The nine billion pound gorilla in the room,

[MadHound]

It is time that we take a look at the obvious root of many of our problems, a fact that many people don't want to confront, but a fact that is confronting us everyday.

There are too many people on the face of this planet. We have outgrown our resources, and only technology, in all of its polluting, resource wasting glory, is keeping us alive. Worse yet, our population is continuing to grow.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are too many people on the face of this world, and we're all scrabbling after the same scarce resource. We are also killing this planet, crushing it under our very weight of numbers.

Potable water is running out, energy is becoming scarce, clean air, nutritious food, shelter, all of these basics are either scarce or non-existent for hundreds of millions of people.

Yet despite education, and birth control programs, our population is continuing to expand at an alarming rate. Latest estimates put our population at nine billion by 2050. The earth groans under the weight of our burden, while plants and animals will continue to die in their final millions, sacrificed on the altar of human civilization.

So what is the solution to this problem? Like I said, birth control programs haven't worked. Wars, one of nature's favorite methods of controlling belligerent species, are making less and less of a dent in our population.

Are we going to leave it up to nature, be just another mindless group of rabbits on the J curve population boom and bust cycle? That would be fine, but while we're booming and busting, unlike rabbits, we have the power to take the rest of the world down with us.

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I believe they need to be asked. I know, I know, when somebody gets into this subject, they are walking some very fine lines, pushing some serious boundaries. But the trouble is we have allowed such cultural squeamishness to prevent us from doing anything meaningful for far too long. So put aside such feelings, and let's see what you think, what, if any, solutions you have.

Because if we don't solve this problem now, it will be solved for us, and the solution will be ugly, ugly.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Total Agreement

[sendero]

2. It is a self-correcting..

... problem, Malthus was correct IMHO. It's just that the "correction" is not going to be pretty, but it's not likely to happen in our lifetimes so party on.

[aquart]

4. Well, depends on how old you are.

Because it is coming faster than we've been willing to imagine.

[MadHound]

6. The trouble with that is we've outrun Malthus, by miles and leagues.

Malthus never conceived that we would make it this far, his correction was to come an order of magnitude ago. He drastically underestimated the ability of mankind's technological prowess to continue to rack up the population count.

Worse, it seems as those mankind's technology will continue to allow us to grow indefinitely. It was a good try with AIDS, an every changing, ever adapting virus spread by sex, what a perfect way to kill off a large part of the population. But that has failed, and there is little check upon mankind.

When nature finally comes up with that "self correction" it is liable to take most other species with us. Frankly I would like to avoid that if possible. Our fellow species didn't create this mess, we did, and they shouldn't have to suffer.

And it might be closer than you think.

[My Good Babushka]

12. If we moved to a different economic model

of local, sustainable, non-wasting economies, we could live quite comfortably and not really miss a thing, except buttloads of pollution that we get from trucking and shipping cheap, disposable crap around the globe.

[My Good Babushka]

13. I think I put this in the wrong place

But it's still good.

[MadHound]

27. But would that bring the population level down?

I can see a glimmer of hope in what you say, but the fact of the matter is that comfortable people with adequate resources tend to reproduce:shrug:

And if we're going to go with local, sustainable economies, that means massive population movement. Places like Las Vegas, LA, Phoenix, and other such unsustainable cities would have to be abandoned. In fact given our current state of technological agriculture, cities in general would have to go, at least any city beyond a few thousand people:shrug:

[bbgrunt]

30. actually, it is the comfortable with resources who

reproduce less. It is the poor and desperate who need children to guard against economic devastation.

[MadHound]

32. No, that is relatively rich and well educated people who reproduce less,

And despite our carping, compared to much of the rest of the world, our middle class is indeed rich.

Equalizing resource distribution so that people simple have a modicum of comfort will only cause more population growth.

Education perhaps holds the answer, that might be our only hope. But it is a slim thread to hang the future of our world on.

