Over population

[Greg Boyles]

Climate change is just one of the many symptoms of human over population.

 

 

Political instability, war and genocide are other symptoms. And climate change will exascerbate theses symptoms.

 

 

Why aren't we collectively addressing over population and including population and fertility reduction in the mix of actions to reduce CO2 emissions?

[michel123456]

Climate change is just one of the many symptoms of human over population.

 

 

Political instability, war and genocide are other symptoms. And climate change will exascerbate theses symptoms.

 

 

Why aren't we collectively addressing over population and including population and fertility reduction in the mix of actions to reduce CO2 emissions?

 

Excellent proposition. I suggest to get rid of you first as good example.

[Greg Boyles]

Excellent proposition. I suggest to get rid of you first as good example.

 

 

 

Why is it that the first reaction of you anthropocentrists is for advocates of population reduction to top themself?

 

 

You are just being irrational!

 

 

I have suggested fertility reduction not culling or sterilisation!

 

 

 

"Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victims"

 

Martin Luther King Jr, 1966

[doG]

Climate change will occur without any humans at all. You could kill all of us an the Earth would still warm up to its historical average global temperature. earth is a tropical planet and it's not the existence of humans that make it so.

 

OTOH, man is a nasty creature polluting the he11 out of his own environment. That IS something we should do something about, not because it might contribute to climate change, but because it is a nasty existence. We're pissing in our own bath water

 

I do agree that man should indulge in looking at what population the resources of this planet can support. At some point we will exceed it, if we haven't already, and the quality of life will be a downhill slide for all of us.

[Greg Boyles]

Climate change will occur without any humans at all. You could kill all of us an the Earth would still warm up to its historical average global temperature. earth is a tropical planet and it's not the existence of humans that make it so.

 

OTOH, man is a nasty creature polluting the he11 out of his own environment. That IS something we should do something about, not because it might contribute to climate change, but because it is a nasty existence. We're pissing in our own bath water

 

I do agree that man should indulge in looking at what population the resources of this planet can support. At some point we will exceed it, if we haven't already, and the quality of life will be a downhill slide for all of us.

 

Humans are clearly not the sole cause of current climate change. Indeed climate shifts have been a part of Earth's history for hundreds of millions of years.

 

But its is abundantly clear that we are having some effect on the natural climate cycle. And it is unlikely to be compatible with our current civilisation or our current numbers.

[michel123456]

Why is it that the first reaction of you anthropocentrists is for advocates of population reduction to top themself?

I quoted your post where it looked to me you were proposing population reduction.

 

 

You are just being irrational!

 

i am trying not to.

 

I have suggested fertility reduction not culling or sterilisation!

 

Right. Your parents were unwise not to use fertility reduction. I guess they were not informed of the harm they would cause to the planet bringing you to life. (sarcasm)

 

My comments are supposed to enhance that in your post it looks to me that "the others" are too many on the planet.

[doG]

Humans are clearly not the sole cause of current climate change. Indeed climate shifts have been a part of Earth's history for hundreds of millions of years.

 

But its is abundantly clear that we are having some effect on the natural climate cycle. And it is unlikely to be compatible with our current civilisation or our current numbers.

You're missing my point. The contribution of man to climate change is debatable and that we should do something about it for THAT reason is debatable too. OTOH, that fact that man is polluting his environment is NOT debatable, it's a fact. Because of that more people will be willing to participate in discussion on what to do about it instead of arguing whether or not it contributes to climate change. Simply changing the REASON we should do something about it should get more people interested in taking action if the reason is one that more people agree with. IMO you will find more people that agree we're polluting the environment than you will that we are causing climate change. That's a win for the debate on emissions.

[swansont]

Excellent proposition. I suggest to get rid of you first as good example.

!

Moderator Note

I can't fathom the reasoning that would suggest this would be acceptable. Knock it off.

 

Do not further derail the thread by responding to this warning

[Greg Boyles]

I quoted your post where it looked to me you were proposing population reduction.

 

 

 

 

i am trying not to.

 

 

 

Right. Your parents were unwise not to use fertility reduction. I guess they were not informed of the harm they would cause to the planet bringing you to life. (sarcasm)

 

My comments are supposed to enhance that in your post it looks to me that "the others" are too many on the planet.

