As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Population Control

EinEin CaliforniaRegistered User regular
edited April 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
POPULATION.jpg

I usually see this discussed in the context of "lol stupid people they shouldn't breed hurf durf". I don't want to talk about darwinism or eugenics or that sort of thing here.

That said, I do want to talk about population control for a minute here because I think it's actually a worthy idea.

Improvements in the human condition in the form of technology, medicine, and information have contributed to decreased death rates on the whole, which helps account for the positively enormous spike you see on the chart above. Because we're no longer being eaten by tigers or dying at the ripe old age of 30, there's obviously more of us. However, I think we're also well on our way to breeding ourselves into oblivion; by 2050, we're looking at a projected population of 9.2 billion worldwide. This figure actually assumes a decrease in average fertility from the current ~2.5 down to 2, meaning it's more than likely an underestimate. This means in the span of roughly 40 years, we will be host to another 3 billion people, or roughly 1.5 times our current world population.

It seems pretty obvious, as far as I can tell, that our current rate of growth is unsustainable at best. Limited resources is the most apparent reason: water, food, land, and energy all face a greater demand to supply a burgeoning population of people. Technology may help keep the pace (water desalinization, improvements in food production) but at some point everything's just going to collapse in on itself, isn't it?

glofert.gif

It's an old chart, but it gets the point across.

With that said, is there any real downside to population control on a global scale? What would the detriments be? Let's say, hypothetically, we enacted a global "one child per family" rule, similar to what China is currently endorsing. To further elaborate on the hypothetical, situations where 2+ children would be naturally born simultaneously are permitted, and no action need be taken. Adoption policies could be encouraged to permit families to have more than one child. I'm not sure how one would deal with accidental pregnancies, aside from maybe mandated sterilization which is probably nobody's cup of tea, and I don't really want to tread too far into a discussion on abortion if I can help it. What I'm after with my hypothetical is primarily a passive population reduction method that doesn't simply advocate mass genocide.

Given my admittedly hastily thought-out hypothetical, what would the downsides be? The biggest concerns I can think of have to do with a greater older-to-younger generation ratio, similar to the "four two one" criticism. Likewise, a generation of 'single child'-s could lead to a overindulged and overpriviledged generation. However, by effectively halving the human population, wouldn't we essentially be affording these future generations greater resources and opportunities?

I don't know how businesses might be affected by a reduction in population. I imagine it would involve a scaling back of production (less cars, less homes), but wouldn't that be a likewise positive change in environmental terms?

Basically, in my head, I see population control as a good thing, and I'm wondering what the arguments against it are. There are obvious social forces that push against a population control movement. For one, religion:

I'm more than positive the kneejerk reaction to a policy of population control in the United States would be cries of fascism and "they're takin' away mah freedoms" sorts of things, as we're obviously constitutionally entitled to breed like rabbits. Same goes for a lot of other countries, where I think the expectation is that the more children you have, the more support you will get from them later in life.

Edit: According to Carl Haub of the Population Reference Bureau, there have been 106 billion humans since the dawn of time. This means that in 50 years, we will be hilariously close to having 10% of the human population that has ever existed, ever, on the planet at the same time.

Ein on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Educate and enfranchise women politically, socially and economically. It's tried, proven, and doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights.

    MrMonroe on
  • Options
    archonwarparchonwarp Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Educate and enfranchise women politically, socially and economically. It's tried, proven, and doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights.

    The problem is that a lot of the world's people need those kids to work the fields in order to survive. If the whole world were first-world, sure, but it's not.

    archonwarp on
    873342-1.png
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    One thing we could do is work on resource consumption. For example, the average American consumes (or is it has the footprint of?) eleven Africans.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    EinEin CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    archonwarp wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Educate and enfranchise women politically, socially and economically. It's tried, proven, and doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights.

    The problem is that a lot of the world's people need those kids to work the fields in order to survive. If the whole world were first-world, sure, but it's not.