[bbgrunt]

40. In economic terms, children ar assets for those who are

poor. They replace social security for old age, can add labor resources to the family income, and in order to protect against loss of children due to lack of adequate medical care, the poor must reproduce in higher quantities.

On the other hand, as societies progress, the costs associated with children begin to rise as they must be educated, entertained, well-fed, and increase the medical costs to the family.

As children are associated more with costs than benefits, population increases slow down.

How many middle class families have more than 2 children these days? A lot fewer than in the fifties or sixties. The countries with the fastest growing populations are not the developed west.

Granted, there may be a certain level of basic comfort and economic well-being where the effect of income level hasn't yet kicked in, but population growth is inversely correlated with income level.

[MadHound]

42. So let's see here,

We redistribute the world's wealth to the point where everybody is at a comfort level that our country had sixty, seventy years ago. Judging by past demographics, that means that our population will still continue to rise at an unsustainable rate:shrug:

[bbgrunt]

46. check out population growth rates by

country:

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

US has a pop growth rate of .97 or .98 depending on which stats you use. That is less than replacement. Liberis is 4.5 and Afghanistan is 3.85.....among many others with much higher population growth rates.

All I am saying is that to reach a sustainable population growth rate, it helps to have a higher income level. Perhaps that is the self-limiting factor in Malthusian terms: The comfortable and rich do not replace themselves in terms of population growth and gradually die out.

The big problem, however, is how to distribute the economic pie so that everyone gets to the same point--and it is not clear, given humanity's proclivities, that this is possible.

[MadHound]

48. I agree with what you're saying,

But if we redistribute the resources from the wealthy countries to the poor countries, the entire world would level out at somewhere around the comfort level of sixty, seventy years ago, when every nation was over the sustainable population growth limit. Yes, population growth in less developed countries would shrink as their comfort and income level rose, but population growth in developed countries would rise as their income and comfort went down:shrug:

[bbgrunt]

49. well, I don't have an answer for that

question except that it might all be a moot point if our overpopulation and production leads to so many environmental problems that, for example, infertility sets in.

but then, that is the Malthusian prediction. If it's not infertility, it will be wars, famine, disease, or gaia herself.

Until we lose the gene of self-interest and self preservation, I don't see the distribution of wealth and income becoming more equal--in fact, it is getting worse.

[FreakinDJ]

10. I fear for my children

because it will have a profound effect on their lives

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreakinDJ]

44. World population vs: Peak Oil

You need to realize if oil runs dry we won't have the food capacity

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mdmc]

5. I disagree

I think that the earth could easily sustain a much larger population, if there was a will to do so.

As long as people want comfort and profit over basic human needs, we will have poverty.

IMHO, all it would take to eliminate poverty on earth is a collective human will to do so.

[MadHound]

8. So we should all live at basic survival level

In order to sustain more and more people on this planet. That isn't fair to the planet or those people. Everybody deserves a modicum of comfort and leisure.

[mdmc]

14. Exactly

as long as having internet access and an automobile is more important then basic human dignity, the devil that is poverty will continue.

I, for one, would gladly give up my car and internet in order to afford housing, education, food, clothing, and medical care. That last one (medical care) is very hard for me to afford cause I am pretty sick..

I think that we can meet all basic needs if we had the (Christ like) will to do so. But as long as the devil can tempt us with comfort and leisure we will always have poverty.

[patrice]

7. There are too many people for living in the style to which we've grown accustom.

[MadHound]

9. There are too many people period,

Doesn't matter what style they are living in, there are simply too many people. And even if every single one of us were living at basic survival level, we would still be using up the Earth's resources at an unsustainable rate.

[mdmc]

15. I disagree

imho, there are enough resources in the state of Kansas to meet the entire worlds needs. It is simply a matter of choice - how are these resources utilized / horded?

