[Madidus_Scientia]

It's a daunting concept, but we're likely going to need some sort of population control eventually.

What about the idea of offering people cash incentives to get sterilised? And perhaps charge parents who want to have large families to pay for the sterilisations of the others.

I guess that might increase the spread of std's from people thinking they no longer need condoms though.

Any other ideas?

[Bored chemist]

War, famine and pestilence have been the traditional ones.

[Karsten]

War, famine and pestilence have been the traditional ones.

I read somewhere that wars actually increase populations. People make up for the losses. And I read somewhere else that modern, comfortable societies have lower birthrates.

So, good times result in fewer children?

[Karsten]

 I wonder if birthrates will go down if environmental stress goes up. Works for mice and such I think.

[Karsten]

Karsten, Hans Rosling on TED is probably the most wonderful, provocative and stunning intellectual entertainment in the world for years to come!! The first 5 minutes of the first video gives you an answer to your question.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html

Fun to watch.

So, what has driven birthrates down is education, health care, and  especially economic prosperity. Of course, since economic prosperity seems to be linked to fossil fuel consumption (CO2 emissions) this may not work forever.

[litespeed]

Karsten

Prosperity is the one proven population control method. Almost all industrial societies have fertility of less then replacement rate already.  China's one child policy did, or maybe still does, have a noticeable effect as well. 

I have seen actuarial studies that graph fertility rates against income. If I get a chance I will do some research.  However, I don't think it is a linear curve. I think their are steps. For instance, income sufficient to own a motorscooter. Income sufficent to own a car etc etc

[litespeed]

GOOD NEWS - I  found graph that charts fertility rate against GDP per capita. I looks like fertility rates drop to about replacement rate [2.33] at only $5,000 GDP percapita.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg

BETTER NEWS YET - China is below replacement levels and India is not nearly as high as expected. So, the world may well on the way to population reduction later in this century.

The fertility rate for India is about 2.68 with GDP of $2,600.
The fertility rate for China is about 1.72 with GDP of $5,400.

 

[kingmaker]

Birth control is better.Like the way people in india have introduced.

[Jonathan Madriaga]

In one lecture, we discussed this 'hot topic' in conservation. Actually, some studies say that the population in developed countries will become stable or perhaps decline in the next decade. We will experience an elderly dependence (higher elders>youth) with a low birth rate and people will live longer due to medical advances, way of life, etc. More people, especially females will turn away from parenthood and do their own thing (education, career) like men. On the other hand, the same studies predict that developing nations will exhibit an increased growth and density (high birth rate) and death rate, but not exceeding birth rate. This is because of HIV incidences, food distribution, etc.

[dchung]

Andriod Sex Bots /  Media would be a powerful combination for effective population control ..

If we had robots that were "waay better in the sack" compared to any human, coupled with a Media Blitzkrieg Bombardment of notions in support of human to android contact. Humans would eventually fore-go human on human contact in lieu of the  " way more awesomer" human to android contact.

If these robots were better, easier, cheaper and mass produced for everyone, population control would be more effective.

If we stopped fkn each other and started fkn androids, the chances of having a baby would be eliminated. Within a generation or two after implementing this type of paradigm we would notice considerable or drastic population reduction.

Feel free to check out a polka song I wrote about Robot sex bots on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=457622168484

[Bored chemist]

LOL

[CliffordK]

While people get concerned with drops in population, I don't see any problem with a slowly decreasing population, down to 50% of current levels?  Perhaps reducing to 3 or 4 billion people globally, and 150 million in the USA.  Perhaps even fewer.

It would certainly put a lot less strain on the global environment and global resources, and would likely improve access to agricultural supplies to the poor, and an increase in the global standard of living.

The USA has a system of tax deductions in which the more children a person has, the greater tax deductions.  Yet, the impact on society of large families is likely the opposite.

I would like to see a new tax code implemented in which a family would get 1 deduction per parent, two deductions per couple for children.  Any children beyond that would be taxed extra (negative deductions).  Obviously exempting children born prior to 9 months after the law took effect.

Long-term foreign economic aid should also include provisions for birth control and population control.

There are many effective long-term birth control methods including Norplant, Depo Provera, and IUDs that can effectively reduce conception (although there are some side-effects), as well as surgical methods.  These should be made readily available in 3^rd world clinics.  As well as contraceptive education, and perhaps education in general.

No religious group should be able to call themselves "Good Shepherds of the Earth" unless they encourage responsible family sizes.

Population Control should be central to all talks of global warming and future regional food shortages, as well as humanity to respond to insults such as sea level rise, ice ages, global cooling due to super-volcanoes, agricultural supplies, food vs fuel, & etc.

[Sprool]

The child tax scenario is the one used in China to encourage smaller families. If you and your partner are both single children then you can have 2 kids with no loss of tax benefit. If you or your partner are not from single child families then your benefits are reduced if you have more than 1 child yourself. Over a few generations it should stabilise.

