Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Overpopulation
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Environmental Debate
Google
Aahz
Just curious what y'all think.

Personally I like technology. It seems that every technologically advanced nation is much better off than the third world nations. It would appear that education and technology are the answer for the future what say you?


GBYA

Aahz

Ooops it is supposed to ask..."How should we deal with overpopulation?"
Google
Gray Seal
Not on your list, but I would support a voluntary sterilization program where people would get a free procedure and a stipend for being sterilized. I also would like any person who wants to get child rearing monetary assistance to be sterilized before receiving such assistance.
Aahz
sad.gif
Wow ......that is really tough for me to take man. It is strange that on one hand I support survival of the fittest amongst humans ina manner of speaking I guess. But I also feel that every one has a duty to procreate. It is the basic function of mankind.

Voluntary i.e. coerced (via payment) sterilization never occurred to me....My bad..wink.gif

Aahz
otseng
I would've voted technology, but I don't think a mass exodus to another planet is feasible. (Unless we *do* get those teleporters working wink.gif )

Technological advances in using our resources more efficiently will allow humans to sustain themselves on earth for a long time.
Eva
This is a tough decision. I'm torn between otseng's version of technology and "encouraged" contraception, not forced. I think there is a lot to be said for advancing technology and concerving our resources.

I believe in a person's right to reproduce (or not reproduce) and I feel that this issue is not a US issue because most American's keep their families relatively small. Therefore, since it's more of a world issue and more a question of how to deal with the areas that need to contain themselves (for lack of a better phrase), I support education, education, education!

So my choices would be technology and education, along with making contraceptives affordable (free, maybe?) and available to anyone that wishes to use them.
Aahz
I apologize this is my first poll...kinda hacked it up...sad.gif

I appreciate you sharing your views however..smile.gif

I agree education is the key...Osteng....you are right and a mass exodus isnt what I have in mind. We will not destroy the planet beyond habitation. I am just looking for a global objective that solves many ills. One is to use technology to drive an objective of exploration.

As I said somewhere else. Overpopulation is really not a terribly big problem. As our friend Eva said it is a localized issue. One could put every human in the world in the state of Texas with the same population density as New York city.....not a pleasant thought BUT that sure leaves a heckuva lot of world left..smile.gif

We should start the research and accelerate space exploration as a global goal IMO. Something the world can unite to achieve. SUre it will take many many years to get there but the sooner we start the sooner we are successful..smile.gif

Ok and truth be told I really wanna see earth from space before I die...hehe


GBYA

Aahz
Eva
It's hard to create a poll -- I've messed them up myself!

I enjoyed tossing the ideas around! Many interesting ideas came out of this thread that I never considered -- even though I'd rather keep myself earth bound!

Thanks!
Limpubus
Overpopulation is the single greatest threat to our planet right now. I think that no person should be involved in the production of more than 2 children. I don't think we should force contraception but how else will this happen. People enjoy sex and mistakes happen. What do you do when someone has 10 or 12 kids? Kill the children, tie her tubes, circumcise him. There is no obvious answer I would like to think that we are an advanced enough country to take care of this ourselves, but that's not going to happen. I will not produce more than 2 offspring and I owuld hope you wouldn't either.

Expansion is not the key either. Going into space does not save our problems with natural resources. Just because we can all fit in Texas proves nothing because all of those people in Texas need unprocessed food, clean air and clean water. Not to mention the gas that we so love.
Gray Seal
All of the ideas expressed are constructive. None of them are mutually exclusive.

It is true that some countries have birth rates less than 2.1, the rate which would create a stable population. Italy has the lowest rate. The Unitied States is lower also. One of my motivation for the sterilization program is the Marching Moron theory (another thread). I observed we were encouraging less successful people in our country to increase their reproductive rates with money. I druther do it the other way around.

Exploration of space is important but would have to put the benefit of finding new places to live way down the list of likely immediate returns on our investment. We should explore space because of the challenge. Humanity will stagnate if we do not pursue challenges to expand our knowledge and understanding.

Education is part of the solution to all social problems. You can not solve a problem unless you know what is going on.

Nothing like a good poll to start a discussion. Seems like a good poll to me.