 

I am proposing population reduction by:

 

1) Not encouraging westerners to have more children that they otherwise would through baby bonuses etc and by restricting welfare to the first two children only.

 

2) By simply facilitating woman in the third world to make similar choices to western woman in not being pregnant and raising children for the majority of their lives through provision of free contraception and family planning services as an integral part of foreign aid, i.e. for every life save at least one preganancy should be prevented.

 

 

 

And yet another irrational reponse re my parents having me. The other one is that I should not have had any children myself.

 

If my parents chose not to have me then I wouldn't be here to complain about the fact, so arguments about humans that will never come into existence due to the use of contraception are just plain silly and childish!

 

And if everyone one on Earth stopped at two children or were faciltated to do so then we would not be having this debate.

 

You're missing my point. The contribution of man to climate change is debatable and that we should do something about it for THAT reason is debatable too. OTOH, that fact that man is polluting his environment is NOT debatable, it's a fact. Because of that more people will be willing to participate in discussion on what to do about it instead of arguing whether or not it contributes to climate change. Simply changing the REASON we should do something about it should get more people interested in taking action if the reason is one that more people agree with. IMO you will find more people that agree we're polluting the environment than you will that we are causing climate change. That's a win for the debate on emissions.

 

99.9% of the scientific community disagrees with you.

 

I would prefer to place my faith in science and the scientific community rather than your say so on this matter.

 

A couple of hundred year ago people like you were just as convinced that the earth was flat and that the earth was the centre of the universe etc.

[JohnB]

Greg, I realise that facts get in the way of a good story, but the West has been below replacement fertility rates for some time now. Except for immigration numbers, most western antions would have declining populations already.

 

Any even cursory look at childberth numbers shows instantly that as the economy and health services improve, then people have less children. People in the third world have 7 kids because only 2 or 3 will survive. By reducing the number of children born before you increase the economy simply means that you are condemning those who already live in appalling conditions to more death and misery. If you want to "solve" the problem, then the best way is to help the third world develop as fast as possible.

 

You might want to have a look at the Wiki page on population densities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

 

Kenya with 69 people per square kilometre is obviously in dire need of help compared to say, Italy with 200 per square kilometre.

 

You started this thread with the assumption stated as fact that there is actually some sort of "population problem". How about proving that the problem exists before expecting people to listen to or discuss your "solutions"?

 

BTW, "political instability, war and genocide" have been around since the caveman days, there is no link to over population at all.

 

If you're surprised at michels comment you shouldn't be, your proposition is an affront to humanity. Let me rephrase your number 2 and see if it still works.

2) By simply facilitating woman in the third world to make similar choices to western woman in not being pregnant and raising children for the majority of their lives through provision of free contraception and family planning services as an integral part of foreign aid, i.e. for every life save at least one preganancy should be prevented.

 

2) By simply facilitating woman in the first world to make similar choices to other woman in not being pregnant and raising children for the majority of their lives through provision of free contraception and family planning services as an integral part of needed services, i.e. for every life saved by a fireman or paramedic, at least one preganancy should be prevented.

 

How does that sound? Any better than your "We'll give your child malaria vaccine if you let us sterilise you"?

 

Disgusting.

[CaptainPanic]

Climate change is just one of the many symptoms of human over population.

 

 

Political instability, war and genocide are other symptoms. And climate change will exascerbate theses symptoms.

 

 

Why aren't we collectively addressing over population and including population and fertility reduction in the mix of actions to reduce CO2 emissions?

If you are able to define "we" in your post, we might have taken the first step towards a solution.

 

Btw, here's a picture that shows where the population is growing fastest.

[Greg Boyles]

Except for immigration numbers, most western antions would have declining populations already.

 

That is debatable in Australia at present. Bureau of statistics figures show that, if immigration was frozen, Australia's population would still increase to 26 million or so if current fertility trends were maintained.

 

Any even cursory look at childberth numbers shows instantly that as the economy and health services improve, then people have less children. People in the third world have 7 kids because only 2 or 3 will survive. By reducing the number of children born before you increase the economy simply means that you are condemning those who already live in appalling conditions to more death and misery. If you want to "solve" the problem, then the best way is to help the third world develop as fast as possible.

