Reduce World Population the solution?

[eViLSeeD]

the world population must be reduced to a reasonable size through a worldwide and controlled birth stop, because only through this will it be possible to eliminate the increasing demands and their associated destructions. According to the law of nature, the size of the Earth’s population should not exceed the amount of 529 million, because the planet has a guaranteed surplus of provisions for this number. Even three times the number, thus 1.6 billion, but not more, would still be acceptable and could be handled by the planet and its nature. Time is running out and therefore swift action is called for...

On the other hand it is also clear that many of those who are aware of the very fast depletion of fossil fuel deposits, on account of the rapidly increasing exploitation, and in this connection speak of a limit to the economic growth, are not ready and willing to accept that there is a set natural limit to the population growth as well...

It is also not so as some wishful thinkers and know-it-alls think, that the insane reproduction of human beings will, at some time through natural ways, i.e. epidemics, starvation, and natural catastrophes, be stopped and the population size will again be – quite spontaneously – normalized and take on an environmentally compatible size.

[SabreKai]

A reduction in population is an obvious solution to the ever dwindling resource problem on this planet. But its a lot easier said than done.

Mother nature tends to be self correcting, and its only thru mans ability to modify his environment that Mother Natures attempts are thwarted. Primary example is in the advance of medical knowledge. People are living longer lives, child deaths are down. Ergo, the population grows.

However, Mans drive to procreate is a bitch to conquer. Even a  place like China with its total control over the populace is having problems. Their methods are draconian to say the least but even so their population is still rising, at a slower rate. The very wealthy there scoff at the laws, pay the fines and have the extra children. The poor? Accidents happen and if the child is not aborted, it is allowed to live. The penalties are stiff but its an extra mouth to feed. Ever wonder why people starving in africa have so many children? Why would any sane person risk bringing a child into the world especially if they know there is no food? It happens anyway.

Another thing that works against birth control attempts is the interferance of the Catholic Church with its rules against birth control. Its kinda hard to control population when the dominent religion in an area tells you that birth control is a sin. Sex out of wedlock is a sin too but having to say 10 Hail Marys isn't going to put much of a brake to the natural urges.

Im rooting for a natural or man made plague. In the 1300s, the black death swept across the middle east and into europe, wiping out millions. It bouced around the continent for about a decade, its slow spread a direct result of lower populations, spread out population centers and the difficulty in getting from A to B.

Nowadays, with the advent of air travel, a plague could start in Bombay, and within a week be all over the globe. One aircraft with carriers could spread it around the world. Flying from Bombay to a hub like Frankfurt, or London or New York and then spreading out to other localities is easy and would take approximately 36 hrs from departure to arrival. Air on a jet is recirculated, so one person spewing out a virus or bacteria which is able to survive in air for a period of time can easily infect a plane load of people. The only saving grace so far is that most diseases are slow to develope. IE the person infected is not contagious immediately. It takes time for the bug to become spreadable.

I watched things as a pnuemonic plague outbreak ran thru India in the 80s. I also worked at Pearson Airport in Toronto at the time. It was pretty scary to think about. Potentially plague carriers were getting on planes in India and flying to Toronto. The only thing that the government did in this case was to pass out cards to the passengers, advising them to seek medical attention if they became ill. I wonder how many of those people disappeared into the underground as illegals? Not bloody likely they'd be running to a hospital with the sniffles eh?

The scariest one out there is Ebola. Its a fast growing bug, 80-90% lethal. If it ever gets on a plane, we are screwed.

Sabre

[EastcoastJD]

There is no solution.  Sustainability is a myth in the long term.

[eViLSeeD]

Nice written,,,it makes me smile...thank you for your reply.

But what thoughts do you have in case of man made plaque???