[MadHound]

45. There aren't enough resources in the entire country to feed the entire country,

Much less the entire world. Due to the overreach of the "Green Revolution", where we used chemicals to stimulate agricultural production, our land is going sterile. We are losing thirteen percent of our arable land, and once that land is out of production, it takes years, if not decades for it to be fertile again.

Meanwhile we are using so much water to make the desert Southwest bloom that the Colorado river dries up before it reaches the ocean.

Equatable distribution of wealth and resources will help keep our window of opportunity open, but it won't solve the problem of diminishing resources. That is the problem we need to solve.

[CanonRay]

11. see: Kunstler, James

He's been saying pretty much this for years. K&R

[marmar]

16. If there were a more equitable distribution of resources on this planet...

...... and access to education etc on this planet, I suspect the birth rates would go down on their own. I always get a little queasy when people in the West start carping about overpopulation.

[MadHound]

19. Yet if we spread the resources equally, that would simply buy us some time,

Not solve the problem.

And why is it that you're queasy about a Westerner bringing up this problem? After all, the birthrate in Western countries is going down.

[marmar]

26. Disagree.....

From CNN Correspondent Garrick Utley

NEW YORK CNN As scientists note the arrival of the six billionth human being on the planet, they also are warning that 16 percent of the worlds population is consuming some 80 percent of its natural resources.

Thats the estimated toll the wealthiest populations on the globe the United States, Europe and Japan are taking from the earths natural bounty to sustain their way of life. ..........(more)

http://articles.cnn.com/1999-10-12/us/9910_12_population.cosumption_1_global-population-worlds-scientists?_s=PM:US

....... And that was from 1999. It's probably even worse now. I think a lot of people don't want to alter their lifestyle.

[BlueJazz]

17. I agree. I've never understood the people that say: "Well, the earth can hold a lot more"

My question is Why?...Why do you want to live in a huge mass of humanity??
Do you actually LIKE living like 25 rats in a small cage ??....where you can't have a moment of peace and quiet by yourself.

Yuck!

[ladjf]

18. True. But, I think that the fact that less than 1% of the world's population

is stealing whatever wealth there is from the other 99%. That has got to stop.

[MadHound]

22. I agree,

But even if wealth were equitably distributed, we would still be facing this problem.

[ladjf]

66. Most definitely. But, the sacrifices and deprivation would be much

less. And there would be resources available to change lifestyles to more efficient methods.

[bbgrunt]

31. this race to the bottom with respect to the middle class is

producing that result. Problem is, all the resources are not being divided equally but concentrating at the top even more.

[ladjf]

67. Ultimately, all of the wealth in America will be in hands of a few

hundred families. That is a recipe for disaster.

[BeFree]

20. This may freak you out

But I have been considering this for some time.

I believe in reincarnation. Meaning there are many souls wanting to come experience the physical world like we are doing today. And hey, it's a real Garden of Eden, this Earth, right?

So... given that space is unknown, yet what we can easily see in space is our moon and its pockmarked with millions of asteroid marks, we can know that asteroids have bashed us before and will bash us again.

There may be a time limit that we have no clue of, yet only through great populations of humans can there be more souls living as humans on Earth. And they are getting here while the getting is good.

Our problem is: we are not being very nice to each other.

[sarge43]

21. It's not the birth rate; it's the death rate.

The human reproduction rate probably hasn't changed for 50K years. What has changed is infant morality and life span. When I born 68 years ago, life span for a white woman was o/a 68 years. Now, barring disasters, I can tack on another 15 years. Before antibiotics, infectious diseases and the appalling lack of sanitation made childhood a risky business. Now the big killers are heart disease and cancer, middle age and the old killers.

And no, the obvious answer isn't appealing.

[MadHound]

24. And yet we continue to limit the death rate.

As you say, the average lifespan, at least in developed countries, is going up, up, up, and it will continue to go up as our science and technology continue to make advances in stem cell and other technologies.