No doubt true but the fact remains that the Earth cannot sustain a world or rich countries. It is pretty clearl that the global ecosystem is severely stressed already and raising the third world to our standard of living in order to reduce their fertility may be the straw that breaks the camels back. You must concede that it is possible that it may just not feasible to reduce third world ferility by this means and that they mzy have to cooperate in reducing their fertility and their population before they can expect to enjoy our living standards.

 

If the west has to give up its wasteful consumption then the third world must give up its excessive fertility.

 

The the idea that economic well being is dependant in large populations is a fallacy. Reducing third world population will improve their individual living standard, not make it worse. The same amount of wealth and food spread shared among less people.

 

 

You started this thread with the assumption stated as fact that there is actually some sort of "population problem". How about proving that the problem exists before expecting people to listen to or discuss your "solutions"?

BTW, "political instability, war and genocide" have been around since the caveman days, there is no link to over population at all.

 

Sounds like a climate denier demanding evidence that anthropogenic CO2 causes climate change. Except that scientific consensus and clear evidence is never enough to satisfy them. They will always cherry pick that data which suports their mind set.

 

There is abundant archeological and historical evidence that past civilisations went through INCREASED political instability and war etc when their populations exceeded their food supplies - Rapanui of Easter Island, Maori of New Zealand, Mayans, Rome and many others.

 

If you're surprised at michels comment you shouldn't be, your proposition is an affront to humanity. Let me rephrase your number 2 and see if it still works.

 

Blah blah blah. Many third world woman would disagree with you that giving them a choice on how many children they have is an 'afront to humanity'.

 

Funny how it is nearly always sactimonious males that make comments like these!

 

2) By simply facilitating woman in the first world to make similar choices to other woman in not being pregnant and raising children for the majority of their lives through provision of free contraception and family planning services as an integral part of needed services, i.e. for every life saved by a fireman or paramedic, at least one preganancy should be prevented.

 

How does that sound? Any better than your "We'll give your child malaria vaccine if you let us sterilise you"?

 

Disgusting.

 

Blah blah blah.

 

I don't believe that I made any mention of sterilisation.

 

And if they are starving then I don't think they would have any complaints about being administered a long acting subcutaneous contraceptive anyway.

 

If you are able to define "we" in your post, we might have taken the first step towards a solution.

 

Btw, here's a picture that shows where the population is growing fastest.

 

 

We = western countries => generally below replacement level fertility

They = developing countries => generally average fertility well above 2 children per couple.

 

But, given that western consumption is so high, we may also have to consider reducing our populations if we are no prepared to reduce our consumption and our living standards.

[CaptainPanic]

In this thread on the ethics subforum, we're trying to discuss the population growth from a perspective of the current (or near-future) famine in the Horn of Africa. It seems this discussion is held in 2 threads at the same time.

In the last post I wrote in that thread (#4), I suggested that we (=western countries) are resonsible for the population growth because we gave them (=developing countries) medicines and other means to keep their children alive. I wrote that as a question in that post, because I am not sure we actually are responsible.

 

If they were rabbits, which breed out of instinct, and we gave them the means to multiply, then it would be our responsibility. If our actions lead to problems for the rabbits, that's our responsibility.

But they are people, and they can think for themselves. They live in independent countries (which admittedly are economically still dependent on the western economies)... but I cannot see how we can take responsibility for their population growth without treating them as inferior humans. If they are to be treated as equals - and all human rights suggest they should - then they must take their own responsibility for population control. It's none of our (=western countries) business.

[Greg Boyles]

In this thread on the ethics subforum, we're trying to discuss the population growth from a perspective of the current (or near-future) famine in the Horn of Africa. It seems this discussion is held in 2 threads at the same time.

In the last post I wrote in that thread (#4), I suggested that we (=western countries) are resonsible for the population growth because we gave them (=developing countries) medicines and other means to keep their children alive. I wrote that as a question in that post, because I am not sure we actually are responsible.

 

If they were rabbits, which breed out of instinct, and we gave them the means to multiply, then it would be our responsibility. If our actions lead to problems for the rabbits, that's our responsibility.

But they are people, and they can think for themselves. They live in independent countries (which admittedly are economically still dependent on the western economies)... but I cannot see how we can take responsibility for their population growth without treating them as inferior humans. If they are to be treated as equals - and all human rights suggest they should - then they must take their own responsibility for population control. It's none of our (=western countries) business.

 

Unfortunately it is education that allows humans to rise above instictual behaviour to some extent and be more than rabbits.

