Overpopulation

[LandSailor]

he says a lot of the charities esp christian ones provide food to te poor and he says , you feed them and they just breed more, they'll have ten or twenty kids, they dont know any better, you're just fueling population explosion and creating a bigger problem,

The problem is they don't have social security or pensions in these countries. One of the motivations to have kids is to look after them when they get older.

[wayno]

ah huh. so they need ten kids to look after them in old age? whats the point if theres barely enough food to go round?

[LandSailor]

I think we keep seeing this through a western filter. We assume everybody has access to capital, social security net etc.
In the poor countries they have none of these things. They cant afford to buy agricultural equipment, invest in business or whatever.
So the only capital they have is human labour (kids). And the number of kids they have is limited only by food availability.

Its easier to see why they would not be too concerned about diminishing world resources. This problem has been largely caused
by the west who have consumed massively more then they ever did.
Before they give up having an extra kid, how about we give up our 4wds, widescreen tvs and smartphones?

[wayno]

part of their problem is commodity prices, they are controlled by the west. they keep food prices down as long as there is a reasonable supply of food. if thres a glut, in one type of food the price can plummet , third world farmers struggle to make a living selling food partly because they cant grow it as intensively or on the same scale as western higher tech farming methods , partly because you have to be able to grow massive volumes to make a living....
plus western farmers are often propped up by govt subsidies allowing them to make a nice living when in reality there is barely any living to be had without the subsidies

[stepbystep]

There's too many words in that post Wayno and not nearly enough capital letters.

Education, education, education, or a mass extinction event.

[Clusterpod]

aparently there are more people alive on the planet today than all the people who have lived and died in history....

Nah, its more like 5 - 7% are alive today.

Which is still a massive number.

Edit: world pop was a billion by 1800

[perfectlydark]

While I strongly see overpopulation as a major problem in coming years, at the same time I am compketely against anything that impinges on personal liberty and freedom, ie telling people how many kids they can have. Especially that as a species this is one function we are genetically programmed to do.
learning to live more sustainably is surely a better response and can be done with willpower and education.
I know it sounds a bit airy fairy but ive got 2 kids (no plans for any more) and if someone told me I could only have 1 id kindly put them in their place

[wayno]

i dont think enough people will pay enough atention to regulating how many kids they have in time for it to make enough difference to cause various further serious problems.... far worse than have been experienced so far.

[maddog]

i dont think enough people will pay enough atention to regulating how many kids they have in time for it to make enough difference to cause various further serious problems.... far worse than have been experienced so far.

The developing world is failing to regulate how many kids they have, not those within developed nations. With a minimum of 2.1 live births per woman required for replacement, those within the EU manage just 1.59 (2009).

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statis ... statistics

The Japanese perform even worse, with a miserable 1.41 live births per woman (2013).

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/0 ... cz2mKUkdSU

Australia has a relatively high fertility rate for a developed nation, but we too are failing to replace ourselves (1.88 live births per woman (2011)).

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... lity+rates

Population growth is a developing world problem, not a moral problem, and should be viewed as such. Its cause is poverty and a lack of education. In the western world we generally have the opposite, a population decline, reduced (or avoided) only by immigration. If it is followed by a decline in western culture we may at some point wish we had had more children, not less.

Cheers

[doogs]

Affluence is not the problem, poverty and a lack of education is.

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153641/
Above is a link to the explanation of the equation for the impact on the environment (I=PAT). There is no difference between poverty and affluence, just depends how condescending you when you consider it Of course the equation doesn't take into factors such as education, which can be placed into the denominator to lessen the overall impact. Of the 3 I would argue that affluence is the biggest contributor to impacting on the environment, if you look at it purely at an individual level your impact increases with affluence.

A developing nation may have a fertility rate 8 times higher than a developed nation, causing overpopulation and environmental degradation.