Should we put a cap on these type of advances? Take away all advances in science and medicine that raise the average lifespan?

Yes, these are uneasy questions, with unappealing answers. But if we're serious about saving the human race, about saving what is left of the natural world on this planet, these are questions, and answers, that we need to start discussing. Out of such discussions, hopefully, we can come up with a solution that is relatively pain free.

[Kip Humphrey]

43. no doubt but since we are minimizing natural remedies, controlling our reproduction is all we have

if we ever hope to achieve sustainable co-existence on our planet.

[SoCalDem]

59. Work safety plays a part too.

When people worked in close proximity to large animals, and out in nature, there were MANY accidents that killed lots of people..Farmers were always at risk.

Until there were rules put into place, factory work was risky too.

Women often died in childbirth too.

Our health care (in the macro) created a population bulge, but lowered access to it now, will "help" lots of people make an earlier "exit" than we might have expected.

[WinkyDink]

25. 1. We are not "crushing" the planet, if you mean that literally; 2. The "gorilla" is, and has been

for a couple centuries, the Industrial, now Technological, Revolution; i.e., the discovery of "cheap" energy to produce machinery that both eased man's burdens and made him struggle to find work; that polluted, poisoned, and diminished man's essentials of air, water, and arable land; and that ravaged terra firma.

Seven billion people in an agrarian society? Probably sustainable.

[MadHound]

28. No, of course I don't mean that literally,

But we are driving most other species on this planet to extinction. We are using up resources at unsustainable rates. And no, there isn't enough arable land to feed, shelter and clothe seven billion people in an agrarian society.

[Lyric]

29. I think that population actually *isn't* the real gorilla in the room. Consumption is.

Overpopulation is only a problem because a tiny, wealthy percentage of us consume vast amounts of resources, leaving practically nothing for the poorer people.

The truly hard thing to face is that we, sitting here with our computers, our TVs, our climate-controlled homes, our plastic everything, our individual cars, our appliances, our overflowing landfills, our iPhones and GPS navigators, and our closets stuffed with countless clothes and twenty pairs of shoes...WE are the problem. Not the people living in third-world nations who have too many babies. US. And I count all modern, developed nations in that "US".

Overpopulation isn't the real threat to the planet by itself. But it IS a threat to the consumerist standard of living that we have grown to see as "normal", because the more people there are, the more competition we have for the ridiculously-unfair share of resources that we all consume. If we didn't consume FAR more than our share, the resources crisis wouldn't be such a problem. The fact of the matter is that even though almost everyone here agrees that consumerism is wrong and something needs to be done, nobody actually wants to take the drastic measures necessary to fix the problem. Can you imagine Americans voluntarily giving up their commuter flights? Their personal vehicles? Their clothes dryers? Their air conditioning and central heating? Their closets full of fashionable clothes? Their sanitary, plastic-packaged EVERYTHING? If asked to give those things up, most people would claim that they CAN'T because those things are necessary for life/work/health/safety/whatever, and on the surface they'd be right. But those things are only "necessary" because they are the "norm", and the norm is the problem. Nothing can change until we change THAT. Technology is moving fast, but it's moving in the wrong direction. It *should* be focused on creating innovative, sustainable ways to maintain our lifestyles while drastically reducing our consumption of resources, but instead, it's focused on building more and bigger weapons, planes, and convenience gadgets--all of which just perpetuate the problems of consumption and resource-hogging.

As for overpopulation--until we can address the much-larger and much more painful issue of disproportionate personal consumption of resources, I don't see how we can ethically cajole (or force) the poorer people with large families to stop having so many babies. Not only would we be enormously hypocritical, but we'd also be talking out of both sides of our mouths. We can't claim to oppose overpopulation when poor people in other nations having lots of babies is exactly how our consumerist wants are fulfilled every day. When the death rates are high, the birth rates are high too, and those babies who survive are the ones who grow up to make our gadgets, games, toys, automobiles, appliances, knickknacks, and apparel; to mine our ores and gems; to make our metals; and to grow a sizable portion of our food--and in their spare time, also grow enough for their own families' small needs. Sure, those people might have nine babies, but only two or three will live to adulthood, and only one of those three might live past age 45. They really *aren't* the problem. Hell, they're barely keeping up with the demand we create.