    If we were to hypothetically turn some of the resources we were not consuming through population growth towards automated farming machinery subsidies, would this sort things out? Instead of building a car in the US that nobody needs, why not a tractor for a guy in Africa?

    I'm aware this is delusional fantasy. The first worlders would just live in greater luxury. Or maybe we'd all be worse off because there wouldn't be an army of third-worlders providing us with resources, I don't know.

    And yeah, I didn't consider the footprint thing, but doesn't that make population control in first world countries even more important? I'm not saying that's the only way of reducing consumption, obviously, but it certainly wouldn't hurt.

    Ein on
  • Options
    archonwarparchonwarp Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ein wrote: »
    archonwarp wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Educate and enfranchise women politically, socially and economically. It's tried, proven, and doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights.

    The problem is that a lot of the world's people need those kids to work the fields in order to survive. If the whole world were first-world, sure, but it's not.

    If we were to hypothetically turn some of the resources we were not consuming through population growth towards automated farming machinery subsidies, would this sort things out? Instead of building a car in the US that nobody needs, why not a tractor for a guy in Africa?

    I'm aware this is delusional fantasy. The first worlders would just live in greater luxury.

    And yeah, I didn't consider the footprint thing, but doesn't that make population control in first world countries even more important? I'm not saying that's the only way of reducing consumption, obviously, but it certainly wouldn't hurt.

    I think that our society's lack of altruism is part of the problem. Do you think the people here think we should help out starving people in other countries? Of course not, they don't even want to pay taxes for social programs that help out their fellow countrymen. Lots of us see the problem, but there's too many people this idea in their head that they deserve to have lots of luxury because they worked hard at their job (which they probably got in part because of their parent's wealth and their social upbringing, but we live in a classless society hurf durf). Until we can get over being petty, it's going to take a lot to convince "Joe Sixpack", the guy who can't even afford to take his kids to Disney for 10-days-- FOR SHAME -- to give money to help out someone who is literally dying.

    I think that's one of the reasons that the shift is moving towards helping Lesser Developed Countries figure out a way to pull themselves into the global economy. If we can do that, it would probably cost less resources on our end and bring new stuff into the marketplace.

    archonwarp on
    873342-1.png
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2009
    Ein wrote: »
    POPULATION.jpg
    We need a new Jesus at some point, to die for the sins graphs inflict upon our eyes. Sins like rape, sodomy, and rape sodomy.
    Ein wrote: »
    I usually see this discussed in the context of "lol stupid people they shouldn't breed hurf durf". I don't want to talk about darwinism or eugenics or that sort of thing here.

    That said, I do want to talk about population control for a minute here because I think it's actually a worthy idea.

    Improvements in the human condition in the form of technology, medicine, and information have contributed to decreased death rates on the whole, which helps account for the positively enormous spike you see on the chart above. Because we're no longer being eaten by tigers or dying at the ripe old age of 30, there's obviously more of us. However, I think we're also well on our way to breeding ourselves into oblivion; by 2050, we're looking at a projected population of 9.2 billion worldwide. This figure actually assumes a decrease in average fertility from the current ~2.5 down to 2, meaning it's more than likely an underestimate. This means in the span of roughly 40 years, we will be host to another 3 billion people, or roughly 1.5 times our current world population.

    It seems pretty obvious, as far as I can tell, that our current rate of growth is unsustainable at best. Limited resources is the most apparent reason: water, food, land, and energy all face a greater demand to supply a burgeoning population of people. Technology may help keep the pace (water desalinization, improvements in food production) but at some point everything's just going to collapse in on itself, isn't it?
    Population growth depends a lot on level of income and level of education. I don't have a good handle on how the projections you're referring to were made, and I'm not sure how much info you have to make a judgement on their accuracy.
    Ein wrote: »
    glofert.gif

    It's an old chart, but it gets the point across.
    The point that third world countries make more babies than developed ones?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    That graph really should be plotted on a log axis, because it is ugly as presented.
    However, I digress. What a lot of professors forget to teach next to the "we have reached our environmental capacity for peoples" is that we have consistently raised that cap with new technologies.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Options
    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    ITT Elki reads my mind.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Options
    EinEin CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    Population growth depends a lot on level of income and level of education. I don't have a good handle on how the projections you're referring to were made, and I'm not sure how much info you have to make a judgement on their accuracy.

