[Madidus_Scientia (OP)]

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 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

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 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

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
newbielink:https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=457622168484 [nonactive]

[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 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

[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 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

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 2 kids 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'. 

[CliffordK]

On average, if everyone had 1 or 2 kids, then society could absorb a few big families.  But, it seems as if some of those with larger families also have quite extreme viewpoints. 

And, I have met at least one woman on welfare with about 5 kids by 5 different fathers, battling to receive child support for each of the kids (which I think was her primary means of supporting herself).

Again, if all of society chose to have 1 or 2 kids, it could absorb a few larger families.  But, if everyone has 2 or 3 kids, and a few with 4 or 5, we get POPULATION GROWTH.

Education is key.  But, it also means convincing religious institutions and leaders, and various organizations that they must consider PROTECTING THE EARTH as a primary goal of their faith and practices.  Then, also remove tax incentives to have large families.  Those with large families should shoulder the burden that they put on the current and future populations.

[yor_on]

If it goes with sharing I will agree Clifford, and as you say, making sure everyone gets as good a education as possible, no matter where they was born. Because there is one way more, proven through history. To force people into a choice. but that way won't change a thing really, because then people do it because they have no choice, but not freely chosen. And that way cements the way we treat power and each other, also making dictatorships legit, as a means to an end without ethics. But probably it will need a little of both to work, as you seem to assume. But it is important to consider the ethics.

[veer10]

Birth control should be introduced at the places where birth rate is very high but it should be promoted where birth rate very poor for proper balanced at our planet.

[sunshaker]

To many people are having children for the welfare benefits, where i live, i see 15/ 16 years olds having kids for the benefits and a shortcut to a council home, their kids grow up thinking the same,

It seems the "poorer" or less "educated", follow this trend,

Governments need to help the young into real jobs, not just working in a £shop,

My neighbours as 7 children and as never worked, i spoke to her eldest son who is nearly 17, and he did not know he could go to the job centre, he thought it was just for "adults".

More and more jobs are being computerised or now have robots doing all the manual work, which give bigger profits to the few",
The skills needed to keep up with these changes are not being taught in our "state schools".

The rich like the poor, for without the poor you would not have the rich.

[alancalverd]

For the UK, at least, I suggest the abolition of child benefits and a grant of £500 to every woman aged 15- 50 every 6 months if she is not pregnant.

No compulsion, no penalty, no intrusion. You just turn up for a pregnancy test and the nurse gives you £500 if it is negative. 

If this halves the birthrate, it will save a huge amount of money and reduce the UK population to an indefinitely sustainable level (about 5 - 7 million) with a vastly better standard of living than we now enjoy, in 100 years.

[Bored chemist]

Until recently the birthrate in the UK was less than the death rate, so there wouldn't be much point to changing it. Outr net population would have fallen if it were not for immigration.
Also, the standard models for economics all rely on growth in the population.
You can find the data here
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=uk&v=25 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
What I want to know is what happened in 2009/2010?
The obvious contender is a change in government but how could that produce a sudden 3% drop in the death rate and a simultaneous 15% rise in the birth rate?

[alancalverd]

Feelgood factor.

Our net population would have fallen if it were not for immigration.

What my engineer father called "ignoring the weight of the elephant...." Or to quote a balloonist friend: "We would have crossed the Atlantic if we hadn't run out of fuel before we got to Ireland."

[Bored chemist]

You say "Or to quote a balloonist friend: "We would have crossed the Atlantic if we hadn't run out of fuel before we got to Ireland.""
as if you think it's relevant.

The fact remains that the birth rate in the UK is pretty low. Until recently it was below the death rate.
So it's not a sensible place to start population control.

And I think you want to discuss the juxtaposition of these concepts "no intrusion" and "You just turn up for a pregnancy test " with someone who might ever be, or ever has been, pregnant.

