduction
would be promoted.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by kojax

In all honesty, nobody can ever be rich enough to independently pay the costs their future generations will put on society. If Romney has 6 kids, and each of them has six kids, and ... etc... his fortune would quickly be depleted. By the 10th generation, nobody would even remember what the first guy's bank account looked like. So even he is "causing wealth to be expended which he doesn't own".

That assumes a zero sum game. Societies continue to get wealthier and more efficient at using what they have. Modern societies problems have to do with insatiable consumption which so far tends to overwhelms those dramatically increased efficiencies.

I'm not so sure it isn't zero sum. Almost all the techs that have lead to "efficiency" in the modern world have been labor saving devices, not more fuel efficient engines or anything like that. Some progress happens. Electric cars are about as efficient as they were in the early 20th century, but now they have lithium ion batteries that hold a bit more power. Houses can new be insulated using fiberglass and some other new age materials instead of just asbestos.

Farm land became a great deal more efficient due to the biological revolution, but ..... I somehow doubt there's going to be a second one. We already found DNA. We can't just go find it a second time.

Here's the thing....those techniques work EVEN IN POOR nations.
"In the 1970s only 24 countries had fertility rates of 2.1 or less, all of them rich. Now there are over 70 such countries, and in every continent, including Africa. Between 1950 and 2000 the average fertility rate in developing countries fell by half from six to three—three fewer children in each family in just 50 years. " Fertility and living standards: Go forth and multiply a lot less | The Economist
We tend to make the mistake of thinking poverty is what makes people want to have large families when in reality it has a lot more to do with oppression of women in those same places. Time and time again we see when women are given power over having kids, they choose to have smaller families or no family at all regardless of their wealth.

This part of that article kind of articulates what I'm getting at.

Modern Malthusians tend to discount the significance of falling fertility. They believe there are too many people in the world, so for them, it is the absolute number that matters. And that number is still rising, by a forecast 2.4 billion over the next 40 years. Populations can rise while fertility declines because of inertia, which matters a lot in demography. If, because of high fertility in earlier generations, there is a bulge of women of childbearing years, more children will be born, though each mother is having fewer children. There will be more, smaller families. Assuming fertility falls at current rates, says the UN, the world’s population will rise from 6.8 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050, at which point it will stabilise (see chart 1).

As great as it is for falling fertility rates to prevent population expansion, a serious reduction will not likely ever come about unless we try something more severe. A reduction is the ideal outcome. We should hope for a world with only maybe 2 billion or 500 million in it. That would be a paradise. Untouched wilderness all around, and plenty of cheap real

In a world like the one we live in today, where natural resources are the scarce thing and laborers are abundant, people live quiet lives of desperation, working and working and never actually improving their lot in life. They can't move ahead because they don't own the most crucial component in the production process. Whoever owns that component is always going to be the one that gets to set the terms. It's just like how some star actors/actresses can set terms in a movie production. You'd think the producer/director would be in charge, but if the actor is so high profile that them leaving/staying decides whether you even have a movie.... they quickly become the de-facto boss. Same for economics. Whoever holds the crucial component of the production process is the de-facto boss. Make workers scarce, and workers would become the de-facto boss.

It's weird to think that some people don't want that to happen. It's almost like they prefer to live in a world dominated by a few power brokers who tell everyone else what to do. Maybe they think they'll be the one who gets to sit in that chair?

Farm land became a great deal more efficient due to the biological revolution, but ..... I somehow doubt there's going to be a second one. We already found DNA. We can't just go find it a second time.

Why? We've barely scratched the surface of genetic modifications of crop DNA, haven't even done the sequencing of the prominent organisms which destroy crops, or even really started to look at the potential of epigenetics. That's not to mention the potential of vertical farming. It also looks likely we'll know how to grow "meats" in a lab within a few years and save the feed which is the biggest demand on crop land. Point is there's still huge upside potential.

As great as it is for falling fertility rates to prevent population expansion, a serious reduction will not likely ever come about unless we try something more severe.

Cuting fertility by half, even in poor places, IS serious reduction. Cultural/religious sexism is the biggest obstacle to lowering it even further.

You might get your 500 million environmentalist utopia...but it might take two centuries....or two weeks of a major nuke exchange.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Why are some people so eager to take away people's rights?

Specifically because I don't think reproduction should be a right. It's a dumb right to grant. You might as well grant everyone the right to a million dollars.

The right to create children is the right to create need. Whatever that child needs will be an obligation on the state. If the would-be parent doesn't plan to provide those needs, then they are essentially choosing for the state to spend X amount of money. Hence, why I see the two "rights" as being equally ridiculous. But, in reality, the right to reproduce unlimited children is slightly more ridiculous, because it's a blank check that each deadbeat is free to fill in with multiple values again and again.

No one should ever have the right to cause wealth they don't own to be consumed, especially not on an optional expense (optional beforehand anyway.)

I am appauled at this, where to even begin. Lets start with: ("Specifically because I don't think reproduction should be a right") there are certain rights that every human being is born with that no one can or should ever take away, the right to reproduce is certainly one of them.

Next we come to: ("The right to create children is the right to create need") this is completely wrong, all states need people to live there or the states could not exist it is the state that needs the people not the people that need the state, people could live without the state.

Now we come to: ("Whatever that child needs will be an obligation on the state") what a child needs is very basic and it's needs could be met without a state ever existing, what that child will do is improve that which as gone before, through scientific, technological and economic progress to help provide for ageing generations and for future generations. Providing for the needs of a child is an investment in the future.

