The elephant in the room..

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...In my case it's not the overpopulation what makes me despair. It's the change of lifestyle. We talk that population grows exponentially, but also individual consume grows exponentially. Food (fast food and restaurants), garments (damned fashion), transportation and energy... All that is pressing our planet and our species to the cliff edge...

This seems a bit of a distraction to me. Not that I'm saying that it's not important that we chance our lifestyles (and not just because of their ecological impact), but the population issue is going to bite us in the arse either way. How much resources each individual uses is only going to affect the speed at which disaster looms, not the fact of it's looming. Even if each individual on earth were only being allocated the minimal amount of resources needed to stay alive, there would still be a limit to how many humans the finite resources of our planet can support, and (as is the nature of exponential growth) we'd still find ourselves hitting that limit far quicker than any of us can imagine.

Or put it this way. If we could (hypothetically) get the total human population into a sharp decline over the next few years, then we might just get away with retaining our wasteful lifestyles (although that would be not excuse to do so). On the other hand, if we all (again hypothetically) started embracing a minimal waste lifestyle over the next few years, we'd still have to do something about population.

Sorry Sisifo, but population remains the elephant in the room whichever way you look at it.


Any human being (like any other organism) uses a certain minimal amount of resources. The Earths resources are finite. - It's a simple matter of mathematics.

[Rum]

I was prompted to start this thread because the UK's population has now reached above 61 Million - it was in the news here yesterday. I see some twerp is suggesting in today's papers that this is all jolly good news and very good for the economy.

There proportion of idiots seems to grow exponentially in proportion to the population!...or something.

Incidentally 50 years ago the population of the UK was 50 million.

[AshtonBlack]

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_r ... verty.html

Is a great talk about world population and economics.

Well worth a watch on this subject.

[FBM]

We could just hand control over the world to Kim Jong Il for a few years. That'd be the end of the population problem.

[JimC]

The role of religion in resisting birth control is worth a mention...

[Guy_Montag]

I suggest listening to the 2007 Reith Lecture series.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/

Generally I agree with the others here, as long as we have exponential population growth, we can be as ecologically careful as we want, but it's a losing battle. On the other hand - population problems are a multi-generational problem, whereas ecological problems are shorter term - years - decades.

[Trolldor]

Basically, the world is fucked no matter what we do.

I'm sorry, that suprises anyone?
It's not a degrading environment, it's getting people to stop being selfish cunts that's the problem.
However, in regards to over-population, I am currently experiencing a rather significant paternal urge, and there is no doubt for couples who want to have kids, and for women, it'd be a hell of a lot worse. The only real way to control population is through involuntary control.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...However, in regards to over-population, I am currently experiencing a rather significant paternal urge, and there is no doubt for couples who want to have kids, and for women, it'd be a hell of a lot worse. The only real way to control population is through involuntary control.

We could always try huge bribes not to breed. But if it comes down to it, it may have to be involuntary.

What takes precedent, the right for members of our generation to push out little sprogs to coo over, or the right for members of some future generation not to face massive starvation, warfare and brutality the likes of which the world has never seen, general misery and suffering, the almost certain total collapse of any semblance of civilisation, and the possible extinction of the human species?


Even if some humans manage to pull through this crisis, they will face an Earth which has been well and truly ravaged, and not just by the ecological damage we've inflicted either.
Do you really think that as the few available resources are being fought over, the world's nukes will remain in their silos? I don't think so somehow!

[Sisifo]

Sorry Sisifo, but population remains the elephant in the room whichever way you look at it.

Oh, indeed. I said that in the beginning. It goes without question that it must be addressed as a sine qua non condition to just survive as a species.

But I just wanted to add the subtleness or line of thought that it's not really population what matters. It is human consume -food&energy- what matters. Obviously, if population duplicates, human consume duplicates, and that needs to be stopped.
But if we have two groups of people: One who duplicates its population every 20 years, and another that stays within the same number, but duplicates its food and energy intake every 20 years, I think that the issue is the same, and maybe we should address our group, and not point the other one. That was just a thought.

Yes. The population is the elephant in the room, but the uncontrollable consume and waste of rich countries is the wolf smelling our bollocks licking his chops.

[Trolldor]

*snip*

The problem is with involuntary population control - it's the only plausible way, but enforcing it is another matter altogether. It's only possible in a military-style state. You'd have to control how people move and think, because if you tried to forcibly sterilise people you're going to get stopped, your power will be taken and you'll be killed so long as they have the freedom and ability to do so.

[Sisifo]

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_r ... verty.html

Is a great talk about world population and economics.

Well worth a watch on this subject.

Fabulous! Thank you for showing the link!

[Woodbutcher]

I'm all for sterilization at birth. That would be reversed once you show that you have the means to look after your child. Two kids max, after that sterilization.

[Trolldor]

One child is the only way to cut down population unless you intend to withhold medical care and count children even if they become deceased.

[Rum]

I'm all for sterilization at birth. That would be reversed once you show that you have the means to look after your child. Two kids max, after that sterilization.

I think this is politically a non-starter in all liberal democracies and impractical in many others. For starters in the developed world we could remove contradcitory incentives by removing tax breaks, 'family allowance' (a support payment all parents get in the UK and in some other European countries) and similar support. Things like long term paid leave when you have a child etc. Those sort of approaches would be a start.

It is also clear that education reduces family size. In many poorer parts of the world large families = more income.

Frankly I don't think that we are up to it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think the first thing we could do is remove fertility treatment on the NHS!