Do we need population reduction?

[Hammer of Los]

I'm gonna chip in again. Sorry.

This word, "natalist," I had never heard of. I looked around and found this;

natalist

A natalist is one who believes that reproduction of human beings is a central priority in life. The newly-coined word comes from the Latin word natalis, meaning "birth."

Last updated: December 07, 2004.

No wonder I had never heard of it, its only been used in the last couple of years. Mmm, let me see, well I would say that reproduction was/is one of my central priorities in life, so maybe I am a "natalist." Hell, I was raised a roman catholic, although now I'm more buddhist/taoist/etc, so mea culpa!



But I believe raising children is profoundly enlightening and for me personally, helpful to my spiritual development. I wouldn't advocate forcing people to have children though, or anything totalitarian/authoritarian like that. Unlike the bean whatever;

China's population policy only sounds good if you don't actually look closely. In reality it's (a) badly defined and (b) not enforced properly. Sterilisation isn't part of it, so people need not stop at one and many don't. That's an acknowledged problem, even winked at, especially in the countryside.

I know DE pointed this out, but I would just like to add my outrage to his. Yeah, aint China dreadful for not dragging people off to perform forced sterilisations on them. That's what the nazi's did, and not only in Germany I might add. Yes, DE - I have followed the history of the eugenics movement just as I know you have.

This is similar to what made me (jokingly, and rather out of character for me) suggest to 5E6A that he commit suicide. I would like to apologise for that, but I think the notion of enforcing people's reproductive choices one way or the other is a great evil. For some people, it is an important part of their life. So quit with the judging of folk for having children, yes it needles me. I think my decision to have children was quite virtuous thank you very much, and see no need to apologise for it.

Rambling off. Keep at it DE, but keep those "Nascar Man" moments to a minimum. Hell, or not, its your call.



ps Free, universal access to contraception and contraception information is a very good idea. I support family planning, and the freedom of people to make their own reproductive choices.

[Hammer of Los]

And again, I just can't get enough can I?

Unchecked capitalism (basically, the system we have now) is immensely flawed but its single selling point is so powerful that it seems to override all other concerns. Capitalism sells a dream everyone can relate to. Its one selling point is this: No matter what your life is like now, rich or poor, black or white, fat or thin, First or Third World, here is the chance to make it better in whatever way you desire. YOU choose. Ooh, a choice! We love choices. And we love for it to be all about us.

I simply can't express how profoundly I disagree with this. But I'll at least make a start. Someone once said "the love of money is the root of all evil." Can money help me to lead a moral life? Can money lead me out of ignorance? Can money bring an end to the cycle of suffering? Can money help me with what is most important in life? Or as someone else once said;

I'll buy you a diamond ring my friend if it makes you feel alright
I'll get you anything my friend if it makes you feel alright
'Cause I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love

ps I concede money provides me with a subsistence existence and access to the edifying words of the wisest men in history. These are both essential in my opinion. Other than that material goods can go to hell. Just don't take my pc away! Man can't live by bread alone, after all.

[chiggerbit]

http://tinyurl.com/2y6ut6

A cave home, complete with front door, fireplace and a kitchen, was sold Wednesday for 100,000 pounds (148,000 euros, 202,000 dollars) at auction......

[Crow]

I simply can't express how profoundly I disagree with this. But I'll at least make a start. Someone once said "the love of money is the root of all evil." Can money help me to lead a moral life? Can money lead me out of ignorance? Can money bring an end to the cycle of suffering? Can money help me with what is most important in life? Or as someone else once said;

I'll buy you a diamond ring my friend if it makes you feel alright
I'll get you anything my friend if it makes you feel alright
'Cause I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love

ps I concede money provides me with a subsistence existence and access to the edifying words of the wisest men in history. These are both essential in my opinion. Other than that material goods can go to hell. Just don't take my pc away! Man can't live by bread alone, after all.

I agree with you completely. I wasn't reporting how the world should be, or how it is at its best, but simply observing how it usually is.

[wintler2]

China's population policy only sounds good if you don't actually look closely. In reality it's (a) badly defined and (b) not enforced properly. Sterilisation isn't part of it, so people need not stop at one and many don't.

China has a growth rate less than that of the U.S.

Irrespective of winking.

But since we now see you are adding forced sterilization into the equation, we get a better idea where you are coming from. I thought I heard some whining coming from the extreme right.

Tut tut, didn't say FORCED sterilisation, another paraphrase gone haywire DE, and with you already slipping in an 'extreme right' smear too.

As for factories:

Now, what about "overpopulation" suggests there can't be strict laws regulating factory pollution? Smog is actually less in Los Angeles than it was in the seventies, to give one example...and that's with no real movement to truly wrest control of the environment away from the corporations. ..