As for ("If the would-be parent doesn't plan to provide those needs, then they are essentially choosing for the state to spend X amount of money. Hence, why I see the two "rights" as being equally ridiculous"). This simply means that a particular parent doesn't have the ability or resources required. It however doesn't provide us with any knowledge of that childs potential future contribution to the state. For we know that child could make millions of dollars for the state or a cure for disease or become a great leader. We all benefit from the achievements of the many, we all have a responsibility for the welfare of the many.

Right finally we get to ("because it's a blank check that each deadbeat is free to fill in with multiple values again and again.") This is again wrong!, every human life born has value as a person this is because each person is classes as a government asset and their future earning potential set against government debt as collateral. This means that with every person born the government finds it easier and cheaper to service it's debt saving money for all of us and providing a long term investment for the future.

I would also add that money represents the labours and efforts of others, why do some people think they have a right to more of others efforts? No one should be allowed to amass huge wealth whilst others live in poverty, it is amoral and they are little thatn parasites leaching off society. People that hoard wealth are far more dangerous and a much greater threat to the masses than people simply have children.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Farm land became a great deal more efficient due to the biological revolution, but ..... I somehow doubt there's going to be a second one. We already found DNA. We can't just go find it a second time.

Why? We've barely scratched the surface of genetic modifications of crop DNA, haven't even done the sequencing of the prominent organisms which destroy crops, or even really started to look at the potential of epigenetics.

I'm pretty sure the reason we don't go there yet is because DNA targeted extermination is dangerous. The pests might change their DNA and then mutate, possibly into something we don't want to deal with.

But it's a fine example of the kind of desperate and potentially ruinous measures we may find ourselves resorting to when the third world finally decides it's had enough of being on the bottom and starts demanding Western affluence. If the USA doesn't, then China probably will. They've already gone and built a super massive hydroelectric dam on a fault line. This would only be another small step in the direction they're already headed.

That's not to mention the potential of vertical farming. It also looks likely we'll know how to grow "meats" in a lab within a few years and save the feed which is the biggest demand on crop land. Point is there's still huge upside potential.

Which goes right along with hydrophonics in the category of "Infrastructure intensive solutions". We need to be honest with ourselves as to whether we'll ever actually get around to implementing this stuff. It's a nice thought on paper.

I think it's great that people are developing these things. I just don't see why a large population is necessary for it to happen. If we already had a smaller population, then we could enjoy these advancements even more.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I am appauled at this, where to even begin. Lets start with: ("Specifically because I don't think reproduction should be a right") there are certain rights that every human being is born with that no one can or should ever take away, the right to reproduce is certainly one of them.

Actually there aren't. There are only rights human beings collective decide to award them self. Some of which they should award to themselves, and some which they should not.

Nature itself does not award us any rights at all, even the right to live. If you're careless and let yourself slip and fall over a cliff, nature won't command the winds to catch you. If a society is dumb and decides to grow its numbers past the carrying capacity of its lands, nature isn't going to drop more land out of the sky for us to live on.

Now we come to: ("Whatever that child needs will be an obligation on the state") what a child needs is very basic and it's needs could be met without a state ever existing, what that child will do is improve that which as gone before, through scientific, technological and economic progress to help provide for ageing generations and for future generations. Providing for the needs of a child is an investment in the future.

As for ("If the would-be parent doesn't plan to provide those needs, then they are essentially choosing for the state to spend X amount of money. Hence, why I see the two "rights" as being equally ridiculous"). This simply means that a particular parent doesn't have the ability or resources required. It however doesn't provide us with any knowledge of that childs potential future contribution to the state. For we know that child could make millions of dollars for the state or a cure for disease or become a great leader. We all benefit from the achievements of the many, we all have a responsibility for the welfare of the many.

Well, at least now I know how the bleeding heart aspect will play out. No child brings arable land into the world. Some of them may grow up to find better terra-forming methods to use on the land that exists.

What people seem to be missing is: there is absolutely no such thing (at all) as an efficiency process that yields unlimited returns. You can push the thermal dynamic limit closer and closer, but after a while you'll be fighting tooth and nail for slivers of a percentage point of difference. You can't create a freely unlimited potential for people to enjoy resources. Besides all any human being does is cause a tech to be invented faster. If Leonardo Davinci was never born, someone else would have invented his machines.

It's silly to try and argue that each child is "potentially" this or "potentially" that, when we know full well that the the group we're dealing with is sufficiently large so that those odds will all-but-absolutely-certainly bear out. If each child has a 50/50 chance of being better or worse than average, then nearly exactly half of them will be above and half will be below. We have to expect that we'll be taking the current known composition of today's population and simply expanding that composition, not miraculously raising a bunch of ascended Buddhas out of nowhere to save our tomorrow.

Right finally we get to ("because it's a blank check that each deadbeat is free to fill in with multiple values again and again.") This is again wrong!, every human life born has value as a person this is because each person is classes as a government asset and their future earning potential set against government debt as collateral. This means that with every person born the government finds it easier and cheaper to service it's debt saving money for all of us and providing a long term investment for the future.

What about the lives that aren't born? How do you assign value to each individual human being knowing full well the resources that value is measured against won't and can't exist? If we had fewer of them, then the resources would exist and we could reduce these ideals to a practical reality.

The more there are, the less capable we are of correlating our ideals with our actions.

I would also add that money represents the labours and efforts of others, why do some people think they have a right to more of others efforts? No one should be allowed to amass huge wealth whilst others live in poverty, it is amoral and they are little thatn parasites leaching off society. People that hoard wealth are far more dangerous and a much greater threat to the masses than people simply have children.

Wealth is not just labor and effort, unfortunately. Don't you see how difficult it would be to hoard if the majority of people were wealthy enough to fight back? They never will be if they've got to spend their whole income just on food and rent.