 

In the developing world education standard are low and hence they lack the capacity to connect their high fertility with their impoverishment. When the west offers them foreign aid, our higher education standards should mean that we are capable of seeing that if we prevent deaths then we must compensate by preventing birthsif we are to improve their circumstances on lasting basis.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

A reminder that this is earth science and not the politics board

How does that sound? Any better than your "We'll give your child malaria vaccine if you let us sterilise you"?

Disgusting.

!

Moderator Note

That would be a straw man, as Greg has not said that.

[Greg Boyles]

Noted moderator.

 

But population is a legitimate aspect of climate change and politics is built into both issues.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

A reminder that this is earth science and not the politics board

Maybe it should be moved to ethics or politics? The OP already suggests that (I quote) "climate change is just one of the many symptoms of human over population".

The OP started a political discussion - especially the final question in the OP is of a political nature. The thread aims to find solutions, which is subjective.

(Sorry to respond to a mod note.)

 

Unfortunately it is education that allows humans to rise above instictual behaviour to some extent and be more than rabbits.

 

In the developing world education standard are low and hence they lack the capacity to connect their high fertility with their impoverishment. When the west offers them foreign aid, our higher education standards should mean that we are capable of seeing that if we prevent deaths then we must compensate by preventing birthsif we are to improve their circumstances on lasting basis.

Let's go with your reasoning for a moment (although I might exaggerate it for the sake of the discussion):

If we take for a fact that:

(1) without education people cannot reproduce sustainably and responsibly

(2) western countries are responsible for giving the developing world the means to reproduce at a very high rate (medicine and food),

(3) western countries did not give the developing countries birth control

 

So, the western world logically is the only responsible actor in this problem. If I'm allowed to exaggerate, you say that poor uneducated people are as responsible for their own reproduction and well-being as cattle on a farm.

The next question is: does it make the western world also fully responsible for all problems in the developing world, or are there parts of the problem where there is no responsible at all?

 

If we are the responsible, we must solve our problem. But currently the western world only takes some actions, and seems to suggest a responsibility, but effectively does nothing to solve the problems. We make some donations out of empathy (or guilt?), and that's it.

 

There is a set of problems in the world for which nobody takes responsibility - and logically they are not solved. This is not an impasse where no agreement is reached (like other climate change problems). Instead, this problem is just mostly ignored. Or, perhaps it's more accurate to say that we knowingly turn a blind eye to it.

 

The best solution would be to properly help those people. The next best would be to do nothing at all... and the worst (I think) is to carry on the way we do now.

[swansont]

Noted moderator.

 

But population is a legitimate aspect of climate change and politics is built into both issues.

 

The problem is that you are not yet eligible to post in the politics forum. We have a vetting period in order to weed out trolls. So if I move the thread there you will not be able to participate until you have been a member 10 days and have 30 posts.

 

Maybe it should be moved to ethics or politics? The OP already suggests that (I quote) "climate change is just one of the many symptoms of human over population".

The OP started a political discussion - especially the final question in the OP is of a political nature. The thread aims to find solutions, which is subjective.

(Sorry to respond to a mod note.)

 

There are nonpolitical items you can discuss, e.g. actual physical effects of overpopulation. It's the movement into the solutions (or, more specifically, the opinions on the palatability of solutions) that steps across the line.

[Greg Boyles]

Maybe it should be moved to ethics or politics? The OP already suggests that (I quote) "climate change is just one of the many symptoms of human over population".

The OP started a political discussion - especially the final question in the OP is of a political nature. The thread aims to find solutions, which is subjective.

(Sorry to respond to a mod note.)

 

 

Let's go with your reasoning for a moment (although I might exaggerate it for the sake of the discussion):

If we take for a fact that:

(1) without education people cannot reproduce sustainably and responsibly

(2) western countries are responsible for giving the developing world the means to reproduce at a very high rate (medicine and food),

(3) western countries did not give the developing countries birth control

 

So, the western world logically is the only responsible actor in this problem. If I'm allowed to exaggerate, you say that poor uneducated people are as responsible for their own reproduction and well-being as cattle on a farm.

The next question is: does it make the western world also fully responsible for all problems in the developing world, or are there parts of the problem where there is no responsible at all?

 

If we are the responsible, we must solve our problem. But currently the western world only takes some actions, and seems to suggest a responsibility, but effectively does nothing to solve the problems. We make some donations out of empathy (or guilt?), and that's it.