    I don't really have any clue as to their accuracy, yes. I think my OP indicates as much, given the uncertainty I have with most of the concepts relating to population control... which is why I wanted to discuss them, because I could be seriously misinformed or misapprehend the issue and I'm more than willing to learn.
    Elki wrote:
    Ein wrote: »
    glofert.gif

    It's an old chart, but it gets the point across.
    The point that third world countries make more babies than developed ones?

    Okay, I should probably have been clearer, I just chucked that out there to show that there are few places where the population growth ratio is actually in check. The US is still above a 2, which is the point at which we break even if I'm not mistaken.

    Ein on
  • Options
    EinEin CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    That graph really should be plotted on a log axis, because it is ugly as presented.
    However, I digress. What a lot of professors forget to teach next to the "we have reached our environmental capacity for peoples" is that we have consistently raised that cap with new technologies.
    OP wrote:
    Technology may help keep the pace (water desalinization, improvements in food production) but at some point everything's just going to collapse in on itself, isn't it?

    I totally get that we can do things now that we couldn't in the past, and that helps make our growing population sustainable, but we're still a closed system and at some point won't that no longer work?

    Ein on
  • Options
    NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Neaden on
  • Options
    EinEin CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Neaden wrote: »
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Any form of government sponsored population control?

    What about offering free vasectomies/tubal ligation/birth control to those interested? Or maybe offering a tax incentive to someone who willingly does that without ever having children?

    I mean, I'm just making this up off the top of my head, but I think that's a bit of an overgeneralization. Something like Planned Parenthood, which offers affordable contraceptives with privacy, isn't what I would consider a horrible³ idea.

    Ein on
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I think that an implicit error in your thinking is to assume that there are a set amount of wealth that must be divided among whatever population exists. However people, through working, create wealth. More people translates into more people working, and that translates into more wealth to go around.

    There is some theoretical limit where we've maxed out our carrying capacity. But I don't know that we're at that limit now, or that we will be in 30 years--especially when you consider advances in land stewardship and sustainable technology.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ein wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Any form of government sponsored population control?

    What about offering free vasectomies/tubal ligation/birth control to those interested? Or maybe offering a tax incentive to someone who willingly does that without ever having children?

    I mean, I'm just making this up off the top of my head, but I think that's a bit of an overgeneralization. Something like Planned Parenthood, which offers affordable contraceptives with privacy, isn't what I would consider a horrible³ idea.
    Yes. The first one is not nearly as bad as the second. Planned Parenthood is not the government. There are plenty of things that are fine for individual groups to do that would be horrible for the government to do. By and large what we need to do in America is stop shipping things in giant boats everywhere, stop eating so much meat, stop driving around so much, and reuse things rather then buying stuff that breaks in a year and can never be fixed.

    Neaden on
  • Options
    HarrierHarrier The Star Spangled Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Those people who tout technology as the answer fail to take into account the energy required to power the technology, and what I see as its inadequate supply.

    We're pretty much at or past peak oil, so it's all downhill for that resource, and since we've already done a lot of the easy mining for coal, uranium, etc., the decrease in oil supplies will affect our ability to reach all other forms of mineral energy.

    So the technology to provide for an expanded human population will need renewable energy. I think there's enough of that on Earth to support a civilization of billions of people. I'm not sure there's enough to support a full nine billion humans.

    And don't forget that without the technology, the billions of people that make up the overshoot won't be able to eat. If the assumption that technology will provide turns out to be false, you're looking at potentially billions dying from starvation.

    Harrier on
    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • Options
    HarrierHarrier The Star Spangled Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    And hell, forget food, what about water? People need that too, and you can't grow it in the ground.