Rent will always be high so long as land is scarce (and by "scarce" I mean scarce compared to the population.) Food will always cost a lot if arable land is hard to come by. People who are busy working all day just to eat and live don't have time to carry on a revolution to assert the rights they want to have.

Is it unattainable to make the world a better place due to preventing population expansion?

I can't rule the probability of success down to an absolute zero, no. And I can't rule the probability of success all the way up to 100% if we do trim the population

All I can do is point out that the two probabilities are almost certainly not identical. Keeping our vanity (as I'm pretty sure vanity is the primary motivating factor behind biological reproduction) imposes quite a risk upon the future generation. Too bad we won't be around for them to hold us accountable, right?

You know, a better way to look at the rights issue is to say that our rights end where another person's rights begin. For example: we couldn't have the right to own a slave. Somebody would have to be a slave in order for that to work. Yet, we have the right to create conditions of poverty that will likely deprive another person (in a future generation) of their dignity?

Well.. If we expand, send people to other planets, or spacestations, we can start reproducing like rabbits again.

Originally Posted by kojax

I can't rule the probability of success down to an absolute zero, no. And I can't rule the probability of success all the way up to 100% if we do trim the population

All I can do is point out that the two probabilities are almost certainly not identical. Keeping our vanity (as I'm pretty sure vanity is the primary motivating factor behind biological reproduction) imposes quite a risk upon the future generation. Too bad we won't be around for them to hold us accountable, right?

They won't be around either, if people do not reproduce.

Kojax, you have the mind of a dictator. What makes you think you know what is best for future generations?

Originally Posted by kojax

Suppose you've got the government of a highly overpopulated nation like India, China or Somalia, and they want to reduce that population over time. How effective would it be to simply offer people a lump sum of money, or perhaps some stipend payable over time, like a mini-pension, if they submit to have a medical procedure performed on them that will prevent them ever being able to reproduce (but still enables them to have enjoyable sex, of course). It's an optional and free procedure for everyone, but you only get the stipend if you agree to do it before your first child, so you will never in your whole life have any children.

here's something

I don't think there's any question that some countries are desperate. Plenty of stories about India rewarding people if sterilized but also tales of things going awry.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

This is not the only way to reduce childbirth rates. Though in china and india, childbirth rates are already only 2,3 childs per generation. Which is low if compared to some afrikan countries. Some things can be done about lowering childbirth rates.

- Having heavy taxation on having more then 2 children. This taxation can be lifted if, yes both male and female get sterilised.
- Forced sterilisation on some people.
- Free anticonception.
- Better education, forced education until certain age (16).
- Making registrations mandatory before having a child, then having the parents dictate how they think to take care of it. If they can not, forced abortions.

Many seem very extreme though..

I am an advocate of here, in the USA, tying the tubes of men and women if they conceive kids when they are in no position of supporting them, and ask for government aid. I say that government aid comes with tying the tubes of both parents to prevent a repeated irresponsible act that burdens the tax payers.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Kojax, you have the mind of a dictator. What makes you think you know what is best for future generations?

Ad hominem now, is it? We have to resort to asking who am I to presume to know something?

We are all collectively making decisions today on behalf of those future generations, like dictators, without consulting them to find out what they want (because we can't yet). We'd better hope we know what is best for them and, whatever it is, that we do it.

*puts hands to forehead*

I'm going to go ahead and venture a guess. I'm thinking they..... they..... want to live comfortable, happy, lives without worrying everyday that they'll have nothing to eat? But you know know, we're still free to decide a different future for them if we want to. We have absolute power. Why should we care what they want? Let them eat cake!!!

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Well.. If we expand, send people to other planets, or spacestations, we can start reproducing like rabbits again.

As long as somebody else doesn't already live there.

If it turns out we're not alone in the universe, then it will probably also turn out that one of the other species out there already got the same idea, and spread their population to all the good habitable worlds already.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Well.. If we expand, send people to other planets, or spacestations, we can start reproducing like rabbits again.

As long as somebody else doesn't already live there.

If it turns out we're not alone in the universe, then it will probably also turn out that one of the other species out there already got the same idea, and spread their population to all the good habitable worlds already.

We could simply start killing them. In the following war, our population will decline, and wasn't that the goal to begin with?

There seems to be some misconceptions happening about the negative effects of population growth. Many of the worlds poor countries where people are having lots of children have long suffered from under population and have problems and poverty as a result. You've only got to look at the population density of some of the worlds richest countries to see that actually having big populations doesn't require huge areas of land and high population rates do not necessarily result in poverty. Take London or New York as examples they both have large centralised populations but can provide good quality living stardards and no one would suggest that they are in poverty as a result of over population.

One of the biggest problems of land shortages is caused by the way the land is being used and because of who it is owned by. If all land was properly cultivated and distributed fairly then we could easily cope with a population many times greater than that which we have at present.

We now have the knowledge and technology to farm vertically and have long been able to provide vertical residential accomadation. Providing we can all get use to using renewable energy, having less consumer goods and using recycleable products large population increases can be delt with effectively.

Also I don't understand people who state that more people will just push up rent prices, yes ok we all understand supply and demand, but the real issue is about control. More people means a larger work force to build apartments and houses, so if we get rid of controls stopping them from building affordable homes we can easily increase the supply to meet a larger demand and thus keep prices affordable.

What it boils down is management, with more people comes the need to manage our lives and resources better. Throughout history their has been one event after another that wipe people out and we don't know when the next one will occur, so I think an expanding population is not necessarily a bad thing.

