Comments on: The Overpopulation Hubbub

By: Gordon Cheyne

Gordon Cheyne — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:56:51 +0000

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a cheap technology that could reduce famine?
And poverty?
And environmental pollution?
And maternal mortality?
And infant mortality?
And abortion rate?
And AIDS?
And overcrowding?
But we DO.
It’s called Family Planning.

By: Prof Bob

Prof Bob — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:55:01 +0000

According to an article in Science Daily (April 20, 2009), a survey of the faculty at the State University of New York, which has a very strong environmental science department, the planet’s major environmental problem is overpopulation.. Climate change is second. This echoes the theme of the popular free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” –In Search of Utopia—(http://andgulliverreturns.info) As one professor at SUNY said “With ten million or even a hundred million people on the planet there would be no warming problem.” It is both the technology and the number of people using it that create so many of our planetary problems.
There is no question that China’s one child policy has helped the world and the Chinese economy. Whenever a country attempts to reduce its population it can expect a two or three generation period of problems while deaths reduce to equal births. I hope that China will recognize this fact and keep its own population on the path to reduction–which should begin by 2050. China’s actual fertility rate is not 1.0 per woman, but 1.8–the same as Norway’s.
China’s Platonic-like oligarchy is far more efficient than modern democracies. The self-centered desires of each of us to have as many children as we want; the pressure of some religions and most businesses for more converts and customers; and the need for more soldiers to defend each sovereign state– each fight the obvious solution to the problems of the world: warming, illegal immigration, the use of irreplaceable natural resources, waste disposal along with air and water pollution, starvation, and the lack of fresh water. But countries commonly encourage more births to enlarge the tax base and pay for the elderly. Then each generation will contain still more elderly.
The earth is self correcting’ but the correction will cost billions of lives that could have been saved with intelligent action now.

By: Todd McInroy

Todd McInroy — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:53:51 +0000

I am a little surprised by this post, did I somehow slip back in time to the seventies? The recent research I have seen says that the developed world has shrinking birth rates, and as soon as people have good medical care, so that most of their children live, family size drops. I expect the world to reach some peak population, and then drop. This will have ecomomic implications at some point because the world economic system requires constant growth.

By: Max

Max — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:05:30 +0000

The Democratic peace theory says that Democracies don’t go to war against each other.

By: oldebabe

oldebabe — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:00:23 +0000

Exactly. No one has found a way to abolish war.

By: sailor

sailor — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:05:51 +0000

Well, when I was born the whole world’s population was way smaller. I did my bit by not having any kids, so I did not create those “overpopulating hordes”. I feel the answer to overpopulation is to scale back on breeding, not mass suicide.

By: SkepLit

SkepLit — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:17:08 +0000

To reiterate a point I made (perhaps too subtly) earlier: When we talk about technology solving the population problem by increasing the efficiency of food production or improving health care, that isn’t solving the problem at all. It is accomodating the problem by allowing population to increase. More food and better health care don’t decrease reproduction rates.

That’s the wrong technology to be to be talking about. Technology may have a role to play in reversing the growth but it will be those technologies which can change human values and desires.

By: Brian M

Brian M — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:16:46 +0000

MadScientist:

I completely agree. But the statistics (and they’re just statistics) say that a higher technology level brings a lower birth rate (voluntarily). I think that actually kills 2 birds with 1 stone. It’s not a silver bullet, but I think its a pretty reasonable proposition for a large number of other reasons. Yes, more people live, but less people are born. Thats a good thing, IMHO. :)

By: MadScientist

MadScientist — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:43:01 +0000

“If everyone shared there would be no problem” is a myth. Giving too much creates its own problems; Ethiopia has been in strife for decades now and even though the drought has eased ever so little, some locals say that many people have become too dependent on aid. Like all other animals, people can become lazy and yet aggressive and demand things without working for it.

By: MadScientist

MadScientist — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:38:59 +0000

Unfortunately many parts of Africa are a basket case; you can see exactly what Malthus was describing in his era (he was writing primarily about Africa then as well). Many people still live as they have for thousands of years and they are happy; many do not live long, but that’s how things have always been. Life is hard but it has always been that way, and for the most part these people are very peaceful and friendly. Most of the time they do just fine, but on occasion nature does screw them over badly. Do such people need to be ‘saved’ from anything? I don’t think so; it’s rather puzzling how people often think that others who are not like them somehow need saving.

Now for the parts of Africa where you have strife – who knows what can be done. I think the best bet is to take some of these people and build up communities elsewhere. Over many generations you can establish successful communities that way. (Of course they can always be attacked by others, which screws things up.) I can’t imagine that there could be any simplistic solution in anyone’s lifetime though.