So developing countries don't have the right to have the same population densities that are found in most developed countries?
Why are the environmentally degraded? Not just from their population but they also provide cheap food for us western folk.
It is complete *&^%$#! to blame developing countries for overpopulation and then complain that they are uneducated. That is an arrogant western point of view, it is us that need to educate ourselves in living in a more sustainable fashion.
We are obsessed with wealth as we believe it will lead to happiness, this is a myth too. The only country in the world to measure happiness is Bhutan, as GNH (Gross National Happiness) whereas we are obessed with GDP in developed countries. I saw this recently from Alberta in Canada and it makes very interesting viewing;

Maybe we need to start listening to the Eco Philosopher, Arne Naess, who introduced the world to the 'Deep Ecology' movement which you may find interesting in this aptly named documentary called 'Call of the mountain'! http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8meah ... c1BSPkweAA

[wayno]

oh my god... no..... you mean, he who dies with the most toys doesnt infact win? oh my god my entire life has been a lie... i'm a complete fake

[doogs]

oh my god... no..... you mean, he who dies with the most toys doesnt infact win? oh my god my entire life has been a lie... i'm a complete fake

How could someone as 'unique' as yourself be a fake?

[maddog]

We are obsessed with wealth as we believe it will lead to happiness, this is a myth too. The only country in the world to measure happiness is Bhutan, as GNH (Gross National Happiness) whereas we are obessed with GDP in developed countries. I saw this recently from Alberta in Canada and it makes very interesting viewing;

The attachment happiness.png is no longer available

Ehrlich, and other neo-malthusians who like to trot out the I = PAT equation, are most unlikely to introduce any happiness to the world with their doomsday views, and hair-shirt ideology. Fortunately they have reliably failed in their predictions for the future. In regards to Bhutan, it has been noted that the Bhutanese do indeed seem to be happy, but it has also been noted that there are few other nations with a low GDP that are happy nations.

Looking at the graph you provided, it appears to have a very odd x-axis. But a map of world happiness, providing as it does a clear correlation between happiness and health, wealth, and education, will help to clear up any confusion.

[doogs]

.
Looking at the graph you provided, it appears to have a very odd x-axis. But a map of world happiness, providing as it does a clear correlation between happiness and health, wealth, and education, will help to clear up any confusion.

How does it have a very odd axis? It shows quite clearly to me that there is a correlation between an increase in GDP with a decrease in happiness for the state of Alberta in Canada. Yes the could be many other factors relating to decrease in happiness but I am sure it shows a much truer depiction of reality that the data portrayed in your map above. I sincerely doubt that happiness has been thoroughly measured throughout the world and in most cases that it has, it will have only been measured in urbanised areas.
I hardly think of the views of Ehrlich et al. as doomsayers, we have lost so many species since are onward march through industrialisation that we haven't stop to think of the ecosystem services that these plants and animals may have provided for us which are now lost. It is not through overpopulation that this has happened, it through a thirst for wealth that we believe will lead to happiness. Why not skip the wealth bit and be more concerned with happiness throughout the world? I would much rather seeing politicians debating happiness rather than economic growth. Or am I completely wrong and should follow the Malthusian principles of continuing economic and population growth blindly and we will find solutions to our problems as they arise?

[maddog]

The x axis is odd as it provides no consistency in scale, and flips from going forward then backwards, e.g. 1901-1900 then 1971-1970..., as you go from left to right. There is also no measure of GDP value provided on the y, only a measure of happiness.