The idea to me of trying to restrict population growth without a clear objective and real world benefits is misguided and bound to fail.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

You've only got to look at the population density of some of the worlds richest countries to see that actually having big populations doesn't require huge areas of land and high population rates do not necessarily result in poverty. Take London or New York as examples they both have large centralised populations but can provide good quality living stardards and no one would suggest that they are in poverty as a result of over population.

That's because they don't grow their own food.

If planet Earth as a whole had farmlands located off site (like Mars or Venus or something) growing food to sustain it, then probably it would be fine for it to grow a large population as well. Or well,... actually it would need mining operations off planet also to get enough raw materials to keep its economy going.

One of the biggest problems of land shortages is caused by the way the land is being used and because of who it is owned by. If all land was properly cultivated and distributed fairly then we could easily cope with a population many times greater than that which we have at present.

In other words, if the whole human race could coordinate all of its efforts in a way where there was absolutely no waste at all, and every single acre was perfectly used to maximum efficiency...... 7 billion could live comfortably. (Well, comfortable except for the part of having to live a regimented lifestyle associated with absolutely perfect use of every resource with no waste or carelessness whatsoever.)

My problem with this is that I think the human condition requires waste. We could replace our brains with computers, I guess. Then we'd be very very efficient. But if we want to continue as a life form that is recognizably human, our better option is to put ourselves in a situation where some amount of waste is acceptable.

The idea to me of trying to restrict population growth without a clear objective and real world benefits is misguided and bound to fail.

Aren't the real world benefits obvious? How much would a gallon of gas cost if only 1/12 the present number of people wanted it? How much would food cost if humanity only bothered to plow the best, most fertile 16% of its farmland?

How much would a diamond cost (they're useful for more than just jewelry, you know). Or platinum?

Many of the worlds poor countries where people are having lots of children have long suffered from under population and have problems and poverty as a result.

You probably kidding.This is contrary to widely accepted concepts.There is no evidence that countries with lower population density live poorer than with higher.Take as example Canada and Australia.Tiny Iceland with no city over 200.000 for a long time demonstraded high level of human development.You propose instead of reasonable population regulation just increase consumption of resources and increase environmental polution to nobody knows what level.What is a point in it,really?

Guys what I am suggesting is not that unchecked population growth in poor countries with absolutely no planning or provision is a good thing. But that real issue isn't about the population growth, demands for food, energy or consumable goods it is about management and how we plan for expansion and population growth. We have countries in the world where many people live as peseant farmers because of the way the country is being run and that they simply don't have an educated skill base of people to actually start to change peoples's living habits. A controlled managed population growth would make some of these countries have to start planning things properly as they won't be able to have millions of peasant farmers.

The worlds population continues to grow and we can't just go around the world imposing population control methods, just how would enforce it militarily? economically? no it's jus not an option. Even if we could stop or even start to reduce the worlds population it still doesn't address the real problems which are a growing demand for resources and energy by the existing population and a lack of good management of population around the world.

Just for example with good governance say the world population doubled but resource and energy demands actually fell because everything is being run properly surely this is a better senario than a stagnant population that is not well managed continueing to ravage the planet with an ever growing insatiable appatite for more energy, resources, consumable goods and land usage.

As I've already stated food can be grown in vertical farms and people can live in higher density areas like cities which will ultimately require far less land usage and provide higher living stardards and better opportunities for education and jobs.

Technological progress will enable us to produce more and 'cleaner' energy and recycling will help us make our resources stretch further, so I again suggest that efforts should be focussed towards good governance and 'population management'.

A controlled managed population growth would make some of these countries have to start planning things properly as they won't be able to have millions of peasant farmers.

Hard to disagree as an idealist fantasy, but if you can't even get trash picked up or fresh water, you sure as heck don't have enough control to even start to think about controlling population. And again it's about education, women's rights and access to birth control more than poverty, population density or anything we want to consider. There is zero reason to force people to do anything against their rights if they are willing to do it on their own.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

A controlled managed population growth would make some of these countries have to start planning things properly as they won't be able to have millions of peasant farmers.

Hard to disagree as an idealist fantasy, but if you can't even get trash picked up or fresh water, you sure as heck don't have enough control to even start to think about controlling population. And again it's about education, women's rights and access to birth control more than poverty, population density or anything we want to consider.

You're definitely right that voluntary cooperation is more likely if people are better educated. That's true for most laws. If people understand the reason for the law they're more likely to obey it willingly, rather than purely out of fear of punishment.

There is zero reason to force people to do anything against their rights if they are willing to do it on their own.

There's one problem with this: Darwinistic selection.

If we rely on voluntary cooperation, and simply allow those unwilling to cooperate to bear all the kids they want....... gradually we'll end up with a population primarily composed of unwilling people. It's simple selection. Those who cooperate voluntarily are selected against by having fewer offspring. Members of cultures that refuse birth/population control (such as most Mormons, Catholics, and Muslims) will gradually begin to make up a larger and larger portion of the demographic.

It's not just bad for practical reasons. It's also quite unfair. All population groups should be represented absolutely equally in terms of how numerous they are in the next generation. To reward backwardness and ignorance by allowing the people possessed of those traits a disproportionately favorable growth rate would be twice over unfair.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Guys what I am suggesting is not that unchecked population growth in poor countries with absolutely no planning or provision is a good thing. But that real issue isn't about the population growth, demands for food, energy or consumable goods it is about management and how we plan for expansion and population growth. We have countries in the world where many people live as peseant farmers because of the way the country is being run and that they simply don't have an educated skill base of people to actually start to change peoples's living habits. A controlled managed population growth would make some of these countries have to start planning things properly as they won't be able to have millions of peasant farmers.