[Jay Dee]

some people believe they have a "god given right" to have kids - regardless of th implications. Someone on this forum recently told me all people couild be fed with good permaculture practices. China I think has given up or not enforcing there one child per couple law. That is the obvious solution. We only got into seriuous overpopulation once natural gas manufactured fertilizers became common. Maybe we should jsut make the manufacture and sell of fertilizers illegal and see what that does. Now that would be cruel but effective I am certain. We could place a heavy duty tax on the occassion/event of child birth. We could have a "fucking" tax but that seems a redundant since we already have so many thus labeled(damned government I pay those fucking taxes - all the time) - perhaps inaccurately Maybe we need to see how that formula would work. Length of "instrument" x number of thrusts less say 50% for using the rhythm method or the several other popular methods I heard mentioned in high school and routinely attempted - with mixed success. The people could procreate as they do in africa  - to a starving population. The tax gets more stiff(must be a better word for this) with each birth which some might call discriminatory but we could work with that some way. ALso instead of having a child allownace deduct like we have now we could have a "no child" deduct to repalce it to provide a real incentive for the money motivated in the world. Some people don't see past their own interests and bias. I would like to be involved int e effort - perhaps as a recorder or tax assessor to help determine th accuracy of thrusts per minute reported by particularly those who have suspect reports(outliers in statistics gibberish - go figure). I suppose they would be sufferers of ED or on the other extreme -people looking to pump up their virility statistics with outrageous thrust taxes paid each year. On the othr hand I believe I could be more effective as a penetration consultant but I;m not going there today until I am sure Leaf isn't returning from the Ukraine to apply for the position.



It is a complex issue and few want to give any ground.

[galacticsurfer]

12 monkeys  concept is a good idea. Typhoid Mary person would be needed(some prostitutes in Kenya are seemingly immune to aids) or an Aids infection programme by innoculation with dirty needles(as is purportedly actual reason for aids spread in South Africa among children).

Plague was not worst in 14th century. Famine was worse beforehand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315-1317

Famine in the Medieval European context meant that people died of starvation on a massive scale. As brutal as they were, famines were familiar occurrences in Medieval Europe. As an example, localized famines occurred in France during the 14th century in 1304, 1305, 1310, 1315–1317 (the Great Famine), 1330–1334, 1349–1351, 1358–1360, 1371, 1374–1375 and 1390. In England, the most prosperous kingdom affected by the Great Famine, there were famines in 1315–1317, 1321, 1351, 1369, and more. For most people there was usually never enough to eat and life was a relatively short and brutal struggle to survive to old age, which might mean as young as 30 years old. According to official records of the British Royal family, the best off in society, the average life expectancy in 1276 was 35.28 years. Between 1301 and 1325 during the Great Famine it was 29.84 while between 1348-1375 during the Plague it went to 17.33.

The Great Famine was restricted to Northern Europe, from Russia in the east to Ireland in the west, from Scandinavia in the north and bounded in the south by the Alps and the Pyrenees.

During the Medieval Warm Period (the period prior to 1350) the population of Europe had exploded, reaching levels that were not matched again in some places until the 19th century (parts of France today are less populous than at the beginning of the 14th century). However, the yield ratios of wheat (the number of seeds one could eat per seed planted) had been dropping since 1280 and food prices had been climbing. In good weather the ratio could be as high as 7:1, while during bad years as low as 2:1—that is, for every seed planted, two seeds were harvested, one for next year's seed, and one for food. By comparison, modern farming has ratios of 200:1 or more.However, there was one catastrophic dip in the weather during the Medieval Warm Period that coincided with the onset of the Great Famine.

Between 1310 and 1330 northern Europe saw some of the worst and most sustained periods of bad weather in the entire Middle Ages, characterized by severe winters and rainy and cold summers.

Take a reduced yield due to lack of fertilizer from 200:1 down to 7:1 or less as back then when Nat Gas disappears, introduce terribly unstable weather as is coming now constantly(drought or heavy rains but completely crazy most places). Since we have massive overpopulation and soil is poor(without fertilizer) and aquifers running out(or so deep to pump water too much diesel fuel needed) and without a diesel motor you can't get far out enough to find a remaining fishing ground. So we are totally dependent on fossil fuels to get food but weather is not cooperating and we have too many people and Peak Fossil fuels is here (PFF) so we are pretty much finished.