I do like enthusiasm and dreamers. Where would we be without them? I am not sure but I do not want to be there.
Eva
I only produced one myself.

This isn't an American issue -- it's other areas of the world that are reproducing at high rates. Although all American's don't restrict themselves to two children or less, the average is not undesirable.

(I like enthusiasm and dreamers too, Gray.)
Google
Gray Seal
QUOTE
I think that no person should be involved in the production of more than 2 children.


This is a solution to the population problem which is flawed in several aspects.

1) The people most likely to voluntary limit their reproduction are the more intelligent.

2) The most likely individuals to succeed over time is the largest gene pool. Whatever segment of the human population has the highest reproduction rate will be our future. Why ? Because there are more of them.

I did go through some thought on this before I began procreate. I have six kids (one adopted). *shrug* I might be accused of hubris but I think mankind is better off with my six kids than if I had stopped at two. Again, the Marching Moron theory is my main basis for thinking so.
Aahz
Consider this folks,

If we need a return on the investment....Start with a penal colony. Think Australia...not a dig more a compliment. It was started and settled as a penal colony but became one of the finer nations on Earth. They had to fend for themselves yes. But Europes/Englands most dangerous criminals (as well as some innocents and debtors) but our systems are better now.

Anyway start the research etc. as a penal colony either as a station or on the moon. The millions indeed billions saved eventually when you could send a set of criminals to the moon and drop them off and fly away...this will far outweigh the cost imprisoning them on Earth. The research done and discovery's made along the way will benefit mankind for the rest of existence.

Yes it would take a long time to realize any fiscal return. But that is what investment is. It would be a long term investment.

We talk about resources etc. There are new resources awaiting us out there.

Bush has already asked for over a billion dollars for fuel cell research. Hydrogen the most abundant substance in the universe as a fuel. Safe and effective with water as a by product. Not a bad idea huh?

We are working in the right direction.

I feel for the Astronauts lost in the space shuttle. I dont want them to have died in vane...sad.gif

We must move on...we must move out....We must allow the joy of life to be shared by as many as possible and prepare a future that will support them.

The properly structured economic benefits for the entire world alone are worth investigation.

Can you see huge Glass factories in Ethiopia? People working instead of starving.

Huge software contracts from the UN to India?

Management and organization contracts with US and Britain?

French Devlivery systems

Russian Intermediate stations

Afghanni's making internal wall panels of woven kevlar

I know I am a dreamer.... biggrin.gif But I also see that there may be an answer to many of the worlds problems.

The starving in Africa are only starving because they cannot afford to buy food. American Farmers are hurting because they have to take Government subsidies to NOT grow food so the market doesnt crash.
What these people need are JOBS...they need something to trade or an industry. Right now all they have to offer is labor. That will change in time.


Ahh well enough for tonight..smile.gif

Thanx for the kind responses thus far.

GBYA

Aahz
Stefan Fargus
The only question I can think to ask here is, who will make the investment? Unfortunately, you're looking at an astronomical (pun intended) amount of money to achieve much of what you've outlined. I'd absolutely love to see it happen, because I think the returns would come faster than anyone could imagine. Unfortunately, many don't share my optimistic point of view.

We know the moon is made of volcanic rock (basalts), which contains minerals like silicon, iron, aluminum, and magnesium. It would cost almost nothing to sling-shot 'pods' full of those materials back to earth, which would fall by parachute into the ocean, where they would float to the surface and be picked up by a waiting trade vessel. Why not take advantage of existing technology, and get resources from the moon? Strip mine it all you want, there's no environment to worry about up there. The pods could even be manufactured on the moon from materials mined there to save the cost of transporting them there from Earth. online2long.gif

I'm a dreamer, too, when it comes to this sort of thing. I see an immense potential for human advancement through it. I also think its the only realistic way we'll be able to deal with human overpopulation, without resorting to tampering with people's rights.
Dontreadonme
QUOTE
Not on your list, but I would support a voluntary sterilization program where people would get a free procedure and a stipend for being sterilized.

I'm going to have to look this up, but didn't a program similar to this get started in Los Angeles(?). I remember there being an outcry because it took advantage of low income people.

