population slowing policies

[dragonstar57]

why aren't countries like the US and others creating any laws or incentives to limit the population of their countries? isn't it universally excepted that most problems are in the world are either caused or aggravated by population being too large? so why isn't anything being done to slow the growth?

Edited September 6, 2011 by dragonstar57

[swansont]

why aren't countries like the US and others creating any laws or incentives to limit the population of their countries? isn't it universally excepted that most problems are in the world are either caused or aggravated by population being too large? so why isn't anything being done to slow the growth?

 

What growth? The fertility rate in the US is right around 2 (and below that for the non-immigrant population) and in Europe it's even smaller — around 1.5. It's simply not a domestic issue for these countries.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#By_region

[dragonstar57]

What growth? The fertility rate in the US is right around 2 (and below that for the non-immigrant population) and in Europe it's even smaller — around 1.5. It's simply not a domestic issue for these countries.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#By_region

but global population growth is still a problem and is it not the responsibility of those that can slow global population to do so?

[jeskill]

but global population growth is still a problem and is it not the responsibility of those that can slow global population to do so?

 

As you might notice from previous posts, the concept that "global population is the main problem facing the world" is definitely arguable from a scientific perspective.

[dragonstar57]

As you might notice from previous posts, the concept that "global population is the main problem facing the world" is definitely arguable from a scientific perspective.

I said causing or aggravating. all tensions between nations are aggravated by resource shortages and high population stress resources. and why should developed nations have a positive population growth? why not try to achieve a negative population growth?

[jeskill]

... all tensions between nations are aggravated by resource shortages and high population stress resources.

All tensions? Really?

 

and why should developed nations have a positive population growth? why not try to achieve a negative population growth?

 

Developed nations don't have positive population growth rates right now.

[swansont]

but global population growth is still a problem and is it not the responsibility of those that can slow global population to do so?

 

In the US, talk to those on the right who don't want reproductive education to be part of foreign aid, and also talk to the Catholic church.

[dragonstar57]

All tensions? Really?

 

 

 

Developed nations don't have positive population growth rates right now.

yes all tensions. resources will always play some role in any political happenings a shortage of resources will always inflame any situation.

[jeskill]

yes all tensions. resources will always play some role in any political happenings a shortage of resources will always inflame any situation.

 

The original post stated that "all tensions between nations are aggravated by resource shortages and high population stress resources" (I'm assuming the last word is a typo, no?) Anyways, this statement is different from the one you just posted above. You've also yet to provide evidence that this is true.

 

Resource shortage (especially when that resource is food) is not always caused by overpopulation, hence it's important not to conflate the two.

[Realitycheck]

[swansont]

 

That's a projection. On what does it base those numbers? It doesn't break down the growth between immigration and birth — the US has been granting legal resident status to more than a million people a year for the last several years. If you don't separate them in looking at total population, immigration numbers mask fertility rate issues.

[Realitycheck]

Yeah, I know, it wasn't exactly what I was looking for. I had to dig around just for this, but I didn't really want to include projections, just solid numbers instead of rankings or percentages.

 

I also wanted to display the countries that were contributing the largest volumes to population growth, not just the highest percentages.

 

Plus, fertility rate charts ended up not being very accurate with respect to population increases in areas where mortality was high, so I just started focusing on population increases alone.

 

Maybe one of these days I'll run into chart central.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Realitycheck

[swansont]

That brings to mind another question — how much of population increase is from a decrease in mortality rates? If you have 1 offspring per person surviving to reproduce, on average, your population will still go up if you increase the average lifespan of the adult population, until a new steady-state is reached.

[Yoseph]

All animals experience population spikes, and humans are no different. I think that something should be done about the population rises before nature does something for us. Although I don't know if limiting children allowed in developed countries is the way, and I don't know if we can tell anyone in undeveloped countries not to have kids. The only ways I can think of to solve the problem are inhumane, but one day we're going to have to be ruthless to survive.

[jeskill]

That brings to mind another question — how much of population increase is from a decrease in mortality rates? If you have 1 offspring per person surviving to reproduce, on average, your population will still go up if you increase the average lifespan of the adult population, until a new steady-state is reached.

 

Well, infant mortality rates have dropped since 1990 according to this site.

 

A World bank blog talks about how population growth in Kenya is due to longer life expectancy -- their birth rate has decreased from 8.1 children per family in 1978 to 4.6 children per family in 2008.

 

I think this phenomenon is called demographic transition, no?

 

Edited due to a double-post problem.

Edited September 10, 2011 by jeskill

[dragonstar57]

The original post stated that "all tensions between nations are aggravated by resource shortages and high population stress resources" (I'm assuming the last word is a typo, no?) Anyways, this statement is different from the one you just posted above. You've also yet to provide evidence that this is true.

 

Resource shortage (especially when that resource is food) is not always caused by overpopulation, hence it's important not to conflate the two.

one does not have to prove that higher resource consumption makes the resource being consumed less available. it is widely accepted that there are too many people on earth.

it is also widely accepted that this is contributing to global warming and resource depletion.

I suggested a solution for it in my OP to open discussion about the population issue.

this is a problem, it may not be a "oh my god we are all going to die any day" problem but it warrants a solution. as I know it the only way "nature" can take care of too high population is a mass die off.

[jeskill]

one does not have to prove that higher resource consumption makes the resource being consumed less available. it is widely accepted that there are too many people on earth.

it is also widely accepted that this is contributing to global warming and resource depletion.

I suggested a solution for it in my OP to open discussion about the population issue.

this is a problem, it may not be a "oh my god we are all going to die any day" problem but it warrants a solution. as I know it the only way "nature" can take care of too high population is a mass die off.

 

Yes, we are definitely over-exploiting resources. Resource depletion, global warming, pollution, and loss of biodiversity are all major issues that we need to contend with. BUT, the nations that are mostly responsible for over-exploiting resources are, ironically, the nations with the lowest per capita birth rates, the highest energy use, and are generally the most wasteful.

 

Just because a concept is widely accepted doesn't mean it's true. The concept "too many people on earth" is highly dependent on how efficient people are with technology and energy. In some areas, with certain technologies, high population densities can be sustainable over long periods of time (check out Mayan history for a great example). The sustainable population size fluctuates through time though, and is significantly affected by the technology used, by environmental change, and by energy efficiency.

 

Your OP is basically a call to action: should we limit population growth with draconian, authoritarian policy? I say no. It's not going to stop over-exploitation, because the countries with the highest birth rates have the smallest impact on resource depletion, global warming, pollution, etc. Most of the ultra-polluting countries have a fertility rate that's either at replacement levels already or below replacement levels. Therefore, it's not a useful policy and it won't do much to decrease over-exploitation in the time-frame needed or to the extent needed.

Edited September 11, 2011 by jeskill

[dragonstar57]

Yes, we are definitely over-exploiting resources. Resource depletion, global warming, pollution, and loss of biodiversity are all major issues that we need to contend with. BUT, the nations that are mostly responsible for over-exploiting resources are, ironically, the nations with the lowest per capita birth rates, the highest energy use, and are generally the most wasteful.

 

Just because a concept is widely accepted doesn't mean it's true. The concept "too many people on earth" is highly dependent on how efficient people are with technology and energy. In some areas, with certain technologies, high population densities can be sustainable over long periods of time (check out Mayan history for a great example). The sustainable population size fluctuates through time though, and is significantly affected by the technology used, by environmental change, and by energy efficiency.

 

Your OP is basically a call to action: should we limit population growth with draconian, authoritarian policy? I say no. It's not going to stop over-exploitation, because the countries with the highest birth rates have the smallest impact on resource depletion, global warming, pollution, etc. Most of the ultra-polluting countries have a fertility rate that's either at replacement levels already or below replacement levels. Therefore, it's not a useful policy and it won't do much to decrease over-exploitation in the time-frame needed or to the extent needed.

1. a policy limiting population growth would only be a " draconian, authoritarian policy" if the penalty of breaking it were a prison, death etc. while I did not wish to limit discussion an incentive for people to have 2 children (or none preferably) would be the best way to enforce such a policy.

while i have never said it in this thread i would like to see a global population that can have a western standard of living without needing extra planets

[imatfaal]

while i have never said it in this thread i would like to see a global population that can have a western standard of living without needing extra planets

 

Perhaps the solution is neither the developing world having less children nor being kept in a state of relative poverty but is a realisation by the "western world" that its standard of living is unsustainable and that WE in the western world need to trim back rather than enforce/promote a policy of fewer children in the developing world.

[jeskill]

I agree with imatfaal.

 

I would add that it might actually be possible to improve quality of life in the "western world" if some of the wastefulness and pollution caused by unsustainable transportation, land-use policies, and coal-fired factories were eliminated. For example, many people in NA don't even have the choice of whether or not they can travel efficiently without a car, or walk to a store to buy groceries. They buy houses where it's cheap to buy houses (e.g. in the suburbs) and commute by car everywhere. They spend most of their time shopping or sitting in front of the television, and less time being active outdoors. From a health perspective, this is stressful and has a negative effect on our overall health and well-being. It also limits community interactions, which can negatively affect a community's ability to advocate for their well-being as a whole.

 

In essence I think it's faulty to assume that the western standard of living is the optimum, because it has negative effects on our quality of life. I'm not saying we should become impoverished peasants. I'm saying that sustainable policies would probably improve the Western quality of life for the majority of people in the western world.

[Incendia]

Why?, because poor nations have high death rates and need high birth rates to replenish their population.

 

Nations with high mortality rates (often the poor nations) are likely to be the ones with high fertility rates:

 

World Fertility Rates (Map Above)

 

World Death Rates (Map Above)

 

Notice a correlation?

Edited September 27, 2011 by Incendia

[dragonstar57]

Perhaps the solution is neither the developing world having less children nor being kept in a state of relative poverty but is a realisation by the "western world" that its standard of living is unsustainable and that WE in the western world need to trim back rather than enforce/promote a policy of fewer children in the developing world.

people like to say the the western standard of living is unsustainable but no one really cares thats why most of the world is in poverty. the western stranded of living is as I see it the minimum acceptable level. (i have no real argument for this but plants are just gross. all vegetables and most fruits are just revolting to expect an entire planet to eat that alone is just terrible) less people = a higher sustainable standard of living

[imatfaal]

people like to say the the western standard of living is unsustainable but no one really cares thats why most of the world is in poverty.

Nonsense - lot's of people care, and many try to do something about it. Just from reading the posts of members of SFN it is clear that several of them (perhaps many more) have actively worked to alleviate poverty and ease suffering in the developing world.

 

the western stranded of living is as I see it the minimum acceptable level.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the standard of life in western europe and the USA could not bear a little trimming - as a slightly silly example; there are thousands of road cars that will do significantly over 200 mph, when is this ever necessary or possible? and how does it become part of a 'minimum acceptable level'?

 

(i have no real argument for this but plants are just gross. all vegetables and most fruits are just revolting to expect an entire planet to eat that alone is just terrible)

Wow - that's a complete doozy of a generalisation!

 

less people = a higher sustainable standard of living

fewer people (less is used for continuous quantities - fewer for countable quantities; perhaps it is a subconscious slip that causes you quantify people in the second form) . anyway the whole underpinning of the high standard of living in the western world is the exploitation of the developing world - if my iphone was designed and built in california rather than being designed in california and built in china then it would be out of most people's price range. the excellent vegetable stir fry (£1.50 from Sainsbury's) had produce from 8 different low wage economies! Looking around my office the only items I can see that I know to be made in the west are my legal text books, my leatherman, and my watch; all of which are luxury items that are way more expensive than the bog-standard variants. so fewer people in the developing world would LOWER your standard of living not raise it.

[dragonstar57]

I don't know what your saying, the sol is crap in most of the world.

it is just bearable (barely) in the us.

really the sol can be broken into categories.

medical: SUCKS ALMOST NON EXISTENT UNLESS YOU ARE @ LAST MIDDLE CLASS

diet: consists of high fat beef and pork (wouldn't have it any other way )

housing: sucks better than mud huts but having a nice house is not "unsustainable"

cars: again the avg car where i live has to be large and a gass guzzler smart cars are just not viable here or many other places in the us.

I don't know how many agree with me but way before i care about whats happening in the 3rd world i care about the 2x cheese burgers on my plate. if those are threatened then i rapidly stop caring about the 3rd world.

i don't care how bad others have it. it is as bad as i could imagine it as is in the us. when people say American sol is unsustainable they meant the American diet is unsustainable and that is the minimal for a half way decent life.

[jeskill]

I don't know what your saying, the sol is crap in most of the world.

it is just bearable (barely) in the us.

really the sol can be broken into categories.

medical: SUCKS ALMOST NON EXISTENT UNLESS YOU ARE @ LAST MIDDLE CLASS

diet: consists of high fat beef and pork (wouldn't have it any other way )

housing: sucks better than mud huts but having a nice house is not "unsustainable"

cars: again the avg car where i live has to be large and a gass guzzler smart cars are just not viable here or many other places in the us.

I don't know how many agree with me but way before i care about whats happening in the 3rd world i care about the 2x cheese burgers on my plate. if those are threatened then i rapidly stop caring about the 3rd world.

i don't care how bad others have it. it is as bad as i could imagine it as is in the us. when people say American sol is unsustainable they meant the American diet is unsustainable and that is the minimal for a half way decent life.

 

To whom are you responding?

 

In the last few points, no one has compared the standard of living in the US vs. non-Annex I/underdeveloped (what's the proper terminology nowadays) countries. Most would agree that the standard of living can be raised in many areas of the world.

 

However, you are making an assumption that "large gas guzzling cars" and "high fat beef and pork" positively contribute to standard of living. They don't. They contribute to obesity (the second-highest preventable cause of death in the states after lung disease), which definitely reduces a person's quality of life, they increase the health costs for taxpayers (via asthma, obesity) and increase pollution. Pollution and affordable health care are two factors used to define standard of living according to this website.

 

I think the problem with using the terminology "developed" and "developing" country, is that we make assumptions about the type of infrastructure needed to have a good standard of living. We think that we know the best way to do things, but that's not always the case. To give an example, Malawians switched to growing corn (from the Americas) rather than growing traditional pulses, grains and vegetables in the early 1900s and the government is currently providing subsidies to increase high-yielding hybrid corn production. As a result, many have stopped growing the traditional vegetables and legumes that are necessary to combat malnutrition caused by a lack of vitamins. Moreover, hybrid corn needs nitrogen fertilizer, which is energy-intensive to make and monetarily expensive. The government is basically following the same path as "developed countries", but this has not improved the standard of living much, if at all, and comes with a whole host of ecological, health and economic problems.

Contrast the hybrid-seed subsidies with this concept:SFHC is a group of researchers who have been working with a Malawian community to introduce a "relay legume crop", whereby legumes are grown in the off season when corn is not grown. This has improved the soil fertility, so they don't require as much fertilizer (the legumes associate with nitrogen-fixing bacteria and increase the amount of nitrogen in the soil). Plus, this has improved nutrition, because the legumes are a good source of protein. This system does not require subsidies -- it is self-sufficient. It is more environmentally and economically sustainable. All it required was a change in behaviour.

 

Second example: I have the choice of biking, taking the bus, or driving to school. When you factor in time to park, driving takes just as long as taking the bus. Sometimes, biking is faster than driving. Plus, driving requires that I pay for parking. When I bike, I'm improving my physical health and I get to look at natural features (which improves mental health). When I take the bus, I get to cuddle, talk to and read to my son. Neither of these choices affect my standard of living. In fact, I think they improve my quality of life. Hence, why I actually choose not to drive. The problem, of course, is that in many places in North America, these choices don't exist. Quality of life and standard of living could be improved in the US if the infrastructure allowed people to make more sustainable choices.

Edited September 29, 2011 by jeskill