If it halves the birthrate then the people who are paying tax when you retire will each have to find twice as much for you.
Good luck with explaining to them that it's "a vastly better standard of living"

[alancalverd]

You have repeated an old fallacy. Fact is that in the UK the cohort under 20 years old contributes almost no tax, and a significant proportion of tax revenue pays for education, maternity and child heath, and other services (youth justice and offenders, etc) that are consumed entirely by that group. So current taxpayers would not have to work harder or longer to pay my pension as they would not be supporting as many newborns.

The figure that matters is the working fraction, that proportion of the population aged 20 - 60, whose taxes support those older and younger than themselves. At present it's about 0.54. If we halved the birthrate, the working fraction would increase gradually to a little below 0.6, whilst the total population would decrease so that each person had access to a greater absolute quantity of finite resources. More taxpayers and more resources per capita seem to be good objectives. 

From memory, a pregnancy test consists of little more than peeing into a cup. I'd be happy to do that for £500. In fact, I pay for the privilege of doing it (plus a whole lot of more intrusive tests) for my annual medical certificate.

[Europan Ocean]

The United States, Canada, NZ and Australia are great nations and economies due to immigration, the intelligence we chose in some cases with the immigration policy, and the boosts to our economies of only having young fit people come to take and create jobs, products and services, pay tax for many years before retiring... it has been great. So for the long term with us, this could continue, as a slower rate since we are now full. There are a lot of intermarriages.

For us I think condoms and pills are the answer, and for Catholics, abstinence after child bearing and perhaps having them in the late twenties, and thirties, even if they marry at 22 each.

Perhaps all over, teach people to have one or two children each, unless they earn a lot more than average. Say $95,000 AUD per year as a couple even with children at home.

I don't push for eugenics, that I believe is up to the individual. However, perhaps a tax award can be given to great sports people and artists and scientists... However they have the money naturally don't you think?

In India and China, education is a must and contraception methods. They seem to be old fashioned. They want boys and upward family sizes. India too, but they are less educated.

It seems the future is full of the kind of people who have larger families, and they are like my friends, Catholics. Great guys.

Poland, Russia, Hungary, they don't have much immigration, but life their is not desirable, touring looks great, but the corruption, poverty, human trafficking, and common things with us like drugs, and crime are high indeed! Then to speak a language only known locally... not so good.

I like the non melting pot of nations aspect to those countries, but not the antisemitism. The common thinking, the condensed patrimoniousness and nationhood...! I love the blonds and red heads. That from within there is little or no counter nationhood. I hope they learn from our immigration policies of the last 65 years. Their number stay at the old figures or decrease and because of slavery. Average age of a Hungarian man to reach is 68. They also take immigrants, and maybe this will bolster the tax payer, retiree ratio.

In a world working at healing infertility we are in an amazing situation. Ironic and a conundrum.

Perhaps if people with a prison sentence of six years or more were taxed for each child they had after the one.

Perhaps if the priesthood were given tax deductions. And celibate protestant clergyman and Buddhist monks, and perhaps atheist and any people specially dedicated to a job like university professing...

But the one child policy is shockingly evil and the forced sterilization has been done in Slovakia to gypsies and is so unfair.
 

[galaxysim]

The 'energy descent',  'population control' and 'peak everything' are elephants in the room
The energy descent will certainly sharpen peoples minds...AFAIK there are no get out jail free cards

Overpopulation and the Bathroom Metaphor - Isaac Asimov

Who needs or wants population control ?  A quick reminder of whats happening here & now

Phrases like population overshoot, carrying capacity and population undershoot will gain increasing attention in the media on the run up to 2035ad.  The next big oil shock will sweep aside much of the denial.

