How Do We Deal With Overpopulation, While Respecting Human Rights?

[Robert Greene]

Why are we spending billions on energy retrofit programs, climate change research, environmental consultants, and conservation, when we are spending next to nothing to slow down population growth? We're putting a lot of resources into energy efficiency, but all that goes to vain when we ignore rapid population growth. We can't allow ourselves to go beyond 10 Billion, or there will be severe consequences for our quality of life, and environment. We need a plan for humanity to survive at least another 1000 years, and ethical depopulation might be the solution.

Are we simply going to ignore the issue, and let countries like India and China get over 2 billion? How will future generations maintain a high quality of life, when the resources start to run out? What will the quality of life be like for them, when they can't get access to affordable food, housing and transportation? The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic. We are running out of farmland, and we don't need to watch the Amazon get destroyed, in order to make room for new farms.

By gradually reducing the World's populating, we could start to regrow forests outside cities, providing a beautiful landscape and recreation opportunities for future generations.

How do we proceed with aggressive action on overpopulation that will be ethical, and not interfere with humans rights?

I give you a picture of Mexico City, showing 16 Square kilometers, without a park or woodlot. How do we get nature back in a rapidly growing city?

 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Guest]

What human rights?  The right to reproduce seems to be the only one that would be affected, and I don't see that as a right myself.

Of course, I already have, so it could be argued I have no say in the issue.

[Scott Mayers]

[Nice name. Are you THEE Robert Greene, of "48 Laws of Power" fame?]

I agree. Today's Western (and more 'right-winged) approach is to merely allow population to grow without forced limits because personal 'power' of economic growth requires accelerated new populations to create demand and profit. There own type of 'population control' exists. But it is in the form of war because war is also highly profitable. I actually recommend that "48 Laws of Power" to read or review by your namesake because it actually has some indirect explanations of how power is actually functional regardless of its  lack compassionate concern. 

Power differentiation exists more where population pressure exists. As an example, in my own city, because of mere 'temporary worker' laws set up by the federal and provincial laws a few years back, a great influx of population all of a sudden appeared here. This created a false demand upon the real estate market, including rents. The apartment buildings everywhere were filled up and created a demand favored to the owners to increase rents drastically. (Mine went up 250% since 2010!) 

This demand created an increase in home builders and increased the costs of all houses and properties everywhere. This lead to a temporary economic boom but is (or will) collapse if we cannot actually find a prime or secondary resource for industries here. If we were a hot-spot for vacationers, more housing might make sense as it then acts as a prime and secondary source. As such, while this experiment proves problematic, in essence, population growth DOES make many rich. ....at the expense of an increasing degree of poor too.

We need a form of laws that pertain to birth controls similar to China's (but better). This belief that we'll survive as a whole by evolutionary standards comes at a cost of a lot of suffering, especially if you were one of those poor. 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Scott Mayers

[Michael Hardner]

Really if you are going to pass laws restricting a woman's right to have a baby, good luck with the politics.  Also, starting with a country that has low per-capita pollution makes no sense, so you need to start with the country at the other end of the scale... i.e. Canada.

 

Utopian ideas like this won't go anywhere, of course, since we can't even get people to pay a Carbon Tax.  It's moot.

[bush_cheney2004]

Economic development correlates with reductions in population growth, as education and access to birth control is enhanced.  

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

50 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Economic development correlates with reductions in population growth, as education and access to birth control is enhanced.  

 

Yes, there's also that.

[Ginsy]

Two questions. I'm not that knowledgable on the this topic so I'd like to hear different perspectives, especially from people who know more than I do!

1. I forgot the theorists name, but in class we spoke about several different theories about population growth/decline, and one theorist proposed that population decline does not need to be a human effort because nature will take care of it. To what extent is this true? For example, he would make the claim that although the population may rise at one point in time, it will decrease in another because of natural disasters and such. I thought there might be a problem with this theory because although a natural disaster can kill a large number of people at time, do enough people actually die that it makes a statistical dent in world's entire population? (Not that they should or deserve to die!) 