    Harrier on
    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • Options
    mojojoeomojojoeo A block off the park, living the dream.Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Harrier wrote: »
    And hell, forget food, what about water? People need that too, and you can't grow it in the ground.

    planet is like mostly water.

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

    its not quite cheap but as we grow technology will get better.

    Pop growth is scary... but luckily we will all be dead when it gets nuts (i hope).

    mojojoeo on
    Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
  • Options
    saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    The answer is industrialization. Look at Quebec, for example. At the start of the 20th century, it had the highest birthrate in the entire Western hemisphere. After the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s, it now has the lowest birthrate in Canada.

    Industrialize the third world and our overpopulation problems end.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Harrier wrote: »
    Those people who tout technology as the answer fail to take into account the energy required to power the technology, and what I see as its inadequate supply.

    We're pretty much at or past peak oil, so it's all downhill for that resource, and since we've already done a lot of the easy mining for coal, uranium, etc., the decrease in oil supplies will affect our ability to reach all other forms of mineral energy.
    Enough sunlight hits the Earth in one second to power the entire current technological energy consumption of the planet. You can also Dyson sphere that baby up a notch (reflector satellites in secondary orbits around the sun beaming energy to Earth.

    Even with inadequate solar energy conversion technology, when pushed, we can more then easily provide power for ourselves.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    FarseerBaradasFarseerBaradas Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Neaden wrote: »
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Please tell me I'm not the only one who saw this?

    FarseerBaradas on
    sigeb2.png
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Neaden wrote: »
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Please tell me I'm not the only one who saw this?
    I didn't but I think it's a clever pun on infanticide.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    mojojoeomojojoeo A block off the park, living the dream.Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Neaden wrote: »
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Please tell me I'm not the only one who saw this?
    I didn't but I think it's a clever pun on infanticide.

    Say.... thought forming.... food shortage issues... lots of extra chinese baby meat.... hmmmmmmmm.....

    mojojoeo on
    Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
  • Options
    CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    mojojoeo wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Please tell me I'm not the only one who saw this?
    I didn't but I think it's a clever pun on infanticide.

    Say.... thought forming.... food shortage issues... lots of extra chinese baby meat.... hmmmmmmmm.....
    Your modest proposal is thermodynamically unsound. It takes far more calories to make a baby than you'll ever get back when eating one.

    You know what, I think I need to go to bed.

    CycloneRanger on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    mojojoeo wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Please tell me I'm not the only one who saw this?
    I didn't but I think it's a clever pun on infanticide.

    Say.... thought forming.... food shortage issues... lots of extra chinese baby meat.... hmmmmmmmm.....

    Then there would be no child behind(s) left.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    mojojoeomojojoeo A block off the park, living the dream.Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    mojojoeo wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Please tell me I'm not the only one who saw this?
    I didn't but I think it's a clever pun on infanticide.

    Say.... thought forming.... food shortage issues... lots of extra chinese baby meat.... hmmmmmmmm.....
    Your modest proposal is thermodynamically unsound. It takes far more calories to make a baby than you'll ever get back when eating one.

    You know what, I think I need to go to bed.

    Yeah me too, but sleep evades....

    mojojoeo on
    Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
  • Options
    ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Can't say I'm an expert on the subject of population control, but I did take an environmental science class and we talked quite a bit about population and why people in 3rd world countries tend to have more children. What I was told basically boiled down to:

    - Labor

    - Boredom

    Boredom sounds stupid, but it makes sense. When it's raining really hard outside in, say, Africa, people generally don't work in the fields. So what are you gonna do? Well, sex is an option. And when you take into consideration the lack of birth control and sex education in some countries, having sex which results in a child simply because two people were bored doesn't sound completely implausible. There's also a little bit of evidence in the poorer citizens of America - low-income families tend to have more children, which could be because they can also have a lot of downtime.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Options
    MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Turns out this isn't a problem if development in the third world starts to catch up. People in industrialized, developed countries don't breed at anything near the rates that people in underdeveloped countries do. If/when we reach the point where India and China are mostly post-industrial nations, we'll have probably hit peak population, and then we'll be just fine.

