What can and should be done to address the world overpopulation crisis?

[JohnDBarrow]

One of the biggest problems in this world is human overpopulation. Adults with means can adopt children in need of homes unselfishly as opposed to making more babies. Whenever the planet is overcrowded, life widely suffers needlessly. Overpopulation is one of the main reasons desirable employment can be so difficult to attain. When people are fewer in numbers, hiring is much more in demand to furnish the economy with needed human resources. The world needs so many humans to make our modern living and comfort possible. If there were only 1,000 living people in the entire world at any given time, we would be still living in caves with loin cloths and hunting with spears and gathering. It takes so much combined world manpower (and perhaps womanpower?) to bring you, among many other things, electricity to your homes, food to your table, medicine to your ailing bodies, clothes to your back and new automobiles to your garage. I believe only one billion persons, as opposed to our current 8 billion, worldwide would be sufficent to sustain a modern civilization and economy without ruining the environment and depleting precious natural resources. Once the population is at healthy numbers, ideally there should only be one human baby born for each and every living adult. That means a maximum of two newly-procreated children per married couple. We will all eventually die and will need one new human life to replace ours to continue our species.

 

I think sound widespread education is the key to a solution.  There was one YouTube video I watched not long ago, I have not found it yet, in which the narrator said that women and girls in developing nations need to be better educated on fertility. I agree. I also assert that men and boys as well not be ignorant on this matter. After all, over half of the new humans born in this world are in fact male. 

 

 

 

 

[MigL]

Well, one guy had a solution.
You collect 6 differently colored stones, from the strangest places, put them on your gloved hand, and snap your fingers.
Reduces world's population by half.

No wait ... That was just a movie.

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

One of the biggest problems in this world is human overpopulation.

I disagree completely. The problem is more with current infrastructure, which is weirdly and disproportionately aimed at profit rather than continuing to find new ways to make resources more efficient and readily available. Look at human history, we've gotten very good at improving production and yield in almost everything, and we continue to innovate. Our problem isn't diminishing resources or overpopulation. It's a social problem, where some righteous folks don't think some other folks deserve access to resources. Those righteous folks loudly proclaim that the problem lies with those who have too many children rather than those who are hogging all the resources. 

The problem isn't human overpopulation, it's that we don't care that we're displacing other species as we look for habitable land. It's that we don't support each other socially, so families need to have more members to handle all the work. It's that we're breaking up extended families so everybody has to buy everything and live independently. Our biggest problem is that we're ignoring our cooperative nature in favor of our competitive nature, and letting greedy people convince us we're the problem.

Remember when the plastics industry started suffering major backlashes because so many well-known logos were part of pictures of heaps of trash in every major city? Did they try to fix the problem they created? No, they made a commercial with a Native American (who was really an Italian from Canada) crying because We the People created all this litter, and we better start throwing it away properly. IOW, it was a scam, and I think all this BS about overpopulation is more scam trying to divert attention away from the scammers.

[MigL]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

they made a commercial with a Native American (who was really an Italian from Canada) crying because We the People created all this litter

Really ?
I'm going to need a citation for that.
Not that I don't believe you; I just always thought he was really native American of the Lakota tribe.

[pzkpfw]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

Really ?
I'm going to need a citation for that.
Not that I don't believe you; I just always thought he was really native American of the Lakota tribe.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/28/us/crying-indian-ad-campaign-cec/index.html#:~:text=Born Espera Oscar de Corti,campaigns is pictured in 1986.

I learned about this from an episode of "American Pickers" where they happened on an old tent of his.

 

 

On the OP: birth rates in the "more developed" countries falls. Look at the population crisis in many places like Japan. It gets expensive to raise kids, you don't need them to (directly) look after you when you are old, and people simply have other things to do. Equal rights and opportunities for women helps. i.e. given the choice to have kids. The idea in the OP that women need to be lectured on birth control is a very colonial view.

So the real trick, will be to develop all nations (so birth rates look after themselves) - but somehow without everyone consuming all resources and polluting like it's 19xx all over again.

Edited May 28 by pzkpfw

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

While the human population certainly has an impact on the environment, most solutions are political in nature. Moved.

 

58 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

who was really an Italian from Canada

Born in the US.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

 When people are fewer in numbers, hiring is much more in demand to furnish the economy with needed human resources

Labor shortages relate to the age structure of a population, the inverted pyramid as it's called, and not absolute numbers.  We don't yank grannies off the rocking chair and put them to work.

