Starwind Rohana ([info]starsong24) wrote,
@ 2008-07-12 21:13:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
On the stupidity of an expanding population.
The human population of Earth is six billion and growing. Fifty years ago -as far as I know -it was more like five billion. Waaay back in medieval times, it was...about two billion early on (soon after agriculture became both widespread and reasonably developed?) and more like three billion before we hit the 'early modern' stage.

There's a name for this. It's 'population explosion'.

The huge, undeniable damage that the human race has collectively inflicted on other animals, numerous species, entire ecosystems, and in a couple of cases the actual climate? It's not a result of using too many cars.* It's not (just) because we're irresponsible and selfish. It's because there are far too many human beings around.

Really, our NOT causing immense problems would be kind of a feat.

People living destitute on the edge of a rainforest will fell the trees indiscriminately to survive. That's natural suvival instinct -but there are thousands of people doing that, and while one person doesn't have much of an impact, add them together and they do.

People all over the world are trying to improve other people's standards of living. Great. Good for you. What nobody seems to have realised is the fairly elementary point that human beings reproduce. Human beings in optimal conditions reproduce rather rapidly. And with fewer deaths to balance the suddenly boosted survival rate, the population expansion gets going with considerable vigour.

Really, is it any surprise that there are suddenly so many of us?

Modern medicine and hygine.** Both are very necessary things, and I agree that as many people as possible ought to have access. But once these were introduced, human numbers took off. We increased and increased. We didn't stop having kids just because suddenly more of them suvived, you know. (This point is --kind of --refuted by the fact that most First World countries do have, on average, enough children to replace their parents. Stable, in other words. But it took a while to slow down.)

Our numbers grew fast. And I guess that I'm okay with. But what gets me is that everyone seems to think we need to carry on with this insane trend. They say that we need more land and better crops to supply the burgeoning population.

Um, no. What we need is a contraceptive. Preferably a cheap one that can be dissolved in water. And then distributed to all places where population growth is out of control.

We need it, and fast. We need to stop the world overloading of humans right now, before we, in our vast and expanding numbers, cause irreversible harm. We need to stop human expansion. We need to find a way to reduce our numbers over the generations --not only in the 'First World', but everywhere.

There are way, way too many of us. Often it seems like I'm the only one who thinks that.

So...does anyone else think something like this? Or have any opinions to share? An insight into any relevant factors would be appreciated.

*(Not that we don't do that too.)
**Agriculture is another culprit. I'll rant on that later.



(13 comments) - (Post a new comment)

mmmm
[info]xxtrancexx
2008-07-12 08:46 pm UTC (link)
we could do what china does and limit the births o_O but there is a natural contraceptive, its called war!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: mmmm
[info]starsong24
2008-07-12 08:53 pm UTC (link)
We could. I have to say, though, it doesn't seem hugely effective. And disease, famine, floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes are also 'natural contraceptives', in that sense.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]twelve_pastels
2008-07-12 10:12 pm UTC (link)
The primary problem with the contraceptive idea is that the necessities of science and nature often run headlong into cultural norms, which are incredibly difficult to change. For instance, in those regions of the world that currently have the greatest population growth, a larger family means free labour, and therfore a greater income. Also, there are regions where having as many children as possible is an integral part of the local culture, and as I mentioned above, it is difficult to go up against such deeply ingrained perceptions.

Contraceptives of all kinds should, of course, be (heavily) supported and touted, both by governments and non-governmental groups. In the end, however, the decision is entirely up to the people who would be taking them.

(Ironically, education has been shown to be the best long-term contraceptive. Worldwide statistics show that the more education a woman has, the fewer children she is likely to bear. Of course, education comes with its own set of problems.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]starsong24
2008-07-13 06:23 am UTC (link)
Yeah, definitely. One of the irritating things is that the people who know about overpopulation risks are the people least likely to contribute to them simply because of culture.

And then there's the fact that should you explain the problems to these people...why should they care? For them, more people means survival. They aren't interested in the long-term, they just want to stay alive for another year. It's perfectly understandable, even sensible. But it does lead to problems.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]agent_jet
2008-07-12 11:29 pm UTC (link)
This point is --kind of --refuted by the fact that most First World countries do have, on average, enough children to replace their parents. Stable, in other words. But it took a while to slow down.

I don't know so much about stable. We're not salmon - we don't spawn and then die. Even if parents only have two (or one) children, they're still around long enough to be grandparents or even greatgrandparents.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fondued_jicama
2008-07-13 03:37 am UTC (link)
The US population, however, is somewhat sort of levelled out; the biggest influx we have in numbers is the Hispanic population.

Population growth is fastest among minorities, and according to the United States Census Bureau's estimation for 2005, 45% of American children under the age of 5 are minorities.[8] In 2007, the nation’s minority population reached 102.5 million.[9] A year before, the minority population totaled 100.7 million. Hispanic and Latino Americans accounted for almost half (1.4 million) of the national population growth of 2.9 million between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006.

So I think that's one of the reasons the US population is still increasing- but in a lot of ways, it has the potential to be stable. You look at the numbers of people who die every year from cancers, murder, acts of God, and car accidents, and that certainly, er, helps. Plus, a person has to look at where the majority of the population is, age-wise. If a population has more old people than young, they're going to say we have more of a declining population than an increasing one. Which isn't the case here, but whatevs.

But if the population continues to rise, we could all just move to Russia. Their population has fallen something like 6 1/2 million since 1992.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]starsong24
2008-07-13 06:18 am UTC (link)
So I think that's one of the reasons the US population is still increasing- but in a lot of ways, it has the potential to be stable. You look at the numbers of people who die every year from cancers, murder, acts of God, and car accidents, and that certainly, er, helps.

Yes, it does, uh, help, though people would probably prefer a lower influx rate and fewer tragic deaths. But you can't have everything.

It seems a bit weird, though. We're social creatures, and yet, in large groups, we turn on each other.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]starsong24
2008-07-13 06:13 am UTC (link)
True. But what I meant was that we've got as many people arriving in the world of the living as there are shuffling off the mortal coil. As long as there's no net growth or decline, it's stable (or that's what I was taught).

Most animals, if you think about it, don't give birth and die. They raise several litters/clutches/what-have-you. Of course, with wild animals, most of the children die.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]oozaru_angel
2008-07-13 09:28 am UTC (link)
And this is why everyone should be gay and adopt. And be straight and adopt. Actually, choosing adoption over having your own kids seems like a good idea all around.

Sweetie, you're right. We all know this. But even if we do have too many people we can't just leave a bunch of them to die. We're due a cycle of low-births, aren't we? I forget the exact term but there's this thing that says there's a cycle and one decade we have a low birth rate, next decade a higher birth rate then a higher one and then back to a low birth rate. I think that's what we should aim for (not that I'm suggesting we go around creating circumstances where kids keep dying, just that there's less conceptions).

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]starsong24
2008-07-13 04:33 pm UTC (link)
Good idea. Adoption solves two problems at once.

Even if we do have too many people we can't just leave a bunch of them to die. Yeah, you're right. If we did that...I guess we couldn't really call ourselves civilised, could we?

Problem is, even if we have a cycle of low-births, there are so many of us that we continue to increase noticeably. So you're right again; we probably need several consecutive decades of a low birth rate to get us back to anything near manageable numbers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Population Explosion
[info]petemurphy.wordpress.com
2008-07-13 01:05 pm UTC (link)
Starwind, you're actually underestimating the rate at which the human population has exploded. In the year 0 A.D., the global population was about 250 million. By 1500, it had doubled to about 500 million. It took only 300 years to double again to about 1 billion people around the year 1800. Then it took less than 100 years to double again to 2 billion. In 1950, we had about 3 billion people. Today, the figure is about 6.7 billion.

Population growth in the U.S. has been even more dramatic. The U.N. ranks the U.S. with 8 other countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as countries that will account for fully half of the world's population growth by 2050. We are the only developed nation that continues to experience 3rd world-like population growth.

For the U.S., addressing this problem requires a two-pronged approach:
1. Immigration needs to be dramatically scaled back to match the rate of emigration, removing it as a factor in population growth.
2. The fertility rate (children per female) needs to be reduced from the current rate of about 2.1 to about 1.79. Why less than 2.0? Because of the steady increase in life expectancy. This reduction in the birth rate could be accomplished fairly easily through economic incentives for people to choose smaller families. (I'm thinking here of tax incentives, primarily.) Such incentives would have to be made income neutral - that is, wealthy families should be just as motivated to choose smaller families as poorer ones.

For more information, I encourage you to visit either of my web sites and consider my book, which advances a new economic theory that is rooted in overpopulation.

Pete Murphy
Author, Five Short Blasts
http://OpenWindowPublishingCo.com
http://petemurphy.wordpress.com

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Population Explosion
[info]starsong24
2008-07-13 04:49 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for the information. Those figures are more than slightly alarming.

Immigration...isn't it more of a local problem than a global one? Because it doesn't increase total human numbers (until children start being born, at which point access to improved facilities causes a rise), it just moves them around...

Reducing the fertility rate through economic incentives sounds both sensible and humane (although I don't know much about this kind of thing). Wouldn't the optimal rate right now be one that leads to a decrease in the number of people, though, as opposed to one which maintains the current population?

Thanks again.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]chelonianmobile
2008-07-20 11:22 am UTC (link)
Replying a little late, but I approve.

Another problem, I think, is that these days, people who would make great parents are choosing not to have kids because of concern for the overpopulation problem or because of lack of confidence in their skills or because they just plain don't want kids (which I guess would reduce their good parenting capacity, but you know what I mean), while people who make awful parents are having piles of them either through contraceptive ph@1l or having kids for inappropriate reasons (to quote Baby's Named A Bad Bad Thing; either a) because you're "supposed to," b) they seek unconditional love, making them more pet owners than parents, or c) they seek the ultimate middle-class status accessory, making them more consumers than parents). And these people are the ones most likely to have a LOT of kids. So as well as getting bigger, one could argue that the population is getting progressively dumber.

Or maybe I'm just cynical, but you knew that.

(Reply to this)


(13 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…