 

There is a set of problems in the world for which nobody takes responsibility - and logically they are not solved. This is not an impasse where no agreement is reached (like other climate change problems). Instead, this problem is just mostly ignored. Or, perhaps it's more accurate to say that we knowingly turn a blind eye to it.

 

The best solution would be to properly help those people. The next best would be to do nothing at all... and the worst (I think) is to carry on the way we do now.

 

The west is absolutely responsible for excessively high populations in the developing world because we choose to interfere with the ecological balance of those human populations by providing foreign and medical aid in times famine and plague and thus interfering in mother nature's means of re-dressing human population/resource imbalances. Therefore we have a responsibility to help the developing world to reduce its fertility and population.

 

But the developing world also has an expectation that the west will help them to become as wealthy as we are. This is an entirely resonable expectation however the simple fact is that there are to many of them - The Earth cannot sustain a world of rich countries particularly when the population of the developign world is increasing rapidly.

 

Given this the developing world must accept that they must accept their part of human global responsbility and accept fertility and population reduction as a pre-condition for increasing their collective standard of living.

 

The problem is that you are not yet eligible to post in the politics forum. We have a vetting period in order to weed out trolls. So if I move the thread there you will not be able to participate until you have been a member 10 days and have 30 posts.

 

 

 

There are nonpolitical items you can discuss, e.g. actual physical effects of overpopulation. It's the movement into the solutions (or, more specifically, the opinions on the palatability of solutions) that steps across the line.

 

I understand what you are saying swansont.

 

But even 'actual physical effects of overpopulation' is political by nature because not everyone accepts that those physical effects and population levels are linked in any way.

 

It is almost impossible to avoid getting into debates of a political nature on these issues.

 

Been there and done this before on other forums.

 

I presume that is partly why you have seperated the subject of climate change into a sub-forum of earth science.

 

I must say that you are the most impartial moderator I have come across when it comes to this subject. Most are fully partisan against any notion of the number of humans being the main problem with climate change and environmental degredation.

[CaptainPanic]

The west is absolutely responsible for excessively high populations in the developing world because we choose to interfere with the ecological balance of those human populations by providing foreign and medical aid in times famine and plague and thus interfering in mother nature's means of re-dressing human population/resource imbalances. Therefore we have a responsibility to help the developing world to reduce its fertility and population.

 

But the developing world also has an expectation that the west will help them to become as wealthy as we are. This is an entirely resonable expectation however the simple fact is that there are to many of them - The Earth cannot sustain a world of rich countries particularly when the population of the developign world is increasing rapidly.

 

Given this the developing world must accept that they must accept their part of human global responsbility and accept fertility and population reduction as a pre-condition for increasing their collective standard of living.

I agree with the description of the problem... I am not sure I agree with where you place the responsibility. And I do not yet see a workable solution.

 

So, let's follow the reasoning some more. Let's then assume that we (western countries) are responsible for the population growth of the entire planet, because we control the global economy...

 

What then gives us the right to control the population of developing countries? We are responsible for their problem. We cannot let them suffer because we failed, can we? And yes, I really think that any " fertility or population reduction" will result in some form of unhappiness. People have a natural desire to have kids.

 

Personally, I believe that all humans are equal. And that means they also carry equal responsibilities. I do not see developing countries as places where we (western countries) can impose our will. We can only ask them to take responsibility for their own problems. And we can offer (not force) aid.

[swansont]

I understand what you are saying swansont.

 

But even 'actual physical effects of overpopulation' is political by nature because not everyone accepts that those physical effects and population levels are linked in any way.

 

It is almost impossible to avoid getting into debates of a political nature on these issues.

!

Moderator Note

OK, then. I have moved this into politics. Which means you can't participate until you have met the requirements for posting in politics

[michel123456]

Let's recall that a few hundred years ago the occident was a developing region. In the time of industrialization people in England France Germany were reproducing like rabbits. Families with over ten children was an average, and the wealth level of these people was extremely low. I support JohnB in his description of the way to solve the problem: development.

I don't think it has anything to do with climate change, except that it is a global issue. We everybody must learn to treat our planet as one single entity, and not like an assembly of heteroclit masses.

 

Edit: sorry for Greg. I'll stop posting here waiting his return.