Cutting pollution from urban factories in Western countries is easy, just either
1. shift them to China/Malaysia/Vietnam.. .
2. expend greater capital and energy improving processes, usually making them more complex and anyway just redirecting waste to landfill or 2ndary incineration (eg. smokestack scrubbers don't dematerialise sulpher & mercury). All of which increases aggregate human consumption of natural capital.

Either road is usually fine by wealthy citizens, but both often sum to ever higher levels of resource consumption.
(real solution? tax domestic production AND imports on their embodied energy and total impacts, whereever they be).

[Hammer of Los]

No Wintler, the bean clearly said that China's population policy isn't "good" because it does not include "proper enforcement," and "sterilisation." Surely the implication is clear there. I don't think there is any unnecessary twisting of words.

Funnily enough, or perhaps not, because personally I don't find it remotely amusing, the BBC Radio Four programme Woman's Hour (yes I do listen, I am a full-time house husband after all!) today included a representative of "The Optimum Population Trust," making the point that we need people to "realise that having large families is a "crime against the environment!"" The presenter to her credit pointed out that the vast majority of those people having large families in the UK are immigrants, although not to her credit no mention was made of the fact that trying to reduce the size of immigrants' families might be seen as racist. It's a problem with their "culture," it was said, that needed correction. I guess they are just not being "British" enough.



It looks like there is a lot of talk about "population reduction," at the moment in the VWPS (Vast World-wide Propoganda System), otherwise known as the mass media. But then again, we know the Nazi's are bubbling to the surface like scum on a pond these days. You know, if I had the time, I might go and do some research on who exactly is behind and associated with this UK group "The Optimum Population Trust." Its a shame (well, no it isn't actually) that I am too busy looking after my two beautiful children.

[bean fidhleir]

All because of overpopulation? That's a rather reductionist statement.

I'm not sure if I'm getting this right but are you suggesting all of the ills you list and then (possibly) by extension all of the ecological ills across the planet can be said to stem from overpopulation?

Now would you also suggest such an ecological calamity as deforestation is also caused by overpopulation?

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion the "relentless push for more is driven by overpopulation." To come to that conclusion you have to omit an entire range of social and economic factors. Maybe you could explain how you got there.

It might sound reductionistic, but it's not.

Imagine the world supporting only 1000 people. Obviously, no problem. They'd be in approximately the state of the passengers of the Sea Venture, shipwrecked in Bermuda on the way to the Jamestown Colony in 1609. The island was "an Edenic land of perpetual spring and abundant food, 'the richest, healthfullest and pleasantest [place] they ever saw'" (Linebaugh & Rediker, p10), allowing them, without any effort at all, to get a living that was richer than any of the nobility in England enjoyed.

Now imagine the world trying to support 100 trillion people. Obviously impossible. And if you argue that there might be some unknown way to do it, I'll just hike the number.

Those thought experiments should make it clear that the underlying problem is simple headcount. Population.

All the techniques we use or advocate, whether technology, political organisation, or something else, are ameliorative masks, not solutions. They would not be needed in a world with few enough humans, and they all stop working once the population increases enough. Get the headcount low enough, no amelioration is necessary. Get it high enough, no amelioration is possible.

The only true solution is population control, and the only humane way to achieve it is effective birth control.

(As a side note to Hammer: the term "natalist" isn't new. Read any of anthropologist Marvin Harris's works from 30+ years ago.)

[JoseFreitas]

Population is not really the problem. Resource depletion, and the fact that it is necessary to the maintenance of human civilization (and perhaps for human life on earth) is the problem.

If we agree that resources are scarce, and that at least some of them will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, and if we agree that with complexity of human civilization any failure of one resource may lead to a crisis point, then:

- sustainable growth is impossible;
- continuous increase in population is impossible.

The level at which pop needs to be stabilized, though, is not an "absolute" number, though. It is a "relative" one. Relative to the level of development and resource use per capita. Certainly the world cannot sustain 6 billion people at US levels of resource use. On the other hand it might well sustain 10 billion people at 18th century levels. There needs to be some trade off.

Ideally, a much smaller pop (1 billion?) at more or less current levels of technology, hopefully a somewhat more green one, is the desirable goal. This means two things though, which I find improbable at least. That western countries abandon the goal of "growth"; and that somehow many billions abandon the desire to have children (if the reduction is to be managed in a credible time lapse). Because seen from this prism many "undesirable" things become actually a relief to the crisis (economic slowdowns, drastic diminutions of consumer power, unenployment, etc...).

There are ways of defining at least some parameters for resource use. The Earth has a "sun energy" budget that can be calculated, which includes, wind, sunlight, heat, forest and plant growth, etc... Use more than this and you are using up capital. Similarly, mineral resources can be strictly budgeted per year, and plans to reuse, recycle, implemented, together with research to substitute them for truly renewable ones from the solar budget. Examples: some plants have seeds that have oils which are much better at being turned into plastic than hydrocarbons. Plastic made from this would come from the solar energy budget (and might be reusable/recyclable) and not from acummulated capital budget.

But all this would imply quantities of common sense, welfare interest and commitment, planning and good faith that are completely unrealistic. So in the end we will go back to the age old solutions: famine, war, disease, technological crash, and we'll keep our fingers crossed and hope we don't take the entire planet with us. Or maybe something will happen in 2012 or aliens will show up and saves us from ourselves or whatever second coming people hope for. But hoping for that is the irresponsible thing to do (the precautionary principle should apply strongly in this debate).

Best

[bean fidhleir]

Population is not really the problem. Resource depletion, and the fact that it is necessary to the maintenance of human civilization (and perhaps for human life on earth) is the problem.

If we agree that resources are scarce, and that at least some of them will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, and if we agree that with complexity of human civilization any failure of one resource may lead to a crisis point, then:

- sustainable growth is impossible;
- continuous increase in population is impossible.

The level at which pop needs to be stabilized, though, is not an "absolute" number, though. It is a "relative" one. Relative to the level of development and resource use per capita. Certainly the world cannot sustain 6 billion people at US levels of resource use. On the other hand it might well sustain 10 billion people at 18th century levels. There needs to be some trade off.

Ideally, a much smaller pop (1 billion?) at more or less current levels of technology, hopefully a somewhat more green one, is the desirable goal. This means two things though, which I find improbable at least. That western countries abandon the goal of "growth"; and that somehow many billions abandon the desire to have children (if the reduction is to be managed in a credible time lapse). Because seen from this prism many "undesirable" things become actually a relief to the crisis (economic slowdowns, drastic diminutions of consumer power, unenployment, etc...).

There are ways of defining at least some parameters for resource use. The Earth has a "sun energy" budget that can be calculated, which includes, wind, sunlight, heat, forest and plant growth, etc... Use more than this and you are using up capital. Similarly, mineral resources can be strictly budgeted per year, and plans to reuse, recycle, implemented, together with research to substitute them for truly renewable ones from the solar budget. Examples: some plants have seeds that have oils which are much better at being turned into plastic than hydrocarbons. Plastic made from this would come from the solar energy budget (and might be reusable/recyclable) and not from acummulated capital budget.

But all this would imply quantities of common sense, welfare interest and commitment, planning and good faith that are completely unrealistic. So in the end we will go back to the age old solutions: famine, war, disease, technological crash, and we'll keep our fingers crossed and hope we don't take the entire planet with us. Or maybe something will happen in 2012 or aliens will show up and saves us from ourselves or whatever second coming people hope for. But hoping for that is the irresponsible thing to do (the precautionary principle should apply strongly in this debate).

Best

I think it's more accurate to describe resource depletion as an effect, not a problem, since it can be made to go away or get worse by varying the population headcount. We experience it as the problem only because we're conned and threatened into taking our destructively high population headcount as a given, which it's not as Earth is now in the process of demonstrating.

I agree with the rest of your post, of course.

[wintler2]

China's population policy only sounds good if you don't actually look closely. In reality it's (a) badly defined and (b) not enforced properly. Sterilisation isn't part of it, so people need not stop at one and many don't.

China has a growth rate less than that of the U.S.

Irrespective of winking.

But since we now see you are adding forced sterilization into the equation, we get a better idea where you are coming from. I thought I heard some whining coming from the extreme right.

Tut tut, didn't say FORCED sterilisation, another paraphrase gone haywire DE, and with you already slipping in an 'extreme right' smear too.

As for factories:

Now, what about "overpopulation" suggests there can't be strict laws regulating factory pollution? Smog is actually less in Los Angeles than it was in the seventies, to give one example...and that's with no real movement to truly wrest control of the environment away from the corporations. ..

Cutting pollution from urban factories in Western countries is easy, just either
1. shift them to China/Malaysia/Vietnam.. .
2. expend greater capital and energy improving processes, usually making them more complex and anyway just redirecting waste to landfill or 2ndary incineration (eg. smokestack scrubbers don't dematerialise sulpher & mercury). All of which increases aggregate human consumption of natural capital.

Either road is usually fine by wealthy citizens, but both often sum to ever higher levels of resource consumption.
(real solution? tax domestic production AND imports on their embodied energy and total impacts, whereever they be).

[bean fidhleir]

No Wintler, the bean clearly said that China's population policy isn't "good" because it does not include "proper enforcement," and "sterilisation." Surely the implication is clear there. I don't think there is any unnecessary twisting of words.

Well, if you exercised Chinese government power, you believed population reduction to be an urgent national priority, and you wanted to achieve the goal as painlessly as possible, how would you go about it?

What makes sterilisation worse than other options?

[Dreams End]

wintler, are you suggesting bean was lamenting the fact that China does not allow VOLUNTARY sterilization? That's silly. He had the chance to clarify and didn't. One day you'll figure out what sorts of folks you are allied with.

But look:

China's one child policy was established by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1979 to limit communist China's population growth. Although designated a "temporary measure," it continues a quarter-century after its establishment. The policy limits couples to one child. Fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization accompanied second or subsequent pregnancies.

http://geography.about.com/od/populatio ... echild.htm

It is obvious from the data that the policy has clearly given China a very low population growth rate. But not negative population growth.

Here is more information about forced sterilization and forced abortions...but I don't know how to verify any of it....as surely it's likely that some of this is pro-life propaganda or anti-Chinese propaganda.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/chi ... 6/wom5.htm

But meanwhile, taking China at their word that this sort of thing doesn't happen, you still have people who think they should be allowed to have more than one kids. And they get pissed:

Details are emerging of a large riot in southern China over the country's family planning laws.

Thousands of farmers, protesting against China's forced family planning measures have rioted in the country's Guanxi region.

Riot police were called in to quell the unrest after villagers smashed cars and set fire to a birth control centre.

At one stage, villagers and government officials reportedly threw stones at each other smashing offices.

The protest, that moved through several villages, was sparked when local authorities increased the fine to more than $AU1,500 for families with too many children.

Farmers in the area earn around $AU150 a year.

Though city dwellers are limited to one child in China, farmers in certain areas can have two children if their first is a girl.

Wealthy Chinese are increasingly having multiple children and simply paying the fine.
http://www.daylife.com/story/09Xa4NC3Agg9Z/news/all/1

And again, even with an official one child policy, all China managed to do was slow the growth rate...and if nothing else, fines are certainly coercive even if you don't believe they are practicing forced sterilizations. And the rich simply pay the fines...fines only bother those with little money.

So again, those of you so cavalierly suggesting we have to reduce population...how do you propose we do it? bean wants forced sterilizations. What do the rest of you want?

[erosoplier]

DE, when you can't even distinguish between a 70 year outcome, and a 700 year outcome, why do you even bother to pretend that you have an interest in a positive outcome for any of a billion Chinese?

This is not a question about China. China seems to be quite able to take care of itself. Have you noticed?

Why instead don't you and your sock puppet tackle the subject of Africa?

[wintler2]

duplicate post, damn the routers

[Dreams End]

This is not a question about China. China seems to be quite able to take care of itself. Have you noticed?

Why instead don't you and your sock puppet tackle the subject of Africa?

Glad to see you slept off your hangover.

China, last I checked, is part of the WORLD. And this thread was about reducing WORLD population. So now you are showing us what I have claimed all along...you aren't interested in reducing WORLD population, but the population in...where did you say?

Oh yes, AFRICA. Thanks for being honest about this.

I don't know who my sockpuppet is...but Africa is certainly the best example of poverty and degradation due to western exploitation that we have. All of the examples I mentioned in the long post that no one is responding to about the "shortage" of arable land, are related to Africa. (and southern Asia.)

So please read the thread. The relevant post, to which none of the pop reduxers have yet responded, is on page 6 of this thread. And by the way, this is typical...to ignore information already posted and then pretend as if it was never addressed.

There is a myth that the hunger and malnutrition afflicting many of the populations of poor nations are the direct result of their rapid population growth and the persistence of traditional agricultural technologies. This implies that, if population increases were to be curbed and modern technologies widely adopted, the problem would disappear. However, the population explosion is not the main cause of hunger and malnutrition, even though it exacerbates the situation. The growth of global food and agricultural production has been faster than the unprecedented population growth of the past 40 years. The hungry suffer from a lack of food security caused mainly by poverty (Reutlinger and Sclowsky, 1986). Poverty and rapid population growth are positively correlated. Where per caput income increases, population growth declines and vice versa. In other words, the higher the incidence of poverty, the higher the population growth and consequently more people are afflicted by hunger and malnutrition. That means, poverty, rather than population growth, is the leading cause of hunger and malnutrition. It is also evident that most of the people afflicted by hunger and malnutrition live in the poorest parts of the world (particularly South Asian and sub-Saharan African countries) where unemployment is high, income distribution is skewed and standards of living are low, thus reinforcing the obvious connection between hunger and poverty and not between hunger and population growth.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/W6199T/w6199t04.htm

AFRICA.

Reread the thread now that you are sober.