The most informative video you will ever see ? ....and perhaps for many it is

How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth (FULL)

For me Utopia = a 1 megawatt turbine per capita, but the replication rate (if seen as a self replicating system) may fall far below what is needed for 500 million people, let alone the 7billion +

Run the full scope energy maths & science and you end up with Soylent Green or A global Easter island

The age of go forth and multiply now has to be replaced with a new paradigm of self restraint. Right now short term strength through longterm exhaustion is burning our Uranium bridge to space. A+nother elephant in the room. Has anyone even considered this ?....I have never even heard this key issue mentioned. No one is even thinking of reserving global Uranium for space colonization....Yet its our one 'shot easy bridge' to permanent space colonies.

End of oil looks set to be less than 15,000 days away.

End of gas ? 2060ad

End of Uranium ? 2075

End of coal early next century

As we run out of oil, it inevitably causes a domino effect. Cultural inertia will see us using up vasts amount of gas and coal to make artificial oil. Despite the great cost and inevitable outcome we will probably hobble on with artificial oil until the end of gas.

Q: Who is going to get the last 10% of that energy ?

The Armies, Governments and Police forces of nations with their own reserves !...if even their own populace will be deprived of fossil/fissile fuel  what then of the populace of all those energy importer nations ? ....nations which cannot import any energy because no one is exporting any.

Long before we reach the bottom of the barrel the casualties and fall out of the energy descent will be pandemic...unless historically unprecedented levels of co operation occur at the global scale we will see a population plummet and historically unprecedented levels of migration away from energy poor regions.


Simple maths

Simple physics

Simply ignored

You don't have to be a lifetime subscriber to Doomers weekly, a couple of hours with a calculator holding the word finite uppermost in your mind tends to do the trick. Some inconvenient truths are flocking our way....and in our lifetimes.....Not feeling worried enough ? Here's a few videos to consider.

The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of

Who Killed Economic Growth?

population control?
...unless a global miracle occurs in the next 25 years you wont need a pill post 2050ad, just a shovel and a fistful of lime


Climate change ? Methane Gun, Global sea levels, ....ask me do i care ?....Not really. The energy descent and the population plummet will soon have us ALL forgetting  about those relatively unimportant issues. 300 years of energy ascent  is about to be replaced with 300 years of energy descent.

This last century mankind has seldom been short of knowledge...but has always, always been short on wisdom....and thats the Stuff all those Malthusian catastrophes are made of isn't it ?


Someone else has been running the wisdom numbers too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones [nofollow]




...im going long on canablism myself

[dchung]

Just re-stating my position on Android Sex-bots coupled with an effective media campaign that promotes human-robot contact over human-human contact..

Estimate = drastic population reduction in a short period of time (20-30 yrs) without the need of taxation, chemicals or genocidal warfare.. Just an effective product and an effective promotion campaign..

[alancalverd]

Unless you are proposing android prostitution, you will need to make 7,000,000,000 of these pretty quickly, to have any impact on the problem.

What we do have, however, is 3,500,000,000 intelligent beings who are entirely capable of deciding the future population with no need for a new product.

As my old navigation instructor used to say "It's a good idea to start from where you are - then you won't get lost before you leave the runway."

[syhprum]

I think that what keeps the birth-rate down in the UK is the price of houses and the constant social pressure to turn them into mini palaces.
It is not possible for one wage earner in most parts of the UK to earn enough to buy a house so both man and wife must both work and take great care not to have children.

[dchung]

True, 7 billion sex bots is alot to produce, but it's possible considering the population mobilization of WW2 in making armaments and the fact that we have robots that can assist or do 100% of the production these days.. The input is worth the outcome.. Every human with a robot assistant that performs; information searches, mundane tasks and sexual acts, just seems like the future to me .. 20 years after introduction, i'd wanna see 75% of them recycled because they are no longer needed due to population decrease..

3.5 billion people choosing not to procreate is a good idea too, it's alot cheaper for one

[jhon15]

Population control is mandatory.miting families to 1 or 2 children as a matter of government policy runs into an issue of civil rights.Look where population are living. Places like New York City and Chicago are overcrowded while we have open deserts and plains in the west. Intelligent management would allow people to live in more open conditions and enjoy more freedom. This will require a social change from the ground up, and liberals will not have it.