2. Is it fair to say that population growth and the mass spread of capitalism and consumption go hand in hand? Is rapid population growth an issue because we do not have enough livable land on earth, or is it a problem solely because we do not have enough resources to sustain the population? Then, would it be fair to say the real issue is that we consume far too much, and that's why population growth may be negative? With that logic, could we indirectly fix the issue by cutting down our mass consumption? 

Just some thoughts! 

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, Ginsy said:

1. I forgot the theorists name, but in class we spoke about several different theories about population growth/decline, and one theorist proposed that population decline does not need to be a human effort because nature will take care of it. To what extent is this true? For example, he would make the claim that although the population may rise at one point in time, it will decrease in another because of natural disasters and such. I thought there might be a problem with this theory because although a natural disaster can kill a large number of people at time, do enough people actually die that it makes a statistical dent in world's entire population? (Not that they should or deserve to die!) 

You yourself say it's a theory so no-one can know how true it is.  Obviously there is a limit to the number of people who can live on earth.

Natural disasters will not be a major factor in reducing population, unless you are factoring in some kind of global climate catastrophe.

 

40 minutes ago, Ginsy said:

2. Is it fair to say that population growth and the mass spread of capitalism and consumption go hand in hand? Is rapid population growth an issue because we do not have enough livable land on earth, or is it a problem solely because we do not have enough resources to sustain the population? Then, would it be fair to say the real issue is that we consume far too much, and that's why population growth may be negative? With that logic, could we indirectly fix the issue by cutting down our mass consumption? 

Population grown predates 'capitalism' as a thing.  'Consumption' happens in the animal kingdom so 'no' on that. 'Land' is a resource to sustain the population so that question is kind of both/same.  Even if we consumed less there would be a limit on the population of the earth.

[Bonam]

Population growth doesn't happen in Western countries. All Western countries have sub-replacement birth rates. The only countries in which any significant portion of the population cares about reducing population to preserve the environment happen to be Western countries. Therefore what you really mean when you say you want to limit population growth, is that you want Western politicians to try to coerce or pressure the governments of other nations, where population is actually growing (i.e. in Africa and Asia) to force their people not to reproduce. Sounds like about the least politically tenable thing anyone could possibly propose. 

Nope, best thing to do is to wait for the natural reduction in the number of children that people have that comes along with societal/technological development. That said, any such reduction is accompanied by vastly increased life expectancy. And technological innovation will continue to extend people's lifespans, so population will continue to grow as previous generations linger on. 

So what it really comes down to, as with almost all human problems, is technological innovation. We need technologies that allow more people to be supported while using less land and causing less damage to the environment. Fortunately, these technologies already exist, and even better versions of them will be developed as time passes, and they will continue to be used on an ever greater scale going forward. 

[Robert Greene]

How do we get environmentalists and mainstream media talking about overpopulation? Whenever you hear a news segment on Climate Change, it usually goes after Big Oil, and the political establishment for not implementing a carbon tax. They work so hard to try and change the system, but why not work just as hard to stop the system from getting bigger. Why not work just as hard to stop population growth?

Should we take money away from energy retrofit programs, and put it towards helping developing countries stabilize their population? I think the ethical solution is to encourage up to 2 children, but provide contraceptives, education, incentives, free vasectomies, after the second child is born. How can we get mainstream media involved in the debate, so we can come up with some ideas that are ethical, and effective? It's OK to have a debate. If 1 in 10 ideas work, than that's better than doing nothing.

Even in Canada, overcrowding is affecting our quality of Life. In the town of Markham all the houses look the same. Why not leave a few lots empty for a small park, community garden, or woodlot? Why not have some mixed used development, instead of massive residential areas? Maybe Canadian cities are becoming overpopulated. We should encourage growth in small towns, instead of adding to the largest cities.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Altai]

People can breed up to the World's resource limits. These resources can be anything, food, land width, water, farming lands etc. It could be stopped a few steps behind the limits as an emergency measure. 

Big cities are mostly over populated and this is why you feel like you are over populated. Big part of the World is still empty.


So here the main indicator should be farming lands width, it should be calculated that how many farming lands are needed for per person. 