I will try and find a link to this, but if voluntary, what are the problems, if any to this form of population control?
GenX_Futurist
QUOTE(Limpubus @ Feb 8 2003, 03:24 AM)
What do you do when someone has 10 or 12 kids?  Kill the children, tie her tubes, circumcise him.  There is no obvious answer...

I haven't had as good a laugh in quite some time.... Perhaps his option might be to have a vasectomy... biggrin.gif I posted in the Mens Issues forum on my solution to the population "control" issue, where if men had the legal obligation to clarify their intentions before any conception could occur, that they are or are not willing to raise any children... people would be a lot more careful or at least intentional about conceiving, or risking conception in the first place.
Aahz
Stefan,

People like me and you with retirement accounts and by buying bonds etc. for our children. Tax deductible investments in stock that one day will be worth who knows what....smile.gif

A corporation run by the UN (after some reform) An elected corporate board made up of all nations according to GDP...hehe ok maybe not GDP....but you get the idea I am sure. SOmething fair and equitable where a nations investment is equal to it's share of any rewards. I am not an accountant nor an economist but surely this can be figured out....smile.gif


GBYA

Aahz
Eva
Aahz --

When I said that I preferred to stay earth bound, it was because I'm afraid of flying and not a reference to your being a dreamer. I love your ideas and though I would clarify my statement.


Gray Seal --

My reference to my only child was only in response to the negative feel of a post. I believe that everyone should be able to have the number of children they can emotionally and financially afford. I think it's great that you have 6 kids! I think that nature kind of takes care of keeping things in balance too.

Statistics show that the average population growth of the United States is reasonable without being enforced and without limiting people on the number of chidren. My one offsets someone elses three. By the way, I didn't only have one based on environmental, overpopulation reasons. My choice was based on financial issues. Now that I'm able to financially afford more children, I'm actually considering adoption.


Dontreadonme --

I support voluntary contraception but have a problem with a voluntary sterilization program aimed at the poor. I would much prefer a more well-rounded education of all people so they can make informed decisions with all the information available. The potential problems could be that a poor person making the decision could later become very successful and regret the decision. What if a child dies?


Overpopulation Solution Dreams --

I think there are lots of great ideas in this thread.

I would prefer we learn to efficiently handle the resources we currently use before we create another civilization all together. No one wants the world population ratio to earth to be similar to the comparison of the entire population compacted into an area the size of Texas but this isn't a current problem and it can be resolved with education and individual responsibility.

Let's try to create environmentally friendly energy and find ways to utilize the energy at a minimum. Let's look for alternative foods. Let's address the fresh water. I'd rather see us handling our current issues effectively.

A penal colony in space is an interesting idea; however, if we don't have enough water on earth -- how will they survive?

I think at this point, our overpopulation issues are resource based and the money spent to move out of earth (as an overpopulation solution) doesn't solve the problem of the resources. It might actually add to the problem because it uses more resources for development and would require extensive maintenance by transfering food and water.

I know you said fend for themselves but it would be a death sentence if they aren't provided with some resources in space. Australia already had resources -- water, food. Or are we going to spend tons of money educating prisoners on how to create their own food and water in space?

Is our overcrowding of our jails really our overpopulation problem -- or just our prison population problem? Or instead of this being a penal colony are they really experimental animals to expand into space? Assuming they actually survive, how would we even utilize this new development once they have control of it?

Finally, does evicting our prisoners from earth really solve our overpopulation problems? Are their numbers high enough to account for the expense and resources being used to get them into space?

I'd just rather see is deal with our current civilization and efficiently use the resources we currently have -- very aggressively looking for new solutions and ideas to our current environment.

Don't get me wrong -- space exploration is great! I just don't think it's the solution for overpopulation at this time.
Cosmoline
The whole notion of exponential increase in population is an outdated myth. Like "race," it's more 19th century junk science. The fact is, many of the places conventional wisdom believes are "teeming" with underfed millions are, ironically, underpopulated. Much of Africa falls into this category. Population densities are quite low in much of Africa, and many people still lead a rural life. Starvation comes because of poor distribution systems, terrible economies, bad government, civil war, and so on.