[Tim the Plumber]

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?

Yes I have other ideas;

THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS EVIL DRIVEL!!!!!

There is no problem with food supply except the use of huge quantities of it for fuel which is causing the deaths of at least 10 million peoiple per year now.

With increased population and increased wealth the capacity to green the deserts and to use hydroponics is beyond any limity that human populations will achieve this century or the next.

This century will see the spread of humanity to space. Orbital habitats will form from the development of resource extraction, mining, of asteriods in earth orbit. There are enough such bodies and resources out there that the next few millenia are totally taken care of.

Stop spreading evil ideas.

[alancalverd]

What, exactly, is evil about not making babies?

I have a deep loathing of all things religious, but I can't bring myself to criticise monks and nuns for their celibacy.

[the5thforce]

only educated people realize we need to slow down making babies so we end up getting a global brain drain without actually decreasing the population, what we really need is vastly better global education, much more government transparency, and widespread access to contraceptives/birth control. the current human social system of trying to control the least educated people subliminally through media and government is the failure of the most educated people, were literally wasting human neurons when we dont fill those neurons with the proper logical abstract associations

western countries have also fallen deeply into the trap of thinking educating girls will solve all human problems when in reality the girls arent educated because the boys arent educated, we need to be educating boys and girls about the often vast differences of what each gender wants out of life in adulthood and then work to serve both genders needs if we want those adults to mutually cooperate on a global scale

the delusion of our time is thinking males are easier to please than females when the simple truth is the global male suicide and homicide rates are double or more the female rates which indicates males have the most complex problems in life and thus males need the most education to cope with those problems starting from a very early age, we arent preparing boys for the clearly fatal struggles they face in adulthood (mostly boredom/under-stimulation and a massive lack of social-counselling and therapy)

at the end of the day were all chemical creatures who need our fiercely pressure-evolved biochemistry kept in check in order to function cooperatively/efficiently, males and females have different biochemical thresholds/mechanisms which means that if males are unbalanced its only because society is failing those males

if the goal is to minimize 'chaos' in its many forms including uncontained population growth, war, aggression, we need to work much harder to educate our males with male-specific coping mechanisms to minimize their natural lust for chaos in response to boredom, and we need to stop peddling the western pipe dream that the genders are anywhere near equal. black is not white and male is not female, a diverse global population requires increasingly complex organization and individualized education that acknowledges our differences rather than hiding from the truth

[dhjdhj]

This whole area causes more irrational thinking than any other. The organisation in the UK that promotes population reduction believes that the country will only be able to support about 20 million population in the relatively near future and we had better take steps to start reducing soon. Even if we reduced the birth rate to nil i.e. no new births and no immigration, with the rapid increase in life expectancy, currently about 7 hours every day, it would still take about 40 years to get down to 20 million. No wonder the government isn't taking their calls. What reduced birth rates do is fail to provide sufficient wealth producers to pay for rapidly ageing populations. This is a real problem for developed economies. Without immigration UK birth rate is 1.8 births per female of child bearing age. We need 2.1 to provide sufficient resources for an ever more ageing population. In Germany the indigenous birth rate is 1.3 despite having a considerable history of past immigration it needs considerable immigration to balance the books. Many developed northern  European populations are actually in decline and are causing considerable concern. China has now relaxed its' one child policy because there is a serious problem with population balance. However on both a national and global basis there is a limit to the population that can be sustained by the resources available but I doubt whether this can be achieved artificially by decree. There is a direct inverse relationship between birth rate and prosperity, so by far the best population control is to increase prosperity in areas where birth rate is high. This has to be enhanced by a significant increase in the retirement age. Our children may have to work until they are 80 to balance the books. It will not be easy but the first world will have to find a way of increasing the wealth of the second and third worlds and then balance the wealth providers with the non producers (children, pensioners, the infirm, AND the lazy) so that the global market still works. As I am a pensioner good luck with that, but I am sure that draconian measures against any section of mankind simply wont work.

[alancalverd]

We need 2.1 to provide sufficient resources for an ever more ageing population.

this is a ridiculous myth. What matters is the "working fraction" of the population, i.e. the percentage between 20 and 60 years old. If the birthrate declines to below replacement level, the working fraction increases.

Many developed northern  European populations are actually in decline and are causing considerable concern.

Only to economists, who have no idea of how to model a decreasing population, politicians who preach "growth" with no concept of limits, and racists who make money out of the artificial fear that nonwhites will eventually outnmumber whites.

Fact is that Britain could be entirely and indefinitely selfsufficient with a population of 5-10 million, all of whom would be far wealthier than we are today, and our great grandchildren could live in that wonderful world instead of suffocating in each others' armpits if we simply reduced the birthrate to one child per woman for the next 100 years.  The trick is to do it ethically by persuasion rather than enforcement, which dangerously screwed the Chinese sex ratio.

[puppypower]

An interesting angle to view this topic from, is from the POV of natural selection. There are more poor people on the earth, than there are rich people. In terms of natural selection, from a purely biological sense, the poor have selective advantage in a natural sense. This is why they have the highest numbers.

This is logical, since being poor means lack of access to all the artificial ways, not found in the local nature, to compensate for biological deficiencies; science and medicine. The children that remain, have be innately fit, to compensate for the lack of good food, water, hygiene and treatment for sickness and disease. The poor will have higher attrition, but this only shows how selective the final cut is. From the POV of Darwin and Jesus, blessed are the poor. If we had a global disaster, the poor are used to hard times and their children are natural survivors.

The rich and better off, have the means to avoid all the environmental stresses of the poor. They also have a high level of artificial care to compensate for all internal and genetic deficiencies. This means a lower percent of optimize genetic specimens are passed forward. They persist due to artificial selection; under controlled conditions. There is a difference between natural selection and artificial selection. Artificial selection needs much more propping up. If there was a natural disaster, and the controls are gone, there will be high attrition.

Part of the reason for over population is due to applying artificial selection to more and more people. We wish to modernize the natural but this has a cost. As we add prosthesis to more and more poor, the result is the cost of medical care goes up, due to perpetuating genetic weakness and liabilities. Nature does not have all this science and medical overhead. Nature does it differently and fine tunes fewer humans to perfection.

[Robcat]

You control the population by asking all children at school, what they suggest we will do with seven thousand million dead bodies over the next few years.

Exposure to the problem that they will be exposed to as they grow up.

If no resonse some incentive must be found for men and women

Anyway...what DO YOU DO with these 7 billion bodies over the next few years

[Ethos_]

As a matter of fact, we already have a very efficient answer for the problem of overpopulation, it's called Nuclear War.

Let me be very clear; The only thing our stupid politicians appear to be very good at is starting and engaging in wars. And with the trend we now see developing world wide, I suspect number III is knocking at the door.

Am I anxious, of course not. And do I approve, again; OF COURSE NOT. But sadly we honest and sincere citizens have little to say about this issue. Some idiot somewhere, with an ego as large as Jupiter, and a military stupid enough to follow him to destruction will light the match to oblivion, and it may be sooner than you think.

It is a sad commentary on the nature of humanity; That we, the most intelligent specie on planet earth are more hostile to our own kind than any other. How does that saying go: "The inhumanity that humanity perpetuates  upon it's own kind."

Is the word "Humanity" becoming a dirty word?

Truth is,.... the word "Politician" is, was, and always will be the most profane of all.

 

[alancalverd]

As a matter of fact, we already have a very efficient answer for the problem of overpopulation, it's called Nuclear War.

I doubt it. The last one killed fewer people than the two conventional wars and the influenza epidemic that preceded it. In the next nuclear exchange the UK government will capitulate after the death of about 200,000 people - about 3 months' worth of new babies.