Overpopulation is a symptom, ironically, of poverty and regressive social structures.  Fertility rates tend to drop below replacement in prospering liberal democracies.  Pop "demographic shift" into a search engine.

(mod: don't we already have this basic thread somewhere else?)

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I believe only one billion persons, as opposed to our current 8 billion, worldwide would be sufficent to sustain a modern civilization and economy without ruining the environment and depleting precious natural resources.

Can you walk us through the reasoning you used to arrive at that number. Why wouldn't, say, 10 million, 500 million or 2 billion be sufficient?

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

While the human population certainly has an impact on the environment, most solutions are political in nature. Moved.

 

Born in the US.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody

My apologies to all Canadians!

[JohnDBarrow]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Can you walk us through the reasoning you used to arrive at that number. Why wouldn't, say, 10 million, 500 million or 2 billion be sufficient?

I get this reasoning from Paul Ralph Ehrlich. In 2018 he said a world population of 1.5 - 2 billion living human heads is optimal. I opt to favor a slightly thinner population for a margin of safety. I have had a medical doctor tell me it is even more healthy to be slightly underweight than slightly overweight. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_population#:~:text=Paul R.,technologies and best management practices.

 

I also agree our species needs to consume less, waste less and pollute much less. We need smart practical sustainable energy alternatives to fossil fuels for our automobiles and such. Could we still live comfortably and happlily as materialistic 21st century Americans with a world human population of even as little as just a half a billion heads? Remember, it takes so much combined human resources to make possible your beloved modern comfy stuff like microwave ovens, Miller High Life beer, pizza, smartphones, Samsung SmartTV's, new Toyota trucks, leather jackets, BMW's, hot showers, indoor plumbing, Colt M4 Carbines and home central  a/c.  I certainly don't want to revert back to cave or grass hut life as a human armed only with a club or spear. 

 

 

Edited May 29 by JohnDBarrow

[iNow]

Number of humans isn’t the issue. As others have mentioned, it’s how we use our resources. Reducing our numbers doesn’t solve that challenge. 
 

[JohnDBarrow]

The issue is a number of things, yes. I still hold that planet Earth cannot sustain an infinite number of humans. Is there any reason under the sun we should continue to grow past 8 billion living heads without anybody's giving two damns about it? If we don't keep our own numbers in check, nature certainly will. 

Reducing our numbers does free up more land space for each and every one of us. Land too is a limited valuable resource. Not all land is desirable for many humans to live upon. I certainly don't want to live in a swamp, a place prone to hurricanes, a dust bowl, the arctic or a desert. 

I enjoy my quiet semi-rural American home and my own personal automobile. I don't want to ever lose it. If, following my death, I should ever become reincarnated back to Earth as a living human, I want no less then than I have right now. The possiblity of reincarnation scares me in some ways. What hell might this planet have become should I come back as a human in the year 2,500? 

 

Edited May 29 by JohnDBarrow

[swansont]

10 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I get this reasoning from Paul Ralph Ehrlich. In 2018 he said a world population of 1.5 - 2 billion living human heads is optimal

Why take this as gospel? Ehrlich has been quite spectacularly wrong about a number of his predictions.

7 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I still hold that planet Earth cannot sustain an infinite number of humans

Nobody has disagreed with this; we are discussing finite numbers.

[iNow]

8 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

If, following my death, I should ever become reincarnated back to Earth as a living human

This seems about as likely as humans becoming infinite 

[TheVat]

9 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

 

I enjoy my quiet semi-rural American home and my own personal automobile. I don't want to ever lose it. If, following my death, I should ever become reincarnated back to Earth as a living human, I want no less then than I have right now. The possiblity of reincarnation scares me in some ways. 

 

This is your take on a spiritual path that postulates reincarnation?  Keeping the stuff?  Seriously?  Somehow I don't see the Wheel of Karma as focused on real estate.  With that attitude, maybe your soul needs the bracing spiritual challenges of surviving in some future Gaza.  Or at least some place where helping your community is valued more than marble countertops and bling.

 

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I still hold that planet Earth cannot sustain an infinite number of humans.

I'm opposed to your plan to exterminate any groups of humans you don't like.

[JohnDBarrow]

Since when did I ever advocate the murder of innocent persons?  Not making a baby in the first place is not the same as killing a living person. 

4 hours ago, iNow said:

This seems about as likely as humans becoming infinite 

And you know for fact there are no such things as souls? I hold that forever is much too long to experience but one measly short time speck of consciousness for all of eternity. Yes, if there are multiple lives for one soul to live, some such lives might not be as pleasant as others. There might be phases of heaven and phases of hell throughout the soul's immortal journey. It's all decided by the hand of fate. There will be eternal good times and eternal bad times. I subscribe to the possiblity of the eternal natural soul but not to any particular manmade religion. You might call me a natural spiritualist. 

 

I BOLDLY propose that mankind make planet Earth as pleasant as possible and as soon as humanly possible for any living things that happen to come along in the future whether by reincarnation or some other natural way. It will take getting the population to sensible numbers, finding a better alternative to fossil fuels and ending war, greed, hate and poverty among other things. I want all intelligent life on Earth to have the best of health and living comforts for as long as Mother Nature and Father Time shall continue Earth's existance. The human endeavor might one day extend to exploring the universe for a new planet to call home. I don't want humanity to revert back to cave or grass hut life and a life without hot showers of clean water if that can at all be avoided. 

Edited May 29 by JohnDBarrow

[zapatos]

41 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I BOLDLY propose that mankind make planet Earth as pleasant as possible and as soon as humanly possible

I underline propose we be realistic in our proposals.

[Phi for All]

59 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Since when did I ever advocate the murder of innocent persons?  

I thought we were attacking straw men instead of addressing the real issue here. You claimed we're OK with an infinite population.

Also, I'm pretty sure if your perspective gains traction, it will be called a "cleansing" or a "reduction" rather than "the murder of innocent persons". How else do we get where you want to be within your lifetime? Not making so many babies is a generational strategy.

[sethoflagos]

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Since when did I ever advocate the murder of innocent persons?  Not making a baby in the first place is not the same as killing a living person. 

So how do you propose persuading 2 billion women of child-bearing age that your material and spiritual comforts require the vast majority of them to forego parenthood for the next fifty years? Friendly and reasonable discussion?

 

[CharonY]

I too think that everyone else should behave in a way that benefits me personally, whereas I shouldn't do anything different. Also,it has been mentioned many times before that we are approaching peak population with an expected rapid subsequent decline.

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I underline propose we be realistic in our proposals.

This thread is a 𝖋𝖔𝖓𝖙 of wisdom!

[JohnDBarrow]

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

So how do you propose persuading 2 billion women of child-bearing age that your material and spiritual comforts require the vast majority of them to forego parenthood for the next fifty years? Friendly and reasonable discussion?

 

Through worldwide EDUCATION. It does seem that population is declining already in the most developed/educated nations. We need to target other areas of the globe. No living human (man, woman, boy, girl or baby) on this entire earth should ever be deprived of a modern well-maintained home, sufficent nutrition, decent clothing, electricty, clean running water, clean air, proper indoor pluimbing, Internet, necessary means of transportation, modern healthcare, a decent education, a means of making a decent living (including being a housewife) and to live free of squalor, crime, violence, unlawful drugs rodents and pests. I want to see an African bushman type society no more. It's time for those people to throw away their spears and ride in modern air-conditioned automobiles (preferably powered by green sustainable energy) too and on well-maintained paved modern African roads. I want no more elephant feces or garbage littering the streets of India. 

 

Edited May 29 by JohnDBarrow

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Through worldwide EDUCATION. It does seem that population is declining already in the most developed/educated nations. We

Is that the causative agent, or just a symptom/side-effect of it? (or both)

Education may mean knowing about birth control, but it also might just be an artifact of possibly having a white-collar job, and not needing to pump out a bunch of kids to work the land. Education also might indicate decent health care, so you don’t need a high birth rate because the infant mortality rate isn’t so grim.

4 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Since when did I ever advocate the murder of innocent persons?  Not making a baby in the first place is not the same as killing a living person. 

I think the point is that you haven’t clearly communicated anything specific. You haven’t mentioned contraception, so how does one know you are advocating this?

[sethoflagos]

51 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I want to see an African bushman type society no more. It's time for those people to throw away their spears and ride in modern air-conditioned automobiles 

Why do you pick on Africans? Their impact on climate change has been negligible in comparison to those accustomed to riding in modern air-conditioned automobiles.