Edited July 18, 2011 by michel123456

[JohnB]

Sorry swansont, it wasn't a strawman it was a bald statement of consequences.

 

The deal offered was

for every life save at least one preganancy should be prevented

 

The only way that this can be fulfilled is by sterilisation or aborting of pregnancies. How else are you going to be sure that "at least one pregnancy" will be "prevented"? Even if you give the woman 5 years supply of the pill you cannot be sure that "at least one pregnancy" will be prevented.

 

Note that this was tied to foreign aid and the words used were "for every life saved". Contraception and family planning do not save lives, food and medicines do.

 

In a nutshell the deal is "For every life we save with food or medicine then at least one pregnancy should be prevented." As I pointed out above, there are only two ways for the prevention to occur, sterilisation or termination.

 

Similarly you could put the deal as "We will supply aid if all women in your nation are sterilised after the birth of their third child". Again this is the only way you can ensure that "at least one pregnancy" is prevented. The concept is repugnant.

 

However, I will accept "strawman" if you can come up with another scenario that fits the deal as outlined, "That for every life saved at least one pregnancy should be prevented", that does not involve involuntary sterilisations or terminations.

 

For Greg when he is able on post on this topic.

 

That is debatable in Australia at present. Bureau of statistics figures show that, if immigration was frozen, Australia's population would still increase to 26 million or so if current fertility trends were maintained.

 

So? We have one of the lowest population densities on the planet. Do you really think another 3 million is going to overcrowd us?

 

No doubt true but the fact remains that the Earth cannot sustain a world or rich countries.

 

Another assertion. This is a science forum and we require proof, not just your opinion. Please provide some sort of legitimate proof.

 

The the idea that economic well being is dependant in large populations is a fallacy. Reducing third world population will improve their individual living standard, not make it worse. The same amount of wealth and food spread shared among less people.

 

Incorrect. People in poor nations can't buy things, like food. Only by increasing their economies and personal wealth will they be able to afford more and better food and housing. 10,000 years ago the human population was around 1 million and had an entire planet to feed from, are you seriously saying that cavemen lived better than we do? BTW, if your idea was correct then Cambodia should have had a massive increase in standard of living after Pol Pot got through with the "surplus" population.

 

Similarly the recent UNEP report says that

For example, taking life expectancy as an objective measure of the quality of life, it can be seen that life expectancy does not increase much beyond a per capita income level of about $10,000.

 

So we need to raise GDP to at least $10,000 per capita. Now if we look at Wiki GDP per capita we get some interesting figures.

 

The Democratic Republic of Congo has the lowest GDP of $349.049 USD and a population of 65,966,000 (according to Wiki) So by using your method to bring their GDP per capita up to the minimum UN standard (The same amount of wealth and food spread shared amoung less people) requires their population to be reduced by 63.6 million people to 2,309,000. Not bad, that's killing more people than World War 2 did and puts you on a par with Stalin.

 

Here is the list of nations that will require their populations "reduced" to bring their GDP per capita up to UN minimum levels. ($10,000 per capita)

DRC (Already mentioned)

Liberia

Burundi

Zimbabwe

ERitrea

Central African Republic

Niger

Sierra Leone

Malawi

Togo

Madagascar

Afghanistan

Guinea

Mozambique

Ethiopia

Guinea-Bissau

Comoros

Haiti

Uganda

Rwanda

Mali

Myanmar

Nepal

Lesotho

Burkina Faso

Benin

Tanzania

Zambia

Bangladesh

Kenya

Chad

Senegal

Sao Tome and Principe

Tajikistan

The Gambia

Mauritania

Cameroon

Cambodia

Kyrgyz (How do you pronounce this? Can I buy a vowel?)

Papua New Guinea

Nigeria

Sudan

Laos

Yemen

Djibouti

Pakistan

Ghana

Timor-Leste

Solomon Islands

Uzbekistan

Moldova

Vietnam

India

Cape Verde

Iraq

Philippines

Mongolia

Fiji

Honduras

Indonesia

Congo

Bolivia

Vanuatu

Morocco

Guatemala

Syrian Arab Republic

Swaziland

Armenia

Paraguay

Geogia

Sri Lanka

Bhutan

Jordan

Angola

Egypt

Kiribati

Ukraine

Algeria

Namibia

Guyana

Turkmenistan

Tonga

El Salvador

Albania

Belize

Ecuador

Bosnia and Herzegovina

China

Jamaica

Maldives

Dominican Republic

Suriname

Thailand

Tunisia

Peru

Columbia

 

Every single one of these nations is below $10,000. I believe that we should do everything in our power to help them develop so that there is more cash to go round and so raise their living standard. You believe they should reduce their populations. As a concept it sounds great. Until you actually look at the figures and realise just how many people have to die for it to work.