    Actually, if you look at developed countries like Japan, population shrinkage begins to be a problem, because it no longer makes any economic sense to have children. The only reason much of Western Europe and the United States have avoided this problem is immigration.

    Matrijs on
  • Options
    TheStrangerTheStranger Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Technological advancement and general education are the only moral ways to decrease the birth rate. There is no government with the global authority or military power to enforce a population control policy (leaving aside the moral / ethical issues involved).

    With greater education there are more opportunities, and greater awareness of birth control techniques. It also serves to reduce the flat out need for more children, as more children survive to adulthood.

    TheStranger on
    "Those who live by the sword die by the sword.
    Those who cower from tyrants deserve their chains."
    -unknown
  • Options
    kirykiry Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Can't say I'm an expert on the subject of population control, but I did take an environmental science class and we talked quite a bit about population and why people in 3rd world countries tend to have more children. What I was told basically boiled down to:

    - Labor

    - Boredom

    Boredom sounds stupid, but it makes sense. When it's raining really hard outside in, say, Africa, people generally don't work in the fields. So what are you gonna do? Well, sex is an option. And when you take into consideration the lack of birth control and sex education in some countries, having sex which results in a child simply because two people were bored doesn't sound completely implausible. There's also a little bit of evidence in the poorer citizens of America - low-income families tend to have more children, which could be because they can also have a lot of downtime.

    Just no. Labour is one reason for having large families, but really the reason for the population explosion is better healthcare. What tends to happen is healthcare progresses significantly, reducing infant mortality and raising life expectancy significantly. In the developed world this is accompanied by high levels of education, freedom for women and other important social norms. Unfortunately, it takes time for these factors to catch-up in the developing world, leading to population explosions. If Africa develops and grows you'll see the same falls in fertility we have in developed countries, education becomes more important and it becomes increasingly beneficial to have fewer children to invest in them(without the high risk of infant mortality).

    kiry on
  • Options
    MagicPrimeMagicPrime FiresideWizard Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    It's a perpetually worsening problem. More babies > Less resources per person > but still more babies.

    MagicPrime on
    BNet • magicprime#1430 | PSN/Steam • MagicPrime | Origin • FireSideWizard
    Critical Failures - Havenhold CampaignAugust St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
  • Options
    NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Neaden wrote: »
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Please tell me I'm not the only one who saw this?
    I didn't but I think it's a clever pun on infanticide.

    Errr..yeah, that's it. A clever pun. Seriously though the rate at which China practices selective abortion and infanticide is going to leave them pretty boned. Right now they are up to about 120 boys born for every 100 girls. This is going to lead to a lot of social disorder and unhappiness in the long run.

    Neaden on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Neaden wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Please tell me I'm not the only one who saw this?
    I didn't but I think it's a clever pun on infanticide.

    Errr..yeah, that's it. A clever pun. Seriously though the rate at which China practices selective abortion and infanticide is going to leave them pretty boned. Right now they are up to about 120 boys born for every 100 girls. This is going to lead to a lot of social disorder and unhappiness in the long run.
    It already has by many accounts. I'm surprised they don't consider this a major problem - I guess since it seems like such an atypical one, but a seriously tilt in the male/female split is a sociological disaster.

    EDIT: Unless you can get the gay population way waaaaay up.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    There is actually some debate at how big of a problem AIDS is in China right now and how much the One Child policy is responsible for it. The government tries to claim that their HIV rates are much lower then most NGOs would put it at and high rates of prostitution and unsafe sex in general exacerbated by underground homosexuality plays a rather large part in it.

    Neaden on
  • Options
    matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Neaden wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Please tell me I'm not the only one who saw this?
    I didn't but I think it's a clever pun on infanticide.

    Errr..yeah, that's it. A clever pun. Seriously though the rate at which China practices selective abortion and infanticide is going to leave them pretty boned. Right now they are up to about 120 boys born for every 100 girls. This is going to lead to a lot of social disorder and unhappiness in the long run.
    It already has by many accounts. I'm surprised they don't consider this a major problem - I guess since it seems like such an atypical one, but a seriously tilt in the male/female split is a sociological disaster.

    EDIT: Unless you can get the gay population way waaaaay up.
    That really won't do much to increase the female population...

    Current predictions are that China's population will level out around 2050, and begin to drop, while India's population will continue to increase and surpass China's.

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • Options
    EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    edited April 2009
    The population rising is a problem that will have some very uncomfortable solutions. There just isn't a comfortable way to solve it.

    Also, you all need to watch Hans Rosling's speeches. They're amazing. Do it. Now.

    Debunking third-world myths

    New insights on poverty

    Echo on
  • Options
    kirykiry Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    China does see it as a major issue and their leadership is very aware of the dangerous political instability of having single young men who are now also unemployed. Which has lead, somewhat ironically, to the government encouraging greater women's rights and encouragement for families to keep their girls rather than resort to abortion. In some ways what is worse is what will often happen to those girls that are born in rural families who subsequently have a son as well. Quite often these girls end up working in some of the worst factories and conditions in the urban areas to send money back to pay for a better future for their little brothers.

    In terms of pure population effects, the lack of girls will in all likelihood accentuate the effects of the one child policy in reducing population numbers beyond what one would expect. But while China might have a massive population it is less worrying for the long-term, it makes up a massive component of developing country growth which naturally lowers birth rates. More worrying is Africa which has failed to develop and continues to fail to develop, and as long as it fails to we are likely to see rising population primarily from Africa.

    Edit: I really don't think population increases require the sort of worrying solutions people think they do. A few decades ago population explosions were a much bigger concern than I think they are now. In most of the world the concern is now the reverse: declining populations as fertility drops below the rate of replacement. Even China is not so far off facing this as an issue. There is very little the West can do as it is not really the source of the problem, all it can (and should) do is help the poorest countries grow.

    kiry on
  • Options
    Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Echo wrote: »
    The population rising is a problem that will have some very uncomfortable solutions. There just isn't a comfortable way to solve it.

    Also, you all need to watch Hans Rosling's speeches. They're amazing. Do it. Now.

    Debunking third-world myths

    New insights on poverty

    I've seen those presentation before, but I'm always stuck by both the importance of the content and how the graphs and animations make my visual cortex implode with glee.

    Dis' on
  • Options
    CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Neaden wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Any form of government sponsored population control is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Educating people, especially women, decreasing resource consumption and consumerism, and increasing health care in 3rd world areas (people have less kids when they die less. This is because generally they want to have a minimum number, if a couple wants two kids and each child has a 10% chance of dying they will tend to have three, leading to a higher overall population), are all great ideas. Trying to enforce something as blatantly idiotic as China's One Child Left Behind Policy would be one of the stupidest things you could do, as China is learning to its displeasure now.

    Please tell me I'm not the only one who saw this?
    I didn't but I think it's a clever pun on infanticide.

    Errr..yeah, that's it. A clever pun. Seriously though the rate at which China practices selective abortion and infanticide is going to leave them pretty boned. Right now they are up to about 120 boys born for every 100 girls. This is going to lead to a lot of social disorder and unhappiness in the long run.

    Number wise that doesn't sound too bad, but then again that's a lot of men who absolutely, positively, must turn gay. The women being treated like not-garbage is the key. They can be so damn pretty sometimes, who would not want one? Oh...right...

    Asia - they want our jerbs, we want their wimmenz.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • Options
    GrudgeGrudge blessed is the mind too small for doubtRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Heh, my first thought was to post Hans Rosing's speeches, but I see I was beat'd.

    As said, the key is education and empowerment of women.

    Grudge on
  • Options
    NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Oddly enough Russia has a shortage of Men due to a high death rate and an increasing amount of Russian women do marry Chinese men. Of course Russia has a smaller population and smaller disparity so that is not a permanent solution or anything.

    Neaden on
Sign In or Register to comment.