China's population has leveled off through draconian government controls. India's has done the same thing without any government control at all. As it turns out, people DO NOT just keep having more babies, as Malthus thought they would.
Jaime
QUOTE(Cosmoline @ Feb 12 2003, 01:34 PM)
The whole notion of exponential increase in population is an outdated myth.  Like "race," it's more 19th century junk science.  The fact is, many of the places conventional wisdom believes are "teeming" with underfed millions are, ironically, underpopulated.  Much of Africa falls into this category.  Population densities are quite low in much of Africa, and many people still lead a rural life.  Starvation comes because of poor distribution systems, terrible economies, bad government, civil war, and so on. 

China's population has leveled off through draconian government controls. India's has done the same thing without any government control at all.  As it turns out, people DO NOT just keep having more babies, as Malthus thought they would.

Could you supplement any of your comments with something we may read to determine the facts?
stotty203
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Feb 7 2003, 11:58 PM)
QUOTE
Not on your list, but I would support a voluntary sterilization program where people would get a free procedure and a stipend for being sterilized.

I'm going to have to look this up, but didn't a program similar to this get started in Los Angeles(?). I remember there being an outcry because it took advantage of low income people.

I will try and find a link to this, but if voluntary, what are the problems, if any to this form of population control?

I agree that overpopulation is a problem in some areas, and I think programs such as the ones DTOM suggested are a good idea. The one I read about, I cannot remember where it was, but it was basically in inner cities where a religious organization was offering people something like $500 and they also pay for vasectomy, tubes tied, etc. Many people cried that this was "racist", which I do not agree with. What is wrong with a voluntary program of this nature? Also, there is the other side of the coin. If you look at Japan, since their median family size is so small, they are facing a situation where the people over 65 are becoming an increasing majority of their population. That is one of the main reasons Japanese auto makers are building plants in the U.S. and Europe, a younger labor base. I plan to have children someday, maybe 2.2 like everyone else in America. biggrin.gif Another problem I see however, is people having unexpected children that they cannot afford to take care of, and I think the programs mentioned above would help to alleviate this problem as well.
Hugo
The UN projects population to peak at 12 billion and then go downward. More conservative sources predict the peak to be at 9.3 billion. Even the higher number poses no threat to the Earth or it's resources. Starvation is basically a matter of war or poor government policies.
Cosmoline
Just type in "Malthusian" or "Malthus was wrong" into google and you'll get links to the recent summits and forums addressing this issue. There's simply no question--Malthus failed to anticipate the exponential growth in food production and he failed to predict the dramatically declining birth rates that come from industrialization. The notion that we're going to be living in a world choked with people and have to move to Mars is complete bravo sierra. Down the line, the biggest problem may be keeping the population from declining too far. After all, kids have gone from free labor to enormous financial burden as we've moved from farms to cities.
Hugo
QUOTE(Cosmoline @ Feb 12 2003, 06:20 PM)
Just type in "Malthusian" or "Malthus was wrong" into google and you'll get links to the recent summits and forums addressing this issue.  There's simply no question--Malthus failed to anticipate the exponential growth in food production and he failed to predict the dramatically declining birth rates that come from industrialization.

Yes, economics is not such a dismal science afterall. the world population is expected to peak at approximately 9.3 billion and then decline. Nothing technology cannot handle.
Limpubus
QUOTE
I feel for the Astronauts lost in the space shuttle. I dont want them to have died in vane...


This is not a reason to further space exploration. Our theory as a culture should not be to move and consume more space. We've messed this planet up enough but it can still be saved.

I change my vote to forced sterilazation after 1 kid...
GenX_Futurist
I would've gone for "technology to improve the earths capacity" , but "beyond earth" has it's appeal too. I'm ALL for it. Overpopulation Schmoverpopulation lol. Resource management, technological advancement and further cultural evolution hold the brightest glimmer of hope in my eye.

I see population control as a knee-jerk reaction to the "real problem" of our current situation as a global community. We can't bad mouth the fact that we haven't already gotten to that balanced world, but we can NOW BEGIN to criticize ourselves as a world of theoretically intelligent creatures for not more aggressively pursuing the enrichment of the worlds human-capacity and capacity for life in general... though conflicting religious views again become central.