[Bored chemist]

"The child tax scenario is the one used in China to encourage smaller families."
And it worked so well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

[dchung]

Why tax ?
Why use chemicals?

the best solution is government investing in giving people free or reduced cost Android Sex Bots and bombarding the public with ideas that it is a better sexual experience with a robot vs a human being.. TV has the power to influence and science has the power to create.. Chemicals can mess up our natural genetic design, and threatening people with taxation makes you look like a total douche in my opinion, so I figure we use pop culture.. Its already geared toward brainwashing our kids anyway

"And as technology gets better, it will increase out pleasure and we'll look at regulars like "what the f**k ?"

[waytogo]

War, famine and pestilence have been the traditional ones.

what about vaccines?

[CliffordK]

what about vaccines?

Vaccinations and medical care is complicated.

Say the replacement birthrate is 1 child per person, 2 children per couple, I think.

If the Under 30 mortality is 1/1000.  Then the replacement birthrate becomes 2.002 per couple.

However, if the Under 30 mortality is 50% (1:2), then the replacement birthrate jumps up to 4 per couple.

And, of course with war, pestilence, etc...  to ensure having living adult children, one must have large families. 

Better medical care (and other things) decreases the mortality rate.  If one drops from 50% under 30 mortality to 0.1% under 30 mortality, then one could get a rebound population growth, but it would also give people a much greater incentive to have smaller families.

Problems come when some people (or religious zealots) cling to old ways and have super-sized families at the same time the mortality rate plummets.

Also, keep in mind that several of the vaccines that we have are not to prevent mortality.  There is a very low rubella or chickenpox mortality.  But, with the chickenpox vaccination, it helps prevent adults from getting the disease, or the recurrence of shingles (as well as child morbidity).  Rubella is much more serious for fetuses of pregnant mothers than for schoolchildren, or even adults.

[Bored chemist]

War, famine and pestilence have been the traditional ones.

what about vaccines?

What about them?
They don't reduce populations and they are not really old enough to be "traditional".

[Boogie]

Andriod Sex Bots /  Media would be a powerful combination for effective population control ..

If we had robots that were "waay better in the sack" compared to any human, coupled with a Media Blitzkrieg Bombardment of notions in support of human to android contact. Humans would eventually fore-go human on human contact in lieu of the  " way more awesomer" human to android contact.

If these robots were better, easier, cheaper and mass produced for everyone, population control would be more effective.

If we stopped fkn each other and started fkn androids, the chances of having a baby would be eliminated. Within a generation or two after implementing this type of paradigm we would notice considerable or drastic population reduction.

Feel free to check out a polka song I wrote about Robot sex bots on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=457622168484

Robosexual relationships? I like it.

It slices, it dices, it will clean your house, polish your horn, and you can turn it off during the super bowl. But don't get it mad or it will run home to it's motherboard.

[dchung]

(apologies to the moderator) .. I just wanna say, There are many effective methods to reduce the human population, but I ask, which method is the most; peaceful, humane and pleasurably beguiling ? I still feel the suggestion of creating and promoting android sex has the best potential of all suggestions noted thus far

[imatfaal]

Dchung - I have removed your latest post from general view.  If you want to discuss abstinence from procreative sex (via contraception, celebacy, or even android sex-bots) please do so in a more seemly manner; ie in a scientific rather than scabrous form 

This is a science site but we also insist it be kept acceptable reading for families and children - so whilst we tend not to shy away from any topic we insist that discussion is kept within certain boundaries of good taste and decency. 

Thanks
imatfaal - moderator

[HollowLibra]

You have to start somewhere... People love money, so you use money/taxes to effect population control. After one kid I I believe people should be penalized, and we should give incentives for men and women who get fixed. Did you know as a women you have to have so many kids or be a certain age to get your tubes tide.. well we should totally do away with that. In fact if you don't have a kid but you get you tubes tide ect. you should be rewarded. This is America people here love their freedom I think this plain still aloud people to have more then one kids but through incentives people won't want to.

[cheryl j]

Actually a high standard of living and access to birth control is even better at reducing the population rate. How many working couples do you know  with more than two children? Improving over all economic conditions is in my opinion a better strategy than penalizing people through laws or taxes. In China, the restrictions on number of children have had a measurable effect on the number of female offspring born, which was not supposed to happen but nevertheless did.

[yor_on]

Yes, most society's, still living in the past, will deem male offspring to be 'worth' more than female. That as they are the ones expected to draw the income, enabling them to support their elders. And that's the way it worked in most countries I know of, before the industrial revolution, and the major step we took from a farming community to a industrialized.

It's also a question of power naturally. 
Personal power over another person.
People enjoy power, although, not asking themselves why.

[yor_on]

I would rather see it as a result of education Cheryl, limiting the kids one want. But I still think you're right in the way it has limited the offspring's in our modern society. I don't find the way we've materialized living to be healthy myself, and it definitively won't suit Earths limited resources. One should notice that in spite of all talk about nano technology, unlimited energy sources etc, we humans still increase the amount of man-made CO2 each year, globally. And a lot of plans for nations becoming self sufficient in form of energy include spewing out more of it, as USA, Canada, versus 'fracking'.