quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

There was a recent issue of Science - July 29, 2011 that covers this issue. The viewpoint of scientists looking at the problem has shifted over time, and is certainly very different from when Ehrlich wrote the Population Bomb. A quick summary- most of the worlds population is actually declining or stable with the exception of Africa and India. Yes, even China's population I think is contracting or will be soon. Furthermore, the period of rapid growth that saw the Earths population grow from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.1 billion in 2000 is slowing. By 2100, the population is forecast to be 10 billion- but that's a much lower growth rate than we saw previously. From a population of 7 billion in 2011, this is less than a 50% increase in 90 years.

Amazingly, I find myself sort of in agreement with Wilbur (and ST, but that's not quite so surprising). We've got other things to worry about other than population growth- and the verdict on family planning is actually rather mixed. If this is a topic near and dear to your heart, go check out the issue of Science.

Sam

• Lets assume that the money is found to educate people about not having kids they can't afford to raise. How exactly are the people running the programs going to make sure those who need it will go? Further, if they don't go, what's going to happen. Will they be punished? How and by who?
  
  
• In developing countries, they tend to have large families so that there are people to help with the farm, crops etc. Do you really imagine that overpopulation is even close to an issue for them? Do you imagine that they are going to stop having kids? Again, if they don't will there be punishment?What and who would administer it? Who decides how many kids they can have?

quote:

ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth

FR

Okay I've been thinking about this and the idea of education and such to fight overpopulation. I see several problems:

• Lets assume that the money is found to educate people about not having kids they can't afford to raise. How exactly are the people running the programs going to make sure those who need it will go? Further, if they don't go, what's going to happen. Will they be punished? How and by who?
  
• In developing countries, they tend to have large families so that there are people to help with the farm, crops etc. Do you really imagine that overpopulation is even close to an issue for them? Do you imagine that they are going to stop having kids? Again, if they don't will there be punishment?What and who would administer it? Who decides how many kids they can have?

Educating those populations who tend to have a lot of kids is a great idea it really is, I just don't think it's possible on a grand scale for the reasons I listed above and probably other reasons as well. It comes across to me as unrealistic and idealistic. Overseeing education programs worldwide just isn't feasible, there are simply too many people, ironic given the program.

Zeph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
...The academies note that "the world is undergoing an unprecedented population expansion", and that it is necessary to stop it. In fact, we must reach "zero population growth within the lifetime of our children", if we are to achieve the "common goal", which was defined as "the improvement of the quality of life for all, both now and succeeding generations", including "social, economic and personal well-being while preserving fundamental human rights and the ability to live harmoniously in a protected environment". Moreover, these goals are achievable, but in order to achieve them it is not sufficient to halt the population expansion.

i'm a little confused. (Not an unusual state for me, by the way.) But if halting population growth IS NOT sufficient to meet these "quality of life" goals, then what's the point?

...The proposed actions are concretised in 21 points. Those directly dealing with halting the population growth include furthering equal opportunities for women, easy access to cheap and safe contraceptives, family planning programmes, broad primary health care and education, and increased research on cultural, religious, and other factors, which "affect reproductive behavior".

All that sounds pretty good, except these "cultural and religious factors" which affect reproductive behavior may actually be pretty important to the people who have them.

In accordance with the respect for fundamental human rights, the measures do not include any kind of coercion, but enabling and encouragement for choosing to limit the number of children in a family. Other points include governmental policies recognizing longer-term environmental responsibilities; assistance from the industrialised to the developing world for environmental problems;

Sounds good.

...pricing and taxing that take environmental cost into account, and thus influence consumer behaviour, and transitions to less energy consumptive economies.

What does that mean? You're going to raise taxes for large families, or ask them to pay more for gas because of how many kids they have? Because that does violate people's right to equal protection under the law.

• 
  
• Lets assume that the money is found to educate people about not having kids they can't afford to raise. How exactly are the people running the programs going to make sure those who need it will go? Go to what?  If you are just talking about education, I don't know.  I am also talking about family planning services.  And I suppose you get them to go by making them available in the first place.   Further, if they don't go, what's going to happen.   Not a goddamn thing.  If people prefer that their children and their children's children live in misery, so be it.  Will they be punished?  I think so.How and by who? Not by any entity, but the circumstances will seem like punishment.  For example: http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2011/08/21/un-report-population-growth-to-cause-water-crunch/

• In developing countries, they tend to have large families so that there are people to help with the farm, crops etc. Not so sure this is true anymore, as populations become more urbanized.  For example "A hundred years ago 95% of the Africa population was rural, 50 years ago Africa was the least urbanized continent in the world, but by 2010 nearly half the population will be living in cities (Boadi et al., 2005).  I haven't researched this, but I think it would be pretty easy to show that on most continents, not just Africa, populations are more urban than they were in the past.  In fact, here is a link on that subject "  Do you really imagine that overpopulation is even close to an issue for them? Yes, as populations become more urban.  Do you imagine that they are going to stop having kids? If they have a choice.  That has been the trend in industrialized countries.  Again, if they don't will there be punishment?  In my view, still no.  What and who would administer it? Circumstances.  Who decides how many kids they can have?  Them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

For anyone that wants some data on the issue- including the effects of education and family planning, I HIGHLY recommend reading the Science issue.

From my perspective- this is a relatively straightforward problem-
1) The rest of the world doesn't have an overpopulation problem- it's really confined to Africa.
2) What works is simple- a higher economic standard of life. If women have more economic choices, they choose fewer children. No coercion necessary. Just supplying condoms is inadequate, and family planning has to take into account local factors. (D'OH!)
3) A big chunk of the problem in Africa is the politics and wars.
4) Humans in the developed world consume more resources than those in the developing world. However, the developed world's population is either declining or holding steady- and our consumption of resources is diminishing. As the developing world improves economically, they too will consume more resources, but they will also have fewer children in all likelihood.

Summary- overpopulation is not the ticking time bomb that we were lead to believe a couple of decades ago. Malthus was apparently in error.

This does not mean that there aren't issues affecting the environment- just that dealing with Africa's population growth is probably not that important in the grand scheme of things.


Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

You don't have to worry about overpopulation. The United Nations and it's Codex Alimentarious will take care of it. While I think the United Nations, the World Health Organization and their ilk are among the sickest, most morally degenerate people on the planet, the new Codex, strips all nutritional value out of most food, makes vitamins regulated by Big Pharma and encourages Big Agra to continue using genetically modified food (already corn widely used in every processed food product in the United States is widely Monsanto Round Up Ready derived.)

With that in mind, take a look at this: http://laudyms.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/genetically-modified-soy-linked-to-sterility-infant-mortality-in-hamsters/

If the same hold true in humans, within 3 generations, the population will make a sharp taper downward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

As to everything else you say, Zephyr, whatever, that is your opinion.  I don't think you have any idea as to my research in this area. And I think the evidence shows that when people have family planning available, they use it.  I have been to Kenya, I don't think people would choose to live like that if they had any other choice whatsoever.   As to your last point, Where would you make cuts to free up the money?,  that's easy.  I'd cut the wars we are involved in.  I would rather spend money to improve people's lives than to kill them.  

quote:

How do you imagine that family planning could possibly work? They can't even get a program to get people to use condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Your heart is in the right place, I just don't think you thought it through. It appears that you expect people from other culture to just ant to do it because it's the right thing to do. Also I think your expectation that if family planning clinics are opened every single person who can't afford kids would automatically a bit naive. Lastly where is the money supposed to come from? The US alone is hugely in debt, how and where is the money supposed to come from? Where would you make cuts to free up the money?

quote:

ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth

How do you imagine that family planning could possibly work? start with making it available. US Funding for the UNFPA was reinstated in 2009, so I suppose it will work like it does everywhere else.  If people want it, and it is available, they will use it.  Obviously, though, the US can't be expected to bear the entire burden.  They can't even get a program to get people to use condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. This is another issue.  Can you cite to an authority.  Because according to the UNAIDS (2006) Report on the global AIDS epidemic, in studies conducted between 2001 and 2005, eight out of eleven countries in sub-saharan africa reported an increase in condom use.  In addition, in the 2008 report, it states that In sub-saharan Africa, most national epeidemics have stabilized or begun to decline. Kenya is an exception.  Where is your date that programs to promote condom use are unsuccessful?  I do want to clarify that I don't believe this is just an issue about Africa, however.  Your heart is in the right place,Not really.   I just don't think you thought it through.Wrong.   It appears that you expect people from other culture to just ant to do it because it's the right thing to do.No, I expect that they will because it is in their self interest.  Same reason most people do anything.   Also I think your expectation that if family planning clinics are opened every single person who can't afford kids would automatically a bit naive.I don't believe I stated that I have that expections.  Lastly where is the money supposed to come from? The US alone is hugely in debt, how and where is the money supposed to come from? Obviously this effort can't just come from the US, but I think I did express an opinion about where the money would come from.  Where would you make cuts to free up the money?

quote:

We could easily feed the entire world

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Actually, globalization has caused the Big Agra growth, because there are local farmers and cattle ranches here that can't sell local, they are forced to export their goods at a fraction of what they could get here. This means higher costs for us, as we eat vegetables and meat shipped in out of the country.

Also, often food is shipped to the emerging economies and never reaches the people at all as it is stolen. We could easily feed the entire world, but every system is setup to be as cumbersome as possible. Like everything else the government does.