And all the while, we sit here boasting about our low birth rate, trying to pretend that WE'RE not the problem--it's those poor, uneducated people having too many babies that's the problem! When the reality is that if they ever STOP having so many babies, our entire consumer-driven society would collapse, because our source of cheap labor and cheap resources (cheap because the rightful owners are too poor to fight us) would be gone. It's damned hard to live with, but the reality is that the lifestyle we have HERE is the direct cause of crushing, living-in-a-hut, no-medical-care poverty over THERE. Some will shift around uncomfortably at that statement and say, "I know, it's terrible, but we can't do anything about that." Which is simply not true. It's not that we CAN'T do anything. It's that we WON'T. We are unwilling to do the things necessary to fix that situation. We are unwilling to give up even a quarter of the comforts and conveniences that we have become accustomed to. That's not even close to the same thing as "can't".

We can't blame all of this on overpopulation--not even *most* of it. The larger, more uncomfortable-to-address problem is that the level of consumption by "developed" nations is not just unsustainable--it's unconscionable, and it's *causing* what we perceive as an overpopulation problem. To sit here and argue about how to fix the overpopulation problem that wouldn't BE a problem without us, is just painfully unjust, IMHO. And I'm sure I'll get the typical, "What, do you want us all to go back to living in caves?!" bullshit, so let me smack that one down in advance--there's a middle ground between cave-dwelling and the opulent-at-the-expense-of-others lifestyle that we have now.

[rustydog]

33. Not gorilla, think termites. Look at what that pest does to their environment

Humans are the termites whose population is exploding. Earth is the home we are devouring. The problem is we do not have a home (planet) next door to move to once we have destroued this one.

[MadHound]

34. Consumption and unequal distribution are indeed a large part of the problem,

But then again, if you magically made all that equal, if everybody was living at the same level of comfort, the population would still continue to grow. As with any other species, if there is the presence of adequate resources, the species reproduces.

Equality in distribution, if we could achieve it, would only buy us time. But people would still continue to reproduce and the population would continue to grow.

[Desertrose]

63. Thank you Lyric! +1000

Exactly...

"Overpopulation isn't the real threat to the planet by itself. But it IS a threat to the consumerist standard of living that we have grown to see as "normal", because the more people there are, the more competition we have for the ridiculously-unfair share of resources that we all consume. If we didn't consume FAR more than our share, the resources crisis wouldn't be such a problem. The fact of the matter is that even though almost everyone here agrees that consumerism is wrong and something needs to be done, nobody actually wants to take the drastic measures necessary to fix the problem."

[Truth2Tell]

65. + 7 Billion! nt

[yurbud]

35. the reality is urbanization, education, and higher standards of living tend to REDUCE birth rates

so the more we impoverish people in the Third World, the more their families are going to try to create their own workforce for their farm or to bring money home from menial jobs.

[yurbud]

36. therefore, raise standards of living, share the wealth, and birth rates will go DOWN

[yurbud]

37. or we can just commence with the killing as you imply

[Modern_Matthew]

38. Thanks for shedding some light on this sociopathic discussion. n/t

[MadHound]

41. I'm not implying killing people,

Though thank you for being the second poster to overreact with that in this thread.

The fact of the matter is that our world is at a breaking point. While the population continues to grow, heading up towards nine billion forty years hence, our cropland is shrinking. The "Green Revolution" of the last century has scoured our world, and the actual amount of cropland available is shrinking at a rate of thirteen percent.

