Population: The elephant in the room

[Fop 1]

What can we actually do about it though? I feel telling people what to do negates free will about something really fundamental. But so many people are fucking stupid and selfish at the same time.

 

Well ironically in the UK the native population is about stable (immigration and 1st-3rd generation immigrant population account for most of our growth). It's a similar story across most of the West (baring old Eastern block states).

 

 

So it is possible to stabilise a population without needing to be Stalinist or actually do much anything at all.

 

 

Having said that the issues where most of the 3 billion new people are going to come from undoubtedly need much stronger more forward thinking initiatives.

 

In the context of aid, for example, it might well be much better to channel a lot of money into birth control, than to just try to inefficiently feed an ever growing population. Of course the better solutions in that context won't go down well, hence the lack of anyone really seriously suggesting it.

[Kitman 2188]

There's no financial incentive to depopulate. In developed countries, an ageing population places massive burdens on wage costs, pensions, healthcare etc. And queues in the supermarket whilst you're waiting for the old codger in front of you to get there bloody change out to pay. Hence the continued acceptance of immigration. In poor countries, a large family is the old age pension. China has tried to control population growth but I don't think they've been successful.

 

Maybe a Malthusian solution is most likely, although the prospect of worldwide war just got a little more remote with the retirement of George W Bush Junior. We're due another flu pandemic however.

[Guest alex]

What can we actually do about it though? I feel telling people what to do negates free will about something really fundamental. But so many people are fucking stupid and selfish at the same time.

 

Well ironically in the UK the native population is about stable (immigration and 1st-3rd generation immigrant population account for most of our growth). It's a similar story across most of the West (baring old Eastern block states).

 

 

So it is possible to stabilise a population without needing to be Stalinist or actually do much anything at all.

 

 

Having said that the issues where most of the 3 billion new people are going to come from undoubtedly need much stronger more forward thinking initiatives.

 

In the context of aid, for example, it might well be much better to channel a lot of money into birth control, than to just try to inefficiently feed an ever growing population. Of course the better solutions in that context won't go down well, hence the lack of anyone really seriously suggesting it.

Don't go all practical on my philosophical man.

[Guest alex]

To give you a sensible answer Flossie, I think the conditions in the Western World, so to speak, are due to cultural changes that have come about over a long period of time. And I think they've largely been accidental. I don't think there's been a deliberate, conscious policy on the part of any government to reduce population growth (in the western hemisphere). And I think we're decades and decades away from those conditions coming about in places like Africa and South America (if they indeed ever will). The only place where it's worked where there's been a deliberate policy (that I can think of anyway) is in China and there doesn't seem to be the will in other countries to impose something like this (either from their own governments or from pressure from other countries' governments). And even in China it was probably a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I suppose it's such a complex issue and an absolute moral minefield.

I think you're right that it's the single biggest issue facing mankind. I think the 1 billionth person was born about 100 or so years ago and the world's population is something like 6 billion now. Doesn't take a genius to work out that that can't be sustainable.

[Fop 1]

There's no financial incentive to depopulate. In developed countries, an ageing population places massive burdens on wage costs, pensions, healthcare etc. And queues in the supermarket whilst you're waiting for the old codger in front of you to get there bloody change out to pay. Hence the continued acceptance of immigration. In poor countries, a large family is the old age pension. China has tried to control population growth but I don't think they've been successful.

 

Maybe a Malthusian solution is most likely, although the prospect of worldwide war just got a little more remote with the retirement of George W Bush Junior. We're due another flu pandemic however.

 

An ageing population is something that just has to be accepted and lived with, effective slash and burn immigration is no solution as it only makes the whole problem worse as they to grow old.

 

 

China tried a very authoritarian method of control and it actually worked in its way.

 

 

However that's probably not the best way, the best way is likely to pay people not to have children (the big issue is fraud) probably involving permanent sterilisation methods.

[Fop 1]

To give you a sensible answer Flossie, I think the conditions in the Western World, so to speak, are due to cultural changes that have come about over a long period of time. And I think they've largely been accidental. I don't think there's been a deliberate, conscious policy on the part of any government to reduce population growth (in the western hemisphere). And I think we're decades and decades away from those conditions coming about in places like Africa and South America (if they indeed ever will). The only place where it's worked where there's been a deliberate policy (that I can think of anyway) is in China and there doesn't seem to be the will in other countries to impose something like this (either from their own governments or from pressure from other countries' governments). And even in China it was probably a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I suppose it's such a complex issue and an absolute moral minefield.

I think you're right that it's the single biggest issue facing mankind. I think the 1 billionth person was born about 100 or so years ago and the world's population is something like 6 billion now. Doesn't take a genius to work out that that can't be sustainable.

 

Which is why we're going to end up with another 3 billion people (9 billion in total) on this planet in the next 50 years.

 

It would be possible with incentive methods to make a big hole in that 3 billion, but it would require quick and determined action now (and as said it the whole issue is barely even admitted to in most circles).

 

 

 

The fact is, for example, those extra 3 billion people even living a very low tech and poverty stricken level of existence are going to wipe out even the most insanely optimistic CO2 reductions that the Western world can manage, never mind all the other issues of water, food and general poverty.