[Robert Greene]

Farming takes up more space than any other human activity. Just look at the State of Iowa. Before Columbus, all of this was forests. In their greed, the pioneers virtually whipped out an entire state, without any second thought about conservation. The remaining forests remaining are small, and insufficient. Maybe we should replant some of the forests for the environment, and to provide recreational opportunities for future generations. Farms are beautiful, but they shouldn't take up 95% of the landscape. Leaving only 5% for nature, is unacceptable.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Robert Greene

[-TSS-]

India and China are not going to get above 2bn. Chinese population is ageing fast and in 2+30 years time they have a pensions-problem that is hard to imagine when there will be around 400m pensioners.

India has just overtaken China as the world's most populous country but long term-predictions indicate that their population-growth will also become under control.

The problem is Africa which today has a total population of slightly over 1bn and that is predicted to increase to 4bn by the year 2100. I don't believe in such a huge growth but their population will certainly keep on growing at an unsustainable pace.

[bush_cheney2004]

15 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

Farming takes up more space than any other human activity. Just look at the State of Iowa. Before Columbus, all of this was forests.

 

Point taken, but Iowa was not all forested in pre-Columbian times.  Iowa was a diverse mix of largely tallgrass prairie, wetlands, and forests near river valleys.   Restoration and conservation efforts reflect this in the state today, including privately funded groups that maintain wild foul habitat.

[Robert Greene]

One of the problems is, overpopulation makes money for the elite. Globalist can outsource jobs to high growth countries, and make billions off an endless supply of cheap labor. Real estate speculators need rapid population growth, to drive up the price of their holdings. Depopulation is going to put transnational corporations out of business. Liberals won't talk about population growth, because they believe it's the 1% telling the 99%, how to live their lives. I don't think anyone needs a family larger than 2. You want a 3rd person in your family, you adopt. We could implement compulsory vasectomies after a father has his second child, but the political backlash would be to severe. So we could spend billions promoting volunteer vasectomies, after the second child. We must encourage as respect family size, up to the second child. Promote personal finance and parenting education in schools.

We need liberal environmentalist to recognizes that "all roads lead to overpopulation". Manmade climate change wouldn't exist without overpopulation. Deforestation would be less severe without overpopuation. The oceans would have more fish without overpopulation. To say that westerners are greedy, and Africans aren't, because they use less energy is false. They would acquire our wealth, and consume, as much as we do, if given the chance. Instead of demonizing personal consumption, we need to slow down and than reverse rapid population growth.

The price of housing and food would go down, as demand decreases. The quality of life for the average citizen would go up, with a gradual and ethical depopulation. In Europe, many countries are making the mistake, of providing incentives to increase their population. Virtually every country, except Greenland needs to depopulation. China and India should talk highest priority, followed by Africa and Latin America. We need to come up with the concept of "Ethical Depopulation". It we advocated for a documentary to be made, as power as "An Inconvenient Truth", tt might be a good idea. We need to sell the concept of "Ethical Depopulation". Having a birthrate solution, while have a 2 child global target. If we could reduce the population by 5% per decade, I think the planet would have a chance. Work with dozens of researchers, put your best information together, and get this documentary made. We need to put all our best arguments forward.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Robert Greene

[taxme]

On 12/13/2017 at 1:48 AM, Robert Greene said:

One of the problems is, overpopulation makes money for the elite. Globalist can outsource jobs to high growth countries, and make billions off an endless supply of cheap labor. Real estate speculators need rapid population growth, to drive up the price of their holdings. Depopulation is going to put transnational corporations out of business. Liberals won't talk about population growth, because they believe it's the 1% telling the 99%, how to live their lives. I don't think anyone needs a family larger than 2. You want a 3rd person in your family, you adopt. We could implement compulsory vasectomies after a father has his second child, but the political backlash would be to severe. So we could spend billions promoting volunteer vasectomies, after the second child. We must encourage as respect family size, up to the second child. Promote personal finance and parenting education in schools.

We need liberal environmentalist to recognizes that "all roads lead to overpopulation". Manmade climate change wouldn't exist without overpopulation. Deforestation would be less severe without overpopuation. The oceans would have more fish without overpopulation. To say that westerners are greedy, and Africans aren't, because they use less energy is false. They would acquire our wealth, and consume, as much as we do, if given the chance. Instead of demonizing personal consumption, we need to slow down and than reverse rapid population growth.