This is due to the fact that overuse of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers has sterilized the soil, wringing it free of any sort of nutrient value. It takes even the least effected of overworked soil years to become productive again, and we're simply running out of time.

Distribution equality, which is impossible in our current political and social climate, would, at best, simply prolong the inevitable. The reality is we're running out of cropland, water and resources to sustain our current population, much less one that is going to continue to grow. So rather than continuing to snidely insult somebody who is trying to find a workable answer to this problem, try being part of the solution yourself.

Otherwise we'll simply continue to stumble blindly down the path we're on, to the ruin and destruction of our entire planet.

[yurbud]

57. the US consistently has crop surpluses and dumps food on the rest of the world

Which is why Third World farmers can't make a living: they can grow enough crops to feed their people, but not cheaply enough to compete with us.

[shimmergal]

47. Yorbud, you're the only one

on this entire thread who makes any sense. Everyone else is overlooking the obvious.

The birth rate _has_ declined dramatically, everywhere that women have equal opportunity for education and a professional life. Where this has played itself out over 2-3 generations, you end up with 1) either a replacement level birth rate (as in the U.S., most of our recent population growth has been from immigration), or 2) actual delining population figures (as in Western Europe and in Japan). And unlike most other proposed "solutions" which are ugly, this one has the potential for eventually raising the sum level of human happiness.

(I'm not disputing points made about our bad treatment of natural resources, just saying they're a separate problem, and why are we unwilling to look at the root cause? Which, given that we're not going to renege on advances in health, is both more workable and more humane than any other approach.)

Of course for this to happen across the world (equal opportunity for the female half of the human race) it means patriarchal habits and attitudes have to go, too. China has realized at least half the problem and decided to educate ALL its citizens, male and female. But we can rightly quarrel with their other methods: the forced one-child policy, and the consequent loss of so many female babies. (As the adoptive grandmother of three girls born in China, the results are very real to me. Only a small percentage of the abandoned girl babies ever end up getting adopted into a family of their own, and their govt is now tightening up even on these adoptions, due to the imposition of the not-very-well-worked-out Hague Convention.)

Although education and equal economic opportunity are key, we need also to be looking at a change in sexual mores. Most of those extant today arose in societies which needed to reproduce rapidly or die out; but they're enforced by religious codes which insist reproductive sex or celibacy are the only way to go. Sex is an irrepressible instinct, but just as with food and many other needs, its expression is culturally shaped. We should be saying that "normal" heterosexual sex without using birth control, (except for the times when a child is wanted) is the real immorality. Why cede the moral high ground to the thought and codes of a very bygone age?

There are other ideas along this line, but that's enough for now.

[Cirque du So-What]

39. Link between population density and poverty & famine? Not found.

Top 20 Sovereign States & Dependent Territories by Population Density (in square miles):

1 Macau (China): 48,003
2 Monaco: 43,830
3 Singapore: 18,513
4 Hong Kong: 16,444
5 Gibraltar: 11,808
6 Vatican City: 4,861
7 Malta: 3,414
8 Bermuda (UK): 3,175
9 Bangladesh: 2,919 <3><8>
10 Sint Maarten (Netherlands): 2,852
11 Bahrain: 2,846
12 Maldives: 2,686
13 Guernsey: 2,183
14 Jersey: 2,044
15 Palestinian territories: 1,728
16 Saint-Martin (France): 1,717
17 Republic of China (Taiwan): 1,655
18 Mauritius: 1,634
19 Barbados: 1,541
20 Aruba (Netherlands): 1,435
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

That makes quite a scatterplot, does it not? The rest of the list provides nothing in the way of correlation either. There is no rhyme or reason between population density and poverty & famine, seeing that Bangladesh is sandwiched between Bahrain & Monaco.