We could have the ability to turn "dead soil" into rich crop capable stuff, if we consider the role that micro-biology can play and the role that free electricity and pipelines of desalinated sea-water would play in an advancing "ecological front-line".

As for water in space... again, a little hardware, and all that free energy in space.... fly a hydrogen scooper around, add an oxygen generator, combust it as a fuel source to create water and more energy for the oxygen generator.... little tricks that can all really add up, much as the exponential food production thing... outta left field, but it was a change to "the rules" and the "way it is".
Victoria Silverwolf
As a lover of science fiction for many years, it saddens me to have to point out that space exploration will never have any impact at all on the population of Earth. There is no realistic expectation that any reasonably imaginable form of technology will make it possible to send people to other worlds at a rate which would have even a tiny influence on the rate of poppulation growth.

My personal feeling is that the planet would be better off with a lot less people.

I am child-free by choice. I was sterilized, and I would support encouragement of voluntary sterilization.
Mrs. Pigpen
I remember when I was in second grade (over two decades ago), the teacher maintained that we would be overpopulated and living on the moon by the year 2000. She also said that we would run out of oil even sooner than that....No one foresaw the improvements of mining techniques and the genetic engineering for more productive crops.
Human beings are a very dynamic, adaptable species. Overpopulation is the least of our concerns. I think there's a much better chance we'll kill ourselves off eventually ermm.gif

Gray Seal, I think it's great that you have 6 kids. I'm kind of jealous! I would love to have another (that would be 3). I think children symbolize everything good and hope for the future. Intelligent, good parents are in short supply and necessary to improve the species.
Abs like Jesus
I read an article (The Persian Chessboard) by Carl Sagan in his book Billions and Billions which touched on the subject of overpopulation. I haven't been able to find a link to the article, but if you'll trust me for a moment, I'll just type out some bits from the book on the subject of overpopulation...
QUOTE
     Exponentials are also the central idea behind the world population crisis. For most of the time humans have been on Earth the population was stable, with births and deaths almost perfectly in balance. This is called a "steady state." After the invention of agriculture... the human population of this planet began increasing, entering an exponential phase, which is very far from a steady state. Right now the doubling time of the world populatino is about 40 years. Every 40 years there will be twice as many of us. As the English clergyman Thomas Malthus pointed out in 1798, a population increasing exponentially -- Malthus described it as a geometrical progression -- will outstrip any conceivable increase in food supply. No Green Revolution, no hydroponics, no making the deserts bloom can beat an exponential population growth.
[Edit: second paragraph dispels the notion of interstellar colonization]
     ...many countries -- the United States, Russia, and China, for example --  have reached or will soon reach a situation where their growth has ceased, where they arrive at something close to a steady state. This is also called Zero Population Growth (ZPG). Still, because exponentials are so powerful, if even a small fraction of the human community continues for some time to reproduce exponentially the situation is essentially the same -- the world population increases exponentially, even if many nations are at ZPG.
[Edit: two paragraphs about the worldwide correlation between poverty and high birthrates, with notable exceptions]
     At present there are around 6 billion humans. In 40 years, if the doubling time stays constant, there will be 12 billion; in 80 years, 24 billion; in 120 years, 48 billion.... But few believe the Earth can support so many people. Because of the power of this exponential increase, dealing with global poverty now will be much cheaper and much more humane, it seems, than whatever solutions will be available to us many decades hence. Our job is to bring about a worldwide demographic transition and flatten out that exponential curve -- by eliminating grinding poverty, making safe and effective birth control methods widely available, and extending real political power (executive, legislative, judicial, military, and institutions influencing public opinion) to women. If we fail, some other process, less under our control, will do it for us.

Personally, I'd say these are the key points and I agree with them:
It will be cheaper and more humane to seek solutions now.
Eliminate grinding poverty (easier said than done) and making effective birth control widely available.
"If we fail, some other process, less under our control, will do it for us."