People always act like the scramble for more efficient resource management methods will serve the same purpose as some Tibetan monk sleeping on a bed of nails, by pushing us to excel toward a higher level of enlightenment or something. I'm sure some of those monks think the world would be better off if we all had to sleep on nails like them, and nobody anywhere had a comfy mattress.

But, how noble would a monk's pursuits be if they genuinely had no choice? If they didn't choose their austere lifestyle of their own free will, rather than having it forced upon them?

What is so inherently moral about efficiency? How are we bad people if we choose against putting a gun to our collective head, ready to fire if any single generation fails to discover the next super-tech to stretch their resources out to the next mark? And more importantly: what makes anyone think that will bring out the best in us? Wouldn't it be more likely to bring out the worst?

The worlds population continues to grow and we can't just go around the world imposing population control methods, just how would enforce it militarily? economically? no it's jus not an option. Even if we could stop or even start to reduce the worlds population it still doesn't address the real problems which are a growing demand for resources and energy by the existing population and a lack of good management of population around the world.

I don't know why you think it isn't an option. Paying them out a positive reward if they do sterlize, and leaving them alone if they don't - that's hardly draconian.

China's method would work if their culture weren't so terribly sexist that they throw out their girl babies. In a non-sexist society it would probably lead to a very acceptable result. Why does everyone blame the policy for that, instead of the backwardness of the culture?

gradually we'll end up with a population primarily composed of unwilling people.

I doubt will is genetic, and even if it is, such changes take thousands of years--by then we'll be completely different and hopefully off this rock.

kojax, I do really think the idea of paying people not to reproduce is wrong!
Whilst I in no way support or agree with the pope's veiws on contraception I do think that people should always have the right to choose wether or not they have children and this decision should not be influenced by economic concerns.

What I fear is that such an idea will lead to a world in which the rich can choose to have to have children and the poor can't. This would be so wrong.

As we have progressed and advanced as a species we are beginning to understand our responsibilities to the enviroment, animals and to other people.
The more we have and the more power we have to change things then also the more responsibility we have to do right by others.

When we are ill or in need it makes it harder for us to think of the welfare of others because we have our own problems to contend with, however when we are not in need then we should always stride to help and improve the welfare of others.

I think that we need to learn these lessons now, to do otherwise would be a step backwards in our social evolution.

With all power comes responsibility and we have technological and economic power.

We need to do more for the less fortunate, we need to help them and protect their freedoms and rights and we need to help to improve their living standards. To just bribe them into not breeding so that we can keep more of the worlds resources for ourselves is wrong.

Giving people better lives and more choice so that they can give their love and attention to 2 or 3 children as opposed to people having 7 or 8 because they need people to work the land to put food on the table is the right way forward in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

kojax, I do really think the idea of paying people not to reproduce is wrong!
Whilst I in no way support or agree with the pope's veiws on contraception I do think that people should always have the right to choose wether or not they have children and this decision should not be influenced by economic concerns.

Even if they choose to crowd my (one or two) children out by parenting a horde?

What I fear is that such an idea will lead to a world in which the rich can choose to have to have children and the poor can't. This would be so wrong.

On the upside, that would increase the education rate, because every child born would have affluent parents capable of paying for them to receive the best educations.

The injustice of "accidents of birth" where one child gets born to an abusive drug addict, and another one has a full time nanny catering to their every need, is also an injustice. The question is: which injustice is more severe?

In my opinion, the accident of birth injustice is many times over more severe, because it is being committed against innocent children.

When we are ill or in need it makes it harder for us to think of the welfare of others because we have our own problems to contend with, however when we are not in need then we should always stride to help and improve the welfare of others.

Never has any child that wasn't conceived ever felt any pain, nor regretted not being born. We are improving their welfare by preventing their birth, at least in any sense that can be measured by experience of suffering. I guess I don't really see life and death as the big issues. So far, humanity has had a death rate of 100% in that ever human being ever born has died before reaching the age of 200.

It's what happens along the way that bugs me. Auschwitz isn't horrible in my mind because people died there. All of them were destined to die anyway. Everyone dies. It's horrible because they were made to suffer awful indignities and mental trauma along the way, knowing all the while that they would likely die before experiencing freedom again. Not everyone ever has to experience a thing like that in their lifetime, and I would prefer if nobody ever did.

Do you not see that sufficient economic collapse will inevitably lead to more Auschwitzes? It already has, for instance in Rwanda, or Bosnia, or more recently Sudan. And it will continue to do so until we stop having economic collapses. And there's really only one way to do that. We have to quit trying to push our limits.

I think that we need to learn these lessons now, to do otherwise would be a step backwards in our social evolution.

The only thing you and I disagree about is which lessons.

We need to do more for the less fortunate, we need to help them and protect their freedoms and rights and we need to help to improve their living standards. To just bribe them into not breeding so that we can keep more of the worlds resources for ourselves is wrong.

Giving people better lives and more choice so that they can give their love and attention to 2 or 3 children as opposed to people having 7 or 8 because they need people to work the land to put food on the table is the right way forward in my opinion.

We also need to employ a strategy that enables us to succeed rather than merely try.

I don't judge people by their intentions. I judge them by their accomplishments. Intentions are meaningless. If a person doesn't succeed, odds are it's either because they didn't try hard enough, or because they were deluding themselves, attempting to live in a dreamland to make themselves feel better, which is ultimately a very selfish thing to do when others are suffering.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

gradually we'll end up with a population primarily composed of unwilling people.

I doubt will is genetic, and even if it is, such changes take thousands of years--by then we'll be completely different and hopefully off this rock.

You're right it's not genetic, but the effect of children being raised in those cultures is pretty much identical to how things would play out if it were genetic. If all children were raised in orphanages by the state, then certainly it wouldn't matter who their parents were in terms of the likelihood of them choosing to have large families, but as long as the birth parent is also the raising parent, it's likely the views of that parent will very frequently be passed on to the offspring.

On the other hand, I suppose even with population control those cultures could always adopt orphans and raise them to hold their views.

Why is it that when people talk about reducing population they start with birthrate and never get any further. It's the population we want to reduce - the issue of how many children any given person might have is distinctly secondary. As Lynx keeps reminding us, it's about women's education, rights to work and limit their child bearing. Number of generations per family is at least, if not more, important than number of children per family.

Far and away the best way to do this is by starting with education and employment. Increasing women's age at first birth is the biggest hit you can make on total population numbers. I saw one of those pre Mother's Day articles the other day - a photograph of a six generation family. Yes. Six! Think about how many "years of life" that oldest woman's family has involved for her 90 years of life.

Every adult woman in that photo had her first child near her 18th birthday. How many generations in the photo of they'd all had their first child at age 28? Only 4.

Multiply that for villages, cities and countries and you get very different outcomes. You can even get to families having a higher average number of children per family and finishing up with the same or smaller total populations. Just keep on reducing the years of overlap of oldest and youngest generations.

And never, ever think that a six generation family is admirable, let alone desirable - unless perhaps great-great- great-granny lives to 120+.

Some women are fertile early and can have children at their 11th birthday. Would give 10 generations. Kind of horrid to think about that.

kojax, I do really think the idea of paying people not to reproduce is wrong!
Whilst I in no way support or agree with the pope's veiws on contraception I do think that people should always have the right to choose wether or not they have children and this decision should not be influenced by economic concerns.

What I fear is that such an idea will lead to a world in which the rich can choose to have to have children and the poor can't. This would be so wrong.

It is far from it.In fact it is even contra.People in developed countries (especially non-imigrants) barely have one child per family.People in developed countries have 4-7 children per family.In this regard your claims sound a bit strange.It is not difficult to breed 7 child per family.It is more difficult to think on sense of it.

If you really want to get the views of someone who knows this stuff, watch a few Hans Rosling TED talks.

Hans Rosling on global population growth | Video on TED.com

This is just a recent one.

The all-time classic is the magic washing machine. But this is more about resource use and carbon footprint than population control. Hans Rosling and the magic washing machine | Video on TED.com

A monetary incintive to "not reproduce" would be effective in that it would give the said "UN-productive" civilian the choice; a pro-choice argument. While this would mean elective procedures to reduce the burden of over-population would be valuable and beneficial to the global-community, it would also promote effective erradication of not only the female Chinese (whom could not contibute to military force) but also eliminate poverty as it is the impoverished whom would sell their "womb" for cash. This would also eliminate upper-middle class white teens from the over-population/gene-pool-crisis and rightfully so for if we are dictating the male/female ratio, eliminating the poor, or getting rightfully rid of the stupid, monetary benefits for sterilization is ultimately beneficial for the global-well-being. All of the above should be federally funded and the surpreme court should uphold such standards. However, should the private sector (the grossly wealthy) "donate" (tax ride/write-off) millions to offer sterilization to crack-whores whose 8th child they have delivered and abandoned addicted to drugs and left to an orphanage will be the last sacrifice, I would so patriotically donate my last cent! The drug fiend would sell her soul for another hit, so why not save another by her right to "choose?"

Originally Posted by adelady

Why is it that when people talk about reducing population they start with birthrate and never get any further. It's the population we want to reduce - the issue of how many children any given person might have is distinctly secondary. As Lynx keeps reminding us, it's about women's education, rights to work and limit their child bearing. Number of generations per family is at least, if not more, important than number of children per family.
.

I don't understand why the issue even gets to "It's the population we want to reduce", because to me that's not the real problem at all. To me it's about a quality of living standard, use of resources and effects to the enviroment & planet. If these concerns can successfully be addressed without 'any' population reduction then surely these options should be explored first. Because that way we can still ensure that more people have the gift of life.

Why stop people being alive when we instead can change the way they live, so they have happier better more efficient lives that don't have such a detremental effect to our planet.

Lets always start from the point of negating the negative impact of extra people not actually negating the people!

No one seemed to state the use of resources in this thread.

You all are complaining about people in Africa having to many kids, while your kids are the ones destroying Earth.

How many tons of carbon does one American person put into the air each year?
How many tons of carbon does one African person put into the air each year?


How many trees does the avarage American person use each year?
How many trees does the avarage African person use each year?

If everyone on Earth lived like Americans, we would need around (7)? planet Earths to provide the resources.


My question is, how can we stop Americans from having kids?


What method or medical procedure would you Americans want done to you, to stop you from having kids?

After all American kids are wasting and using more resources than anyone else on Earth.



How can we stop Americans from having kids?

Exactly a point I made.

Originally Posted by chad

No one seemed to state the use of resources in this thread.

You all are complaining about people in Africa having to many kids, while your kids are the ones destroying Earth.

How many tons of carbon does one American person put into the air each year?
How many tons of carbon does one African person put into the air each year?


How many trees does the avarage American person use each year?
How many trees does the avarage African person use each year?

If everyone on Earth lived like Americans, we would need around (7)? planet Earths to provide the resources.


My question is, how can we stop Americans from having kids?


What method or medical procedure would you Americans want done to you, to stop you from having kids?

After all American kids are wasting and using more resources than anyone else on Earth.



How can we stop Americans from having kids?

But surely that argument you are making is not so much about nationality but more about how wasteful someones lifestyle is. Surely a really eco friendly person in america might be less wasteful and destructive than a rich person in africa that buys all the latest consumer goods.

What you are really highlighting is share of resources and impact upon the planet that one child may have against another. This though is a floored argument because the child from america could only go on to use the resources it could afford and this would come from americas collective wealth, meaning that if that child wasn't actually born those share of resources would have probarbly been used anyway by a rich person.

Extra people are irrelavent, what is relavent is what they do.

Originally Posted by chad

If everyone on Earth lived like Americans, we would need around (7)? planet Earths to provide the resources.

..... or a total population of 1 billion.

My question is, how can we stop Americans from having kids?


What method or medical procedure would you Americans want done to you, to stop you from having kids?

After all American kids are wasting and using more resources than anyone else on Earth.



How can we stop Americans from having kids?

Why not just drop the population down to where everyone can live like we do? What's so inherently wrong with living a comfortable, inefficient, but ultimately enjoyable life?

What's so great about having more people, that we should collectively surrender our enjoyment of life, and work 10 times as we need to in order to survive? Whatever farming techniques could extend the food supply, they will be more work. I mean more work per capita, not more work total. If the burden is shared equally, then every human being on Earth will certainly live a crumbier, more difficult existence.

For what? To have a bigger population? Why is that even valuable to us? Is it just Darwinian genetic programming or something? Do we just instinctively feel better? Have we not yet evolved intellectually to the point where we can question the sensibility of our own instincts? We're effectively trading something for nothing. I'm just curious why we want to do it?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Originally Posted by adelady

Why is it that when people talk about reducing population they start with birthrate and never get any further. It's the population we want to reduce - the issue of how many children any given person might have is distinctly secondary. As Lynx keeps reminding us, it's about women's education, rights to work and limit their child bearing. Number of generations per family is at least, if not more, important than number of children per family.
.

I don't understand why the issue even gets to "It's the population we want to reduce", because to me that's not the real problem at all. To me it's about a quality of living standard, use of resources and effects to the enviroment & planet. If these concerns can successfully be addressed without 'any' population reduction then surely these options should be explored first. Because that way we can still ensure that more people have the gift of life.

Why stop people being alive when we instead can change the way they live, so they have happier better more efficient lives that don't have such a detremental effect to our planet.

Lets always start from the point of negating the negative impact of extra people not actually negating the people!

I guess this might partly answer my question. Why not stop people being alive? What's so great about more people being alive?

Or rather.... what's so great about people being alive at the same time? By all accounts, the Earth is going to be here for another billion years at least. Over that time, a number of generations of humans that defies imagination, could, and possibly will, be born and live out their lives. What's so great about having them all here at once? Why the rush?

To Chrisgorlitz,

It kinda was about nationality. Here in America around New Orleans, many white people are racist against black people, and they hate, or could care less about African people.
These racist idiots whole life is spent talking about how black people take money from the government, and they care about nothing else in america. But these idiots cant realize, its a small amount of money, and these (poor) black people actually need that money, because of the same racist idiots past and present behavior towards black people.

Perhaps my feelings about these racist idiots, caused me to post that.

kojax,

I think Americans use much more resources than you think.

The figures vary but America makes up 5% of the population, but uses 1/3 of the worlds resources.

(or) Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy.


On average, one American consumes as much energy as

2 Japanese

6 Mexicans

13 Chinese

31 Indians

128 Bangladeshis

307 Tanzanians

370 Ethiopians


When you talk about reducing the population, the talk should (not) be about reducing the population in Africa. It should be about reducing the population in america.


If you stop just (1) American birth, its the same thing as stopping 370 Ethiopian births.

You said,

Why not just drop the population down to where everyone can live like we do? What's so inherently wrong with living a comfortable, inefficient, but ultimately enjoyable life?


Its kinda strange but I agree with you 1,000,000%.

Chad.

I am in (no) way saying kojax is a racist.

I don't understand why the issue even gets to "It's the population we want to reduce", because to me that's not the real problem at all.

At the most basic level, it is the central issue. (Though I agree that the the issues about comparative consumption is the most valid current consideration.)

We only have one planet. If we owned a tract of farmland, we'd look at its carrying capacity. Comparing it to this one and only planet, we have to look at what the land can support with no resources of any kind brought in. How many poultry could it support? How many goats or sheep? How many pigs? How many cattle?

There is an upper limit for each kind of livestock. And the larger and more resource consuming an animal is, the fewer can be supported.

Same goes for people on the planet. There is an upper limit no matter how frugal we can be and still sustain life. If we don't want every single person to be living at the edge of starvation, then the total population limit is lower. If we want everyone to be reasonably comfortable, the limit is lower again. If everyone is to live a long life of wasteful luxury, much, much, much lower.

It really is that simple.

You all are complaining about people in Africa having to many kids, while your kids are the ones destroying Earth.

How many tons of carbon does one American person put into the air each year?
How many tons of carbon does one African person put into the air each year?

The top most poluted cities in the World:
The 10 Most Air-Polluted Cities in the World | Ecocentric | TIME.com
So could you imagine what will happen if they will polute even more?

Yes, america uses resources like it owns the world. Other countries are in a pre-industrial phase, where the enviroment is not that important. See the US, or Europe in 1920, and black clouds cover mostly everything because of industrialisation.

Top ten cleanest countries:
Official list by Yale and Columbia University -measures 149 countries using 25 indicators tracked across six environmental policy categories. The result is: Europe countries leadtheway on the top of list.


1 Sweden
2 Switzerland
3 Norway
4 Finland
5 Costa Rica
6 Austria
7 New Zealand
8 Latvia
9 Colombia
10 France
11 Island/12Canada/13 Germany/14 UK/15 Slovenia/ 16 Lithuania/ 17 Slovakia/ 18 Portugal/ 19 Estonia/ 20 Croatia

Getting back to the OP, here's Hans Rosling at his clear, explanatory best showing us that 80% of the world's people already have 2 or less children per woman. Hans Rosling: Religions and babies | Planet3.0

Most importantly, he shows why this reduced number of children per woman will lead to a world population of 10 billion - despite the fact that there will be exactly the same number of children then as there are now. Worth watching.

The problem with that is that the remaining 20% will continue to grow, and likely they'll be the worst group, the ones that suppress women the most. Their ways will tend to spread with them. In general that's the main problem with self selection, because the groups that voluntarily choose to be socially responsible about child birth are also removing themselves from the gene pool.

It reminds of that movie "Idiocracy". Not a very polite movie, but it aptly points out that if the smartest/most educated people - the ones who can most easily perceive the problem - if they decide to go the liberty route, and leave the issue as a matter of personal choice, trusting those around them to see the problem for themselves and willingly elect to take action by having fewer kids ----- they will be sadly disappointed.

There will always be a group of people in society who are totally oblivious to the problem, and that group will always be the same one.

The problem with that is that the remaining 20% will continue to grow, and likely they'll be the worst group, the ones that suppress women the most.

Did you actually watch him?

If you did, do you recall what he says is the pre-eminent reason for regions having higher birth rates?
Hint: It's not oppression of women.

Were those 80% taken from women who were pregnant, were still trying to get another baby, or were simply 0-20 years old and did not get enough chance to breed yet.

As i don't believe the 80% will tell us anything if we don't know the criteria.

If all women would get 10 children in 10 years. then the actual number would be that 80% of all women would be with less then 2 children. As i take it that -10 children will not have more then 2 kids yet. so if our generation would multiply 5 fold, the data would still be clouded and unreadable.. I need some real criteria. Like; All women of age 50, having more then 2 children.

Were those 80% taken from women who were pregnant, were still trying to get another baby, or were simply 0-20 years old and did not get enough chance to breed yet.

You really need to watch his presentation.

He's not talking about individual women. He's talking about the changes over the last 50 years that have already happened in birthrates of whole populations in all countries of the world for which the UN has statistics.

These changes have already happened. As he puts it, we may or may not have reached peak oil, but we have reached 'peak child'.

Bangladesh is one example which might surprise you where the birthrate now averages 2 per woman. Along with a whole lot of other surprising bits and pieces.

In fact, if you have an interest in population and economics, I'd recommend watching every Hans Rosling TED talk you can find on the system. They're all good. He's done the hard yards - 20 years working in Africa. And he's a brilliant statistician and teacher of statistics in population/ health/ economics.

Originally Posted by adelady

The problem with that is that the remaining 20% will continue to grow, and likely they'll be the worst group, the ones that suppress women the most.

Did you actually watch him?

If you did, do you recall what he says is the pre-eminent reason for regions having higher birth rates?
Hint: It's not oppression of women.

He described the 3 factors mentioned on Qatar's website as being the reason for their lowered birth rate as:

1) - Women starting later in life to have kids
2) - Women having access to education
3) - Women being part of the labor force.

He also said he whole heartedly agreed with their analysis.

He seemed to think this was the most important of his 4 general issues.

1) - Children Survive
2) - Children are not needed as laborers
3) - Women get education and join the labor force (a combination of those 3 earlier points)
4) - Family Planning is accessible.


I should still admit I hadn't watched it yet when I said what I said. What I got out of his talk was noting that the current system of immigration, where surplus population from one country is not allowed to simply leave and fill up another country, is what has forced most of the nations on the planet to take action to relieve their population growth. Each one separately encounters its own crisis, and can't pass it on, so it either adapts or crashes. Most of them adapted.

That effect is what may ultimately invalidate my claim about the bottom 20% expanding to fill the world. The bottom 20% is all trapped inside its individual political borders, with guns pointed toward them to ensure they don't try to leave.

Of course, the worst overpopulating countries (such as Afghanistan) are also the major sources of troops for terrorist movements. Hopefully the angry young men in those countries don't get nukes before something gives. Otherwise, there might have to be a few genocides. Either cultural (conquering and subjecting the population to a foreign culture that doesn't approve of high birth rates), or outright (biological weapons decimating them). Cultural looks more likely.

Cultural looks more likely.

Hate to be gloomy, but you overlooked the other 2 possibilities. Famine and plague. We're basically coming due for a high mortality/ high contagion flu pandemic. The only thing that saved us a couple of years ago with the high contagion influenza was that its mortality was low even though the incidence was high. Given the size and mobility of the modern population, we're talking huge numbers lost this particular way when it comes.

And famine? The larger the total population gets, the more delicate the balance between food stocks and demand and the more precarious is the position of the poor folks in marginal farmlands - just look at Niger right now after crop failure last season. Niger famine 'inevitable' without aid - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Add in another billion or more people and regional or seasonal food shortages will have bigger and bigger impacts.

If you remember back to the first part of Rosling's discourse, however, he suggests that a high mortality rate actually has the reverse effect, causing population to grow instead of shrink. Probably a famine or pestilence would just make those countries' population problems worse. Cultural genocide doesn't necessarily raise the mortality rate, so should have a fully beneficial effect.

Biological weapons use would be a last resort, and would have the same goal of cultural modification, just in a more extreme/rapid way. If there's nobody left to practice the culture then it's dead automatically. I don't see any other option if an overpopulating society gets hold of nuclear weapons and starts using them to demand that the rest of the world make room for their offspring. You can't reasonably negotiate with somebody who's asking the impossible (at least impossible long term if they keep overpopulating.) The only non-negotiation response to a WMD is a WMD (preferably used pre-emptively).