Lettuce now look at corruption in government and poverty & famine:

Worldwide Corruption Perceptions Ranking of the Bottom 20 Sovereign States & Dependent Territories:

154 Central African Republic
154 Laos
154 Tajikistan
154 Republic of the Congo
154 Guinea-Bissau
164 Democratic Republic of the Congo
164 Guinea
164 Kyrgyzstan
164 Venezuela
168 Angola
168 Equatorial Guinea
170 Burundi
171 Chad
172 Sudan
172 Turkmenistan
172 Uzbekistan
175 Iraq
176 Afghanistan
176 Myanmar
178 Somalia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Now THERE's correlation for ya! It seems to me that our energy would be better spent trying to foster democracy and fighting corruption in government wherever it exists than trying to influence *other people* to stop breeding like rabbits (just quoting the OP), minding our own reproductive bidness & staying out of other people's bedrooms.

[zalinda]

50. There was a study done in an Asian area

some where in Thailand or Vietnam, that showed that when women where put on an equal footing with men, and had access to birth control, the birth rate went down, and the area grew more prosperous. I wish I could remember more details, but I think the study was done before the popularity of the Internet.

zalinda

[blindpig]

51. Capitalism = poverty = high replacement rate.

It ain't the whole thing but it is most of it. Deal with that and the rest becomes much more tractable. A planned economy is also an absolute necessity. We diddle and prevaricate at our peril.

[WinkyDink]

52. So, what are you recommending? Mass and purposeful pandemics?

[Jokinomx]

53. After reading your post and all the responses here is my take....

I have said for a long time just what you are saying. Our population is out of control and no one is taking action to slow it down. We lose sight of the fact that we are animals. We evolved from simple cells to this amazing biological computer body we call humans. Animals live under the law called "Survival of the Fittest". Unless mankind can rise above the consciousness of animals this law is still in effect. It is only when we rise above the consciousness of animals can we solve this problem.

It is happening in some parts of the planet. The population is actually dropping in some countries. The US would just about have a stable population if we didn't have immigrants helping prop up our numbers. This is one reason we actually need immigrants, to help fill the void of a working class that is sustaining the larger retired portion of our society. Another, topic worthy of discussion.

There are many factors that lead to overpopulation...Religions restricting birth control being one. Most religions would never tell their members to not have children...they need to keep up their numbers. The Mormans are masters of this philosophy. The Catholics are not far behind. So there is one big hurdle to overcome... Religious dogma. That is not even starting to look at the Islamic religions. Needless to say, this part of the problem is not going to change anytime soon. In a sense this is what many religions depend on, keeping the populace in dire straits as this keeps them praying to their respective Gods for help. The more successful a society is the less it depends on God. Missionaries going to 3rd world countries to "save" these peoples. Now that is blasphemy. Poor (in western terms) uneducated (in western terms)are ripe for the propaganda of a new religion. Who bring gifts and promises of a better life. Yet another topic worthy of discussion.

Some blamed our consumption. I completely disagree. From the start of the industrial revolution to the 1980s... for the most part, the U.S. depended on itself for most things. We manufactured or grew what we needed here. We controlled prices with tariffs and that helped keep jobs here. Corporations had a better idea, cheap labor for profit under the disguise of helping "industrialize" 3rd world countries. It wasn't until we "globalized" that we started exploiting the rest of the world to an obscene degree. Many of these societies were not ready to jump into the twentieth century.

Once we learned how to harness electricity the industrial revolution started. Electricity was the catalyst and oil evolved to be our life blood. Without oil none of this could have happened, at least not as quickly.

Oil has become the main ingredient to the mess we are in now. Now as we look at growth, someone had to be first to industrialize. We set the bar to a new standard of living. The rest of the world is now catching up and actually surpassing the U.S. in many areas. Do you know there are 20 cities larger than New York in China alone. The problem is that we weren't mature enough as a race of people to handle the increase in technology. That is the problem. We are in our infancy as a race and our global consciousness or awareness has not evolved as quickly as our technology has. This has lead to a myriad of problems.