In regards to the neo-malthusuan thought:

'There was a general "neo-Malthusian" revival in the 1950s, 60s and 70s after the publication of two influential books in 1948 (Fairfield Osborn's Our Plundered Planet and William Vogt's Road to Survival). During that time the population of the world rose dramatically. Many in environmental movements began to sound the alarm regarding the potential dangers of population growth.[1] The Club of Rome published a famous book entitled The Limits to Growth in 1972. The report and the organisation soon became central to the neo-Malthusian revival.[26] Paul R. Ehrlich has been one of the most prominent neo-Malthusians since the publication of The Population Bomb in 1968. Other prominent Malthusians include the Paddock brothers, authors of Famine 1975! America's Decision: Who Will Survive?
Many journalists, academics and other commentators have criticized the neo-malthusian revival. In light of the green revolution, which has brought substantial increases in food production sufficient to keep up with rapid population growth, some of the more dramatic Malthusian warnings now appear to have been overstated or premature.[6][27] Julian Simon, a noted cornucopian has written that contrary to neo-malthusian theory, the earth's "carrying capacity" is essentially limitless.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

[biggbird]

So, from reading this thread, I have learnt that:

- Having too many kids is bad
- Not having enough kids may be bad
- It's all because of the poor people
- It's all because of the rich people
- Life sucked in the 60s
- Life still sucked in the 80s
- Life is still going to suck in the future because the whole world will implode because there are too many/not enough rich/poor people having too few/many children
- Make sure to capitalise or SBS will massively extinct you

Interesting thread.

[north-north-west]

But not having children can be easier said than done!

And would make for quite a sad life, indeed.

I found it easy. And of all the sadness and regrets in my life, that isn't one. Au contraire

[gayet]

I found it easy. And of all the sadness and regrets in my life, that isn't one. Au contraire

+1

And if only those who find this impossible to accept would keep their views to themselves, it would be a much more peaceful solitary existence.

[Strider]

I don't find it impossible to accept. Just impossible to believe. Life begins with kids IMHO.

[north-north-west]

I don't find it impossible to accept. Just impossible to believe. Life begins with kids IMHO.

Your life might have. But for different people . . .

[baeurabasher]

I don't find it impossible to accept. Just impossible to believe. Life begins with kids IMHO.

Your life might have. But for different people . . .

Strange remarks here by some. It is a personal decision to have kids or not. I myself have children but respect those who dont. Why would someone say they dont get that?? One thing that really annoys me is the new parent syndrome. The new mother/Father who feels they are more important to everyone else in the world just because of the recent bundle of joy they have......

[Mark F]

I assume you mean the 20+ year debt burden.

Worse than new parents is first time grandmothers - I work with 2.

[stepbystep]

I don't find it impossible to accept. Just impossible to believe. Life begins with kids IMHO.

Others don't have a choice, or have had that choice taken away from them, and comments like Striders can be very upsetting.

[perfectlydark]

As a parent I cant imagine life without them.
I can also appreciate those that choose not to have children, and know of many couples that live equally happy (and exponentially more free-er) lives than me.
And for those that have no choice, I feel for you and would always be there to lend a sympathetic ear if you ever needed it

[Strider]

I don't find it impossible to accept. Just impossible to believe. Life begins with kids IMHO.

Others don't have a choice, or have had that choice taken away from them, and comments like Striders can be very upsetting.

I apologise if anyone took my comments this way. Our twin daughters recently passed away, so I fully appreciate how distressing it can be for such a choice to be taken away so unwillingly

[corvus]

Cannot contemplate that loss and sadness
corvus

Last edited by corvus on Sun 15 Dec, 2013 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Tortoise]

Our twin daughters recently passed away, so I fully appreciate how distressing it can be for such a choice to be taken away so unwillingly

So sorry to hear that, Strider. Very tough.

[simonm]

Strider - it is almost impossible to comprehend how painful that must be for you and your wife.

Take care.

Simon

[stepbystep]

I don't find it impossible to accept. Just impossible to believe. Life begins with kids IMHO.

Others don't have a choice, or have had that choice taken away from them, and comments like Striders can be very upsetting.

I apologise if anyone took my comments this way. Our twin daughters recently passed away, so I fully appreciate how distressing it can be for such a choice to be taken away so unwillingly

Strider, thanks for the acknowledgement, and I'm very sorry you have had such an impossibly sad experience also.

[Strider]

Thanks for the kind words guys. It's been a sh*t year indeed.