 

BTW, on Page 17 of that UN report you'll find a section titled "Economic growth is a precondition for poverty alleviation". I suggest you read it.

 

In passing I have noticed over the years that every ecological disaster would apparently be so much easier to solve if there were less coloured people in the world. I used to think it was a coincidence, I don't any more.

 

Sounds like a climate denier demanding evidence that anthropogenic CO2 causes climate change.

 

E- You will need to do better. Try answering the question or reponding to the comment rather than feeble attempts at name calling.

 

Except that scientific consensus and clear evidence is never enough to satisfy them.

 

F. A rather borish tactic to deflect requests for some actual proof of your assertions.

 

There is abundant archeological and historical evidence that past civilisations went through INCREASED political instability and war etc when their populations exceeded their food supplies - Rapanui of Easter Island, Maori of New Zealand, Mayans, Rome and many others.

 

Except that on Easter Island, rather than ecological disaster, disease and slave raids killed or removed enough of the population that the society became unviable. The Mayans and Romans didn't have their populations increase to above the level they could support, rapid climate change led to reduced yields. The problem wasn't increasing population but reducing yields. You should realise that until the latter half of the 20th C climate was thought to change too slowly to be a factor in the demise of civilisations, so if there was no evidence of warfare, etc disappearances were put down to the causes you suggest. Now that we have better records of the paleoclimate we know that climate was a major factor in the fall of many of the ancient societies.

 

I will grant that you are in essence correct though. The thing is that societies always go through political instability in times of stress. Lack of food is only one stress out of many, war, religious upheaval, earthquakes, etc also caused political instability in ancient societies. Had an earthquake? Maybe the King isn't the right King, or is worshipping the wrong God, instant political instability. Putting it all down to food is simplistic and ignores the myriad of other factors.

 

Blah blah blah.

 

F- You only get one chance to make a first impression and impress people with your ability to argue from facts. Not doing too well, are you?

 

Many third world woman would disagree with you that giving them a choice on how many children they have is an 'afront to humanity'.

 

Funny how it is nearly always sactimonious males that make comments like these!

 

The difference is that I agree that they should have the "choice", you don't. You want to make it a condition of aid and that is the affront to humanity. As to the other, well if standing up for the basic right of a woman to control her fertility makes me sanctimonious, then sanctimonious I am.

 

Blah blah blah.

 

F- Repeating yourself? Already? What, nothing of any substance to offer besides unsupported opinions?

 

And if they are starving then I don't think they would have any complaints about being administered a long acting subcutaneous contraceptive anyway.

 

Maybe, maybe not. But the choice must be theirs, not mine, not yours and certainly not some well meaning NGO with an ideological axe to grind. And should not be a precondition of humanitarian aid.

Edited July 19, 2011 by JohnB

[swansont]

Sorry swansont, it wasn't a strawman it was a bald statement of consequences.

 

The deal offered was

 

 

The only way that this can be fulfilled is by sterilisation or aborting of pregnancies. How else are you going to be sure that "at least one pregnancy" will be "prevented"? Even if you give the woman 5 years supply of the pill you cannot be sure that "at least one pregnancy" will be prevented.

 

Sure you can, statistically. It seems for your position to be true then the lower birth rate in developed countries has nothing to do with the availability of contraception. Defend that if you will, but until you can successfully do that, "sterilisation or abortion" sounds an awful lot like a false dichotomy here, and a straw man before.

[doG]

99.9% of the scientific community disagrees with you.

So 99.9% the scientific community thinks man is not polluting his environment? I'd like to see some reference to support that claim. Or maybe you meant only 0.1% of the scientific community thinks it is debatable that man's effect on climate change is significant and the other 99.9% consider it a fact? Even the neverending debate in this forum shows that claim to be false? Can you show a reference that supports your claimed 999 to 1 ratio in either vein or did you just make that number up out of thin air?