Now some of the population realizes where we are and see that something has to be done but I personally think it is too late. The animal consciousness we evolved from is still in play. The "Survival of the Fittest" will continue to be our motto.

There is no solution to our problem. The laws of nature will take care of it for us.

Maybe once our population crashes through a plethora of heinous catastrophes that are in our future, we will sit down as the intelligent beings we can be and come up with policies that would prevent these types of problems in the first place.

However, this isn't going to happen until our society actually experiences this "Armageddon".

There is a saying I am sure most of you all have heard. "That which doesn't kill us, makes us stronger." This applies to the global population also. Those that survive will hopefully have the maturity to implement policies that are more conducive to a stable productive society. But I am afraid we have not reached that state of mind yet. At least not enough of us have.

peace

[LWolf]

54. I've been saying this for 2 decades.

That gorilla just keeps getting bigger. :(

Solutions?

I don't think education has gone far enough. We've allowed the nation to be controlled by propaganda that dismisses logic and reason. Education needs to start with thinking skills, with logic, with reason. THEN information can be reasonably processed by the public.

I also think that there is a balance between rights and responsibilities. They go together. Every right has a corresponding responsibility, collectively and independently.

It's possible that we are reaching, or have reached, the tipping point at which responsibility has to trump rights until a reasonable balance is established. This is the hot button that will kick in the outrage, I know.

China did it wrong. In the U.S., here's how I think it should be handled:

First of all, turn the tax code on its head. A very large deduction for NO biological children, regardless of custody or adoption issues; a smaller deduction for one biological child, no deduction for 2 biological children, and a carbon tax for every child after that, getting larger with each additional child.

Offer free post-high school education to those who do not reproduce. Hire them first. Smooth the path for the reproductively responsible.

Secondly, turn the propaganda on its head: flood the nation with public service messages about the harm done by overpopulation, the benefits of fewer or no children, and a broader understanding of the term "family."

Third, quit offering aid of any kind to any nation whose population is growing. Deny entry to citizens from any nation with a growing population.

Finally, take that message, and those policies, to the UN.

[Shagbark Hickory]

55. There need to be financial incentives for NOT BREEDING as opposed to the other way around. nt

[BobbyBoring]

58. True Dat

We in our quest for the great society have created a permanent under class in America. It's sad to say, but once we started paying low income people to have babies, that's what they did.

Everyone needs to see the movie Idiocracy and then revisit this thread~

[Shagbark Hickory]

62. You may get some slack for saying that on here but I'm with you.

Obviously not everyone has babies for the benefits but we also have this expectation that you grow up, get married, have kids. That too is a problem.

I know people that are working people that just have way too many kids. One person has 8 kids and never has any money but still has more on the way. His kids are all on free universal healthcare from the state but when you ask him who the best president was, he says GW bush.

[Shagbark Hickory]

56. another idea: TAX INCENTIVES for ADOPTING rather than BREEDING a new one.

You can still have children, just adopt. and still have sex, just use contraception.

[Lorien]

61. The answer is to educate and empower women globally

educated women and those who run their own businesses have far fewer children than uneducated and/ or oppressed women. I talked to a man from Bangladesh (known for it's overcrowding) and he said that it was the complete lack of education that made the people in his home Country breed like rabbits. He said that many of his family members viewed children as their own private workforce; they didn't seem to understand that having a dozen uneducated mouths to feed was an issue of it's own. The man said that he had two sons and told them that they should never have more than one or two children of their own if they wanted to truly invest in their own offspring.

[earth mom]

64. Excellent post! This needs to be said over and over again until people get it!

:thumbsup:

[marlakay]

68. What to do about all the religions that encourage

More children like Mormans who believe the more children you have the better chance of going to heaven. And that church is growing and all over the world. Then there are the ones who don't believe in birth control.

So education or tax incentives are not going to help...

[undeterred]

69. war is one of history's methods, not one of nature's

not to be picky :shrug: