[alancalverd]

And there's a conundrum that runs through human society. If you feed babies today, you will have to feed teenagers the next time the crop fails. Today's simple medical emergency is tomorrow's complex geriatric. And so it goes on: the more we try to alleviate the human condition,  the more humans we have to alleviate.

Add to that the political and religious parasites who preach charity with one hand and criminalise euthanasia with the other, and you have a recipe for disaster.

So why not control the primary input, and persuade people to limit their reproduction to what they can reasonably expect to sustain?

[Bored chemist]

So why not control the primary input, and persuade people to limit their reproduction to what they can reasonably expect to sustain?

Good luck.
For most "developed" nations, people already do.
(Though the USA seems to be taking a step backwards).

But for developing nations where your only reliable pension is your children, the idea of having fewer of them isn't going to go down well.

So you need to undertake to  support their "complex geriatric" geriatric population.

[alancalverd]

So you need to undertake to  support their "complex geriatric" geriatric population.

Who "you"? Why me (I'm already a complex geriatric!)? And why not decriminalise humane assisted dying for those who have just "had enough", everywhere? 

Time was that mortality rates in some areas were so high that it made sense to make 5 or 10 babies, with the likelihood that maybe two would actually work the farm and, rarely, one would survive to "pension" age. If you reduce childhood mortality and female deaths in childbirth, which is definitely a Good Thing to do, then 2 or 3 babies looks more like a sustainable number.

Meanwhile parts of the "developed" world can only support their current populations by burning  fossil fuel, so it would make sense to avoid political dependence in the short term and societal collapse in the longer term by breeding below replacement level.

the USA seems to be taking a step backwards

Interesting case. US citizens have the constitutional right to kill each other (there is no other use for pistols and assault weapons) unless the victim asks to be killed, or is an unwanted fetus. Thanks be to Jesus, apparently.

[Petrochemicals]

]
Interesting case. US citizens have the constitutional right to kill each other (there is no other use for pistols and assault weapons) unless the victim asks to be killed, or is an unwanted fetus. Thanks be to Jesus, apparently.

Interesting fact also, in the usa if you possess a gun and you are not on drugs (like hunter biden) the greatest threat to your life is from your own gun(over 50%) so how do you justify a gun as self protection? The next is murder, again not self protection.

[alancalverd]

It would be interesting to know how many bad guys have been shot by good guys (excluding police and military acting under orders) and the inverse ratio. A friend in California insists that his guns are for domestic protection, but he wasn't carrying a gun any time he opened the door to me. Surely if I meant him harm, I would be holding a gun when I rang the bell? Or do American baddies wait until the householder has retrieved his pistol before shooting him? That's a level of civilised good manners that we don't see in the UK.

[Bored chemist]

It would be interesting to know how many bad guys have been shot by good guys (excluding police and military acting under orders) and the inverse ratio.

Does this help?
"Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.
In 2014, across the nation there were only 224 justifiable homicides
 involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation?s
Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR).
 That same year, there were 7,670 criminal gun homicides tallied
in the SHR. In 2014, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 34 criminal homicides.

 And this ratio, of course, does not take into
account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year."

https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf

[Petrochemicals]

To clarify my earlier statement t I did mean that as long as you are not on drugs (probably opioid) which is the biggest usa killer, the biggest cause of deaths in the states is guns of which >50% are self inflicted. Basically you need a gun so you can stop you shooting yourself, by shooting yourself.

It would be interesting to know how many bad guys have been shot by good guys (excluding police and military acting under orders) and the inverse ratio

As B. C. states the times a gun is used as protection is small, about 5% but that doesn't  state how many of these individuals where engaged in risky behaviour.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Well reducing the population expansion by shooting yourself is certainly one way of reducing climate change but to slow.

A far better way is to support women's rights and particularly encourage ladies to stay single until their mid twenties as wealthy countries do.

Parents need to accept the rational that it is up to them to support children beyond 18 years old and leave them a worth while inheritance..
Looking at the statistics on                   https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/    you can see that countries with over 2 children are all facing economic difficulties, that results in a lack of finance to build houses and infra structure fast enough to keep up with demand.

[alancalverd]

encourage ladies to stay single until their mid twenties as wealthy countries do.

Nothing to do with marriage.

In the UK today there are around 1.8 million single parents with dependent children, making up nearly a quarter of families with dependent children.

Problem is that until recently the State encouraged breeding by providing substantial benefits for multi-child families. The sensible decision to limit benefits to 2 children has been met with howls of protest and is considered a vote-loser.

[Petrochemicals]

A far better way is to support women's rights and particularly encourage ladies to stay single until their mid twenties as wealthy countries do.

If you wish to stop teenage mothers it appears the way to do it is suffer a catastrophic collapse in the economy and then continue in the same direction. Again, it is only a correlation but it is (once again) a bit too neat to be not linked at all.

image-9.png (34.44 kB . 756x757 - viewed 977 times)

[acsinuk (OP)]

Thanks Petro-C,
Yes, the situation in UK is improving all the time but we have family sizes with around 2 kids which is sustainable.
However, places like Gaza and Cox Bazaar have around 4 children and such places can never become self sustaining.
The UN cannot go on for ever pushing free aid into places that are clearly over producing children which results in global warming.
Trump is right to call a ceasefire but must follow it through  One way is to allow all the Hamas supporter families to be declared refugee families and UN to arrange family passports and transport to other countries.
Average family size is 6 so 200,000 families to deal with which once gone and resettled elsewhere will reduce rebuilding Gaza to just tidying it up by  any remaining families who Israel must accept as full citizens with Israel passports.   

[Bored chemist]

However, places like Gaza and Cox Bazaar have around 4 children and such places can never become self sustaining.

They will if half the kids die.
Sadly that's all too plausible.

[acsinuk (OP)]

The problem is too many children per family which is why Jordan and Egypt or any other country will volunteer to take them as refugees. 
But we must stop the over population somehow as our planet is overheating. Voluntary sterilization seems too crude a solution but it is only by reducing the population that we can get back to a situation where Gaza becomes self sufficient. 
Free food and medical aid by UN and charities is not a long term solution.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Over population is now becoming a huge problem in central Africa were Rwanda with a fertility rate of 3.6 is attacking Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC] where the fertility rate is 6 children per family.

See worldometer stats       https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country   

DRC however have large mineral reserves which they are selling and using the money to build, build, build homes, cities, infrastructure thus emitting huge amounts of CO2 which is adding to global warming.
Rwanda what to do the same, but they have no money and the youngsters blame the government for the problem when they should blame their parents.  To stop social unrest their government has conscripted the over populated men into the army and we can see the result on the news
Family planning is the answer and the UN must really get their act together and fund voluntary contraception as well as advice and medical aid to save the planet.

[Bored chemist]

Over population is now becoming a huge problem in central Africa were Rwanda with a fertility rate of 3.6 is attacking Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC] where the fertility rate is 6 children per family.

If the cause was overpopulation then the DRC would be attacking Rwanda.

[Bored chemist]

Free food and medical aid by UN and charities is not a long term solution.

It isn't meant to be.
It is meant to stop the poor souls dying in the short term.

What would you suggest instead?

[acsinuk (OP)]

The UN with $6 billion or more aid budget need to educate the people that fertility should not exceed 2 children per family and offer free contraception assistance to achieve this.
People do not realize that if they follow this advice then as China did they will become a wealthy nation and if they reduce fertility to below 2 then there will be many empty houses for their children . 
In fact, after about 50 years everyone will be able to afford a holiday home as well.
Gone are the days when we needed our kids to help out on the farm as 1 man with a tractor and plough/harvest can do more work than 20 labourers.  Same applies to road/rail and construction, 1 man with a bull digger can do more work that 20 navies with picks and shovels.
We need less people now than ever did in the past.  Reduce population and our descendant's will live like millionaires. 
Act now before hydro-carbon fuels run out or get really expensive. Protect your childrens future.

[alancalverd]

At last, someone else who has seen the light!

Our only difference of opinion is how to do the job and where to start. 

[Bored chemist]

If, like China, you have a large stable government which can promise you a pension when you are too old to work, then you can answer the question "If I don't have many children, who will look after me when I am old?"

And, if you can't answer that question, you can provide all the advice and contraceptives you want., but the turkeys won't vote for Christmas.
The big challenge is that it's a "tragedy of the commons"  type problem.
You need to get everyone to do it.
If just a few do so then the only outcome is that they suffer.


It also seems that you have not noticed that the UN does provide education, advice and contraceptives.
But it can't force people to change their ways.

https://www.unfpa.org/

[alancalverd]

Fact is that lots of folk are suffering now, and more will suffer in the future. But that's no reason why we shouldn't protect the few that don't need to, and hopefully provide a demonstration of how to do it for those who could take steps to avoid it.

First step would be to avoid religion or government driven by reference to it - the state of the Middle East and the partition of India attest to the danger of faith.

A few years ago some folk rejoiced in the collapse of communism but it seems to be working OK in Vietnam and probably Cuba, so we can't reject all "isms": probably worth studying how successful states actually run things.