The price of housing and food would go down, as demand decreases. The quality of life for the average citizen would go up, with a gradual and ethical depopulation. In Europe, many countries are making the mistake, of providing incentives to increase their population. Virtually every country, except Greenland needs to depopulation. China and India should talk highest priority, followed by Africa and Latin America. We need to come up with the concept of "Ethical Depopulation". It we advocated for a documentary to be made, as power as "An Inconvenient Truth", tt might be a good idea. We need to sell the concept of "Ethical Depopulation". Having a birthrate solution, while have a 2 child global target. If we could reduce the population by 5% per decade, I think the planet would have a chance. Work with dozens of researchers, put your best information together, and get this documentary made. We need to put all our best arguments forward.

It is not the Western countries that has the population problem. It is the third world that is creating that overpopulation problem. By all the Western countries allowing for more third world immigration into their countries is just telling all those third world countries to keep on breeding, we will pick up the many millions that you have over produced, and take them in and care of them. If all Western countries closed down their borders to all those massive amounts of birth rates in those third world countries the politicians of those countries would have no choice but to implement some kind of plan to stop the birthrate. It seems so simple but for some unknown reason simplicity is not the way to go about doing things. Life has to be made difficult for all. We can thank all our politicians for that mess. Those a-holes could not run a lemonade stand without fkn it up. I would love to see Canada introduce a moratorium on immigration to ease those housing markets and the toll on our environment and infrastructure and until we can get our own unemployed back to work. It makes no sense to be bringing in hundreds of thousands of new immigrants into Canada when there are two million Canadians unemployed. Why is that so hard for most people and politicians to not be able to figure that one out. Using common sense and logic is just not the Canadian way. The Canadian way is how can we make things worse. 

This is my argument towards what and how I feel that needs to be done with our over populated world crisis. Tough love is required sometimes, and not this continuous and constant emotionalism and foolish talk in trying to solve the problem. What think you? 

[taxme]

On 12/10/2017 at 10:56 AM, Robert Greene said:

Why are we spending billions on energy retrofit programs, climate change research, environmental consultants, and conservation, when we are spending next to nothing to slow down population growth? We're putting a lot of resources into energy efficiency, but all that goes to vain when we ignore rapid population growth. We can't allow ourselves to go beyond 10 Billion, or there will be severe consequences for our quality of life, and environment. We need a plan for humanity to survive at least another 1000 years, and ethical depopulation might be the solution.

Are we simply going to ignore the issue, and let countries like India and China get over 2 billion? How will future generations maintain a high quality of life, when the resources start to run out? What will the quality of life be like for them, when they can't get access to affordable food, housing and transportation? The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic. We are running out of farmland, and we don't need to watch the Amazon get destroyed, in order to make room for new farms.

By gradually reducing the World's populating, we could start to regrow forests outside cities, providing a beautiful landscape and recreation opportunities for future generations.

How do we proceed with aggressive action on overpopulation that will be ethical, and not interfere with humans rights?

I give you a picture of Mexico City, showing 16 Square kilometers, without a park or woodlot. How do we get nature back in a rapidly growing city?

 

At the rate that Canada keeps bringing in massive amounts of third world immigrants every year. Many cities in Canada may end up looking like that picture in about four to five decades from now, especially the way the third world people breed. Hey, you never know. 

[Robert Greene]

I have an ethical solution to overpopulation. Instead of sponsor a child, it's called "sponsor a vasectomy". The most racist thing we can do to the third world, is ignore it, and let them breed at unsustainable levels, while the globalist continue to exploit their endless supply of cheap labor. If $100 could pay for 50 vasectomies, i'd give that money in a heartbeat.

As third world populations start to stabilize, wages would start to go up, and their quality of life, and environment would improve.

I'd only have one condition, the vasectomy can only be performed after a fathers second child. We have to respect the dignity of a normal family size. I think that's an ethical compromise, that still encourages parenthood, at a reasonable level.

I would also refuse to pay a carbon tax to environmental scammers, until the agree to use that money to pay for ethical solutions to fight overpopulation. We shouldn't tolerate the hypocrisy.

Take this conversation to other forums. And sell the concept of "Ethical Depopulation" as a solution to the environment, climate change, and quality of life, for the world's citizens. Let's lobby for wide-scale vasectomies programs to be paid for by governments, and charities. Start a research pool, and get documentaries made. Demand that media cover this issue. Overpopulation is the number one cause of climate change, but their are ethical ways to slow it down. Do not compromise on political correctness, but be as ethical as possible.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Robert Greene

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

...As third world populations start to stabilize, wages would start to go up, and their quality of life, and environment would improve.

 

Interesting solution, but so called "third world" nations could just as easily propose restrictions on population growth, resource consumption, environmental damage, and importation of cheap labour by developed nations.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

1. I have an ethical solution to overpopulation. Instead of sponsor a child, it's called "sponsor a vasectomy". The most racist thing we can do to the third world, is ignore it, and let them breed at unsustainable levels, while the globalist continue to exploit their endless supply of cheap labor. If $100 could pay for 50 vasectomies, i'd give that money in a heartbeat.

2. As third world populations start to stabilize, wages would start to go up, and their quality of life, and environment would improve.

3. I'd only have one condition, the vasectomy can only be performed after a fathers second child. We have to respect the dignity of a normal family size. I think that's an ethical compromise, that still encourages parenthood, at a reasonable level.

 

1. Overpopulation is by far a greater problem in nations like Canada than places where poor families have many children.  Your 'ethical' population is for Canadians, ie. the biggest problem makers on earth, to travel to third world countries and pay them $2 to never have children.  I think it's disgusting.

2. You have this backwards.  In fact, having money makes people have fewer children.

3. How ethical of you.  I'm sure when you show up in the third world hut with your vasectomy scissors at the ready, the fathers will be thanking of you and your ethicality.

[Robert Greene]

How do they get money, when there are limited resources to support a rapidly growing population. By stabilizing the population growth, they can get access to more resources, and expand economic growth, with less impact on the environment. More people means more destruction of the environment, needed to sustain quality of life over multiple generations. 

By giving that father a vasectomy, after his second child, maybe he can continue to afford to feed his 2 children, instead of having to ration resources between 7 children. Those 2 children might have a better chance to going to school, and providing for their community, leading to economic development. Rapid population growth keeps wages down, leading to the poverty, we want to see end in the world. If your priority is political correctness, supporting someones right to have 7 children, instead 2, than you are on the wrong side of history. 2 Children is a decent family size. You want more, you adopt.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Robert Greene

[bush_cheney2004]

Per capita consumption and environmental damage is far higher/worse in developed nations.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

How do they get money, when there are limited resources to support a rapidly growing population. By stabilizing the population growth, they can get access to more resources, and expand economic growth, with less impact on the environment. More people means more destruction of the environment, needed to sustain quality of life over multiple generations. 

That's not how it works.  People 'get money' from an economy.  China limited population for a long time and that was helpful but when they opened their borders to trade they grew their economy.  "Expand economic growth with less impact on the environment" is a fantasy, ie. I don't think this has ever happened.  More people doesn't mean more destruction, but more rich consumers does.

 

4 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

By giving that father a vasectomy, after his second child, maybe he can continue to afford to feed his 2 children, instead of having to ration resources between 7 children. Those 2 children might have a better chance to going to school, and providing for their community, leading to economic development.

This is the China model, I guess, and without global trade, no it doesn't work that way.  If you have a single example of this working please go ahead and provide it.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Per capita consumption and environmental damage is far higher/worse in developed nations.

And as I have pointed out, Canada is the worst offender.  I'm surprised that you were gracious enough to not pile on, and less surprised that Canadians on here didn't concur.

[Michael Hardner]

Cite, unasked for:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadians-produce-more-garbage-than-anyone-else-1.1394020

Quote

Canadians use far too much energy and water, and they produce more garbage per capita than any other country on earth, a report from an influential think-tank says.

The Conference Board of Canada gave Canada a C grade on Thursday and ranked it in 15th place among 17 developed nations studied across a host of environmental-efficiency metrics.

So the WORST nation on earth gives itself a 'C' grade !  'C' for Canada, I presume.  Or 'C' for complacent, corrupt, culpable on climate change.

This is our shame.