(think ELE's, natural disasters and plagues)
Hugo
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Apr 4 2003, 09:11 AM)
I read an article (The Persian Chessboard) by Carl Sagan in his book Billions and Billions which touched on the subject of overpopulation. I haven't been able to find a link to the article, but if you'll trust me for a moment, I'll just type out some bits from the book on the subject of overpopulation...
QUOTE
     Exponentials are also the central idea behind the world population crisis. For most of the time humans have been on Earth the population was stable, with births and deaths almost perfectly in balance. This is called a "steady state." After the invention of agriculture... the human population of this planet began increasing, entering an exponential phase, which is very far from a steady state. Right now the doubling time of the world populatino is about 40 years. Every 40 years there will be twice as many of us. As the English clergyman Thomas Malthus pointed out in 1798, a population increasing exponentially -- Malthus described it as a geometrical progression -- will outstrip any conceivable increase in food supply. No Green Revolution, no hydroponics, no making the deserts bloom can beat an exponential population growth.
[Edit: second paragraph dispels the notion of interstellar colonization]
     ...many countries -- the United States, Russia, and China, for example --  have reached or will soon reach a situation where their growth has ceased, where they arrive at something close to a steady state. This is also called Zero Population Growth (ZPG). Still, because exponentials are so powerful, if even a small fraction of the human community continues for some time to reproduce exponentially the situation is essentially the same -- the world population increases exponentially, even if many nations are at ZPG.
[Edit: two paragraphs about the worldwide correlation between poverty and high birthrates, with notable exceptions]
     At present there are around 6 billion humans. In 40 years, if the doubling time stays constant, there will be 12 billion; in 80 years, 24 billion; in 120 years, 48 billion.... But few believe the Earth can support so many people. Because of the power of this exponential increase, dealing with global poverty now will be much cheaper and much more humane, it seems, than whatever solutions will be available to us many decades hence. Our job is to bring about a worldwide demographic transition and flatten out that exponential curve -- by eliminating grinding poverty, making safe and effective birth control methods widely available, and extending real political power (executive, legislative, judicial, military, and institutions influencing public opinion) to women. If we fail, some other process, less under our control, will do it for us.

Personally, I'd say these are the key points and I agree with them:
It will be cheaper and more humane to seek solutions now.
Eliminate grinding poverty (easier said than done) and making effective birth control widely available.
"If we fail, some other process, less under our control, will do it for us."

(think ELE's, natural disasters and plagues)

The fact is even the UN expects the earth's population to level off at 12 billion and that number keeps getting revised lower. More conservative estimates are the population will peak at 9.3 billion and then decline. Malthus will always be wrong.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Apr 4 2003, 03:11 PM)
I haven't been able to find a link to the article, but if you'll trust me for a moment, I'll just type out some bits from the book on the subject of overpopulation...
QUOTE
     Exponentials are also the central idea behind the world population crisis. For most of the time humans have been on Earth the population was stable, with births and deaths almost perfectly in balance. This is called a "steady state." After the invention of agriculture... the human population of this planet began increasing, entering an exponential phase, which is very far from a steady state. Right now the doubling time of the world populatino is about 40 years. Every 40 years there will be twice as many of us. As the English clergyman Thomas Malthus pointed out in 1798, a population increasing exponentially -- Malthus described it as a geometrical progression -- will outstrip any conceivable increase in food supply. No Green Revolution, no hydroponics, no making the deserts bloom can beat an exponential population growth.
[Edit: second paragraph dispels the notion of interstellar colonization]
     ...many countries -- the United States, Russia, and China, for example --  have reached or will soon reach a situation where their growth has ceased, where they arrive at something close to a steady state. This is also called Zero Population Growth (ZPG). Still, because exponentials are so powerful, if even a small fraction of the human community continues for some time to reproduce exponentially the situation is essentially the same -- the world population increases exponentially, even if many nations are at ZPG.
[Edit: two paragraphs about the worldwide correlation between poverty and high birthrates, with notable exceptions]
     At present there are around 6 billion humans. In 40 years, if the doubling time stays constant, there will be 12 billion; in 80 years, 24 billion; in 120 years, 48 billion.... But few believe the Earth can support so many people. Because of the power of this exponential increase, dealing with global poverty now will be much cheaper and much more humane, it seems, than whatever solutions will be available to us many decades hence. Our job is to bring about a worldwide demographic transition and flatten out that exponential curve -- by eliminating grinding poverty, making safe and effective birth control methods widely available, and extending real political power (executive, legislative, judicial, military, and institutions influencing public opinion) to women. If we fail, some other process, less under our control, will do it for us.

Personally, I'd say these are the key points and I agree with them:
It will be cheaper and more humane to seek solutions now.
Eliminate grinding poverty (easier said than done) and making effective birth control widely available.
"If we fail, some other process, less under our control, will do it for us."

(think ELE's, natural disasters and plagues)

Of course I ‘trust’ your link, Abs. Your posts are always informative, even if I do not always agree

I understand the basis for the concept of ‘exponential growth’. IOW..If I have two kids, and THEY have two kids, ect…as the life expectancy increases, my offspring alone would encompass at least 20 people by the time I’m 90. Greater numbers of children would equal an even greater amount, exponentially. In practical reality this is rarely the case.

Mathus’ theories were created before birth control or genetic crop engineering. His premise was based on the controls set forth during the 19th century, which have little relevance today. In fact, the very references you use indirectly ‘prove’ his theory false. His assumptions led to the belief that poverty and human suffering were necessary to COMBAT population growth…. Clearly, the opposite is true. In most developing nations, there is a Zero population growth (as you sited in your post), whereas developing third world countries are reproducing exponentially.

Regarding your finally statement, I agree that we should attempt to spread birth control and educate the ignorant because this is the humane thing to do. I don’t believe that the population growth of third world countries will result in worldwide problems related to them.
Sadly, nature has a way of taking care of itself. The life expectancies in third world nations are significantly lower than those of developed countries. In Africa, the life expectancy is about 30 years lower than ours! Rampant HIV infection, parasites, famine, and lack of adequate medical treatment run their course. As ‘civilization’ and education enter their environment, they will keep their populations down voluntarily too.
Abs like Jesus
I wasn't citing the article to support Malthus' theory that the world will become overpopulated. I was putting it forth because I felt Sagan was trying to emphasize how to counter overpopulation...
QUOTE
Our job is to bring about a worldwide demographic transition and flatten out that exponential curve -- by eliminating grinding poverty, making safe and effective birth control methods widely available, and extending real political power (executive, legislative, judicial, military, and institutions influencing public opinion) to women. If we fail, some other process, less under our control, will do it for us.

I illustrated what I thought were the key points (working on it now, encouraging birth control) because while I haven't seen the UN reports, I imagine elimination of poverty and the spread of birth control factor in to their projected numbers. The orginal post seemed to be asking how to avert overpopulation, so I was siding with Sagan in his suggestions, lest nature do it for us. biggrin.gif

If the UN's projected numbers don't have birth control and reduced poverty as factors in their numbers, please let me know. It seems that both would be almost imperative to population control throughout the globe, but I suppose I could be wrong.
Izdaari
Well, obviously the Chinese government isn't voting on this thread! tongue.gif

Exporting people to colonies around other stars might be a good long term solution, and I voted for it, Definitely let's work on achieving that capability, which will have many other uses as well. But seriously folks, long before that solution could come into play, we could have the population problem already solved by solving the world poverty problem, or more accurately, the world lack-of-wealth-creation problem. Well-off countries don't have a population problem, poor countries do.
Hugo
Basic info on the UN's forecast on population growth can be found at this site.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(hugo @ Apr 4 2003, 09:49 PM)
Basic info on the UN's forecast on population growth can be found at this site.

VERY interesting. Thanks for the post!
gandalfh
People with an education are less likely to have children. So the solution is to make sure everyone has an education. That way they have something better to do than mindlessly have sex (nothing wrong with having sex, its just that for some people that is the ONLY option they have).
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(gandalfh @ Apr 5 2003, 12:36 AM)
People with an education are less likely to have children.  So the solution is to make sure everyone has an education.  That way they have something better to do than mindlessly have sex (nothing wrong with having sex, its just that for some people that is the ONLY option they have).

Hm..Read a book or have sex....Read a book or have sex....
I need to get better educated I guess tongue.gif

Seriously, I think the more children you have, in the age of birth control, the LESS sex is going on in that house. The sound of a baby crying isn't very arousing, and kids just wear you out, physically. A woman is only truly fertile about 2 1/2 days a MONTH. I know I was having more sex prior to children!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.