In the spring of 1315, unusually heavy rain began in much of Europe. Throughout the spring and summer, it continued to rain and the temperature remained cool. Under these conditions grain could not ripen. Grain was brought indoors in urns and pots. The straw and hay for the animals could not be cured and there was no fodder for the livestock. The price of food began to rise. Food prices in England doubled between spring and midsummer. Salt, the only way to cure and preserve meat, was difficult to obtain because it could not be evaporated in the wet weather; it went from 30 shillings to 40 shillings. In Lorraine, wheat prices increased by 320 percent and peasants could no longer afford bread. Stores of grain for long-term emergencies were limited to the lords and nobles. Because of the general increased population pressures, even lower-than-average harvests meant some people would go hungry; there was little margin for failure. People began to harvest wild edible roots, plants, grasses, nuts, and bark in the forests.

In the spring of 1316, it continued to rain on a European population deprived of energy and reserve to sustain itself. All segments of society from nobles to peasants were affected, most of all the peasants, who represented 95% of the population and who had no safety nets. To provide some measure of relief, the future was mortgaged by slaughtering the draft animals; eating the seed grain; abandoning children to fend for themselves (see "Hansel and Gretel"); and, among old people, voluntarily refusing food in hopes of the younger generation surviving. The chroniclers of the time wrote of many incidents of cannibalism.

The height of the famine was reached in 1317 as the wet weather hung on. Finally, in the summer the weather returned to its normal patterns. By now, however, people were so weakened by diseases such as pneumonia, bronchitis, tuberculosis, and other sicknesses, and much of the seed stock had been eaten, that it was not until 1325 that the food supply returned to relatively normal conditions and the population began to increase again. Historians debate the toll but it is estimated that between 10%–25% of the population of many cities and towns died. While the Black Death (1338–1375) would kill more, for many the Great Famine was worse. While the plague swept through an area in a matter of months, the Great Famine lingered for years, drawing out the suffering of those who would slowly starve to death, face cannibalism, child-murder and rampant crime.


The first consequence was for the Church. No amount of prayer seemed effective against the causes of the famine. In a society where the final recourse to all problems had been religion, no amount of prayer was helping and the famine undermined the institutional authority of the Catholic Church. This helped lay the foundations for later movements that were deemed heretical by the Church because they opposed the Papacy.

Second was the increase in criminal activity. Medieval Europe in the 13th century had already been a violent culture where rape and murder were demonstrably more common than in modern times. With the famine even those who were not normally inclined to criminal activity would resort to any means to feed themselves or their family. After the famine, Europe took on a tougher and more violent edge; it had become an even less amicable place than during the 12th and 13th centuries. The effects of this could be seen across all segments of society, perhaps the most striking in the way warfare was conducted in the 14th century during the bloody 100 Years War, versus the 12th and 13th centuries when nobles were more likely to die by accident in tournament games than on the field of battle.

Third was the failure of the Medieval governments to deal with the crisis. Just as God seemed unable or unwilling to answer prayers, the earthly powers were equally ineffective, eroding and undermining their power and authority.

Fourthly, the Great Famine marked a clear end to an unprecedented period of population growth that had started around 1050; although some believe this had been slowing down for a few decades already, there is no doubt the Great Famine was a clear end of high population growth.

Finally, the Great Famine would have consequences for future events in the 14th century such as the Black Death when an already weakened population would be struck again.

So the whole structure of society was pretty much altered fundamentally by the famine and then the plague worked ion a weakened population allowing for the modern age with humanism in the renaissance and the discovery of the New World and such. I believe wahtever our modern  ideas are based on they will be changed completeyl and whoever survives the crisis will not trust the corporate state, modern science or religious dogma. A retun to ancient ideas is just as unlikely however. More likely is a harkening back to old information and a mixing and blending like the renaissance did, looking at Greco-Roman ideas and applying them to everday life to revive life and find new meaning. We are partially doing that now by digging up stuff on yanomamis and jungle tribes and traditional medicine and indian/Chinese esoteric and chaldean astrology. Basically a blossoming of knowledge into a big pot and whatever works will be taken over inot a new ideology.

[Limey]

I used to think religion was the major problem too, until some numbers turned up...

Typical Italian family size these days: One or two children (Pope notwithstanding)
Typical Iranian family size: down from over 5 to 2.1 children (Mullahs notwithstanding)

How has this happened? Probably several things are combining:

Infant mortality is lower now (if you prune a rosebush it puts out more flowers, perhaps people are the same?)
Female literacy is higher (literate women are probably more likely to have the confidence to 'come to an arrangement' with their men)
Old age is more likely to be provided for (and no I've no idea what an Iranian 401k looks like I'm only guessing!)

So by all means go to Kenya, but take books. And say hello from me to Wangari Matthai(sp?) while you're at it. Plague will only scare people and scared people do daft things. Like, go at it like rabbits when there's sod-all food, instead of planting trees.

[suburban_junkscape]

I've given up on the government doing anything to solve the population problem. Not even worth talking about. With Peak Oil you can be sure life expectancy will fall due to poor nutrition and lack of medical care. The birthrate will fall due to people not being able to afford children. We've seen this happen in Russia and the 1930's U.S. during their economic collapses. This will slowly bring down the population on its own. In fact, if you do the math, it'll bring it down at a rate that could qualify as a die-off.

[OldHorseman]

I've given up on the government doing anything to solve the population problem.

   Very wise.  Government is a major cause of the problem, after all.  In America, we still essentially PAY people to have kids.  Insanity.

The birthrate will fall due to people not being able to afford children. We've seen this happen in Russia and the 1930's U.S. during their economic collapses.

   This is a VERY rare phenomenon which occures only in the most advanced of human cultures.  I wouldn't bet on America qualifying in that regard these days.

   Declining resources usually don't reduce baby-making.  See Africa, South America, and India.  See low-income Americans who can't pay their bills, yet pop out babies expecting free health care, education, etc for them.

[berkeley]

War is the best way to reduce population while insulating the elite. 

And it's also very profitable for those well positioned. 

Expect more war. 

[gus]

I've given up on the government doing anything to solve the population problem.

   Very wise.  Government is a major cause of the problem, after all.  In America, we still essentially PAY people to have kids.  Insanity.

The birthrate will fall due to people not being able to afford children. We've seen this happen in Russia and the 1930's U.S. during their economic collapses.

   This is a VERY rare phenomenon which occures only in the most advanced of human cultures.  I wouldn't bet on America qualifying in that regard these days.

   Declining resources usually don't reduce baby-making.  See Africa, South America, and India.  See low-income Americans who can't pay their bills, yet pop out babies expecting free health care, education, etc for them.

Completely agree.  There is a famous quote which I will paraphrase:

The best form of birth control is if a woman can be secure her children will live until adulthood.

In most lesser developed countries, When your and the rest of your family's survival is completely dependent on having enough able-bodied wage earners, i.e. - resources are tight - families have more chlidren to ensure success.

Limiting yourself to 2 kids or less is a luxury for people who have other forms of support in old age like pensions or retirement account, or people who can pretty much count on not dying young leaving your 2 or 1 child with no income, support, etc. 

[Flagg707]

Or we could just kick back and let Mother Nature do what she does best - take care of it herself. 

Reduced population is of course a "solution" and the solution that has been used time and time again all through the past.  Moralizing over it can be fun.  If nothing else, it lets one side of the argument feel very superior to the unenlightened masses and there is no psychic food more fililng than that (whether your religion says to go forth and multiply or whether it says that the Earth Mother hates too many babies, you get to choose your food).  But at the end of the day, if you think that a family group is not going to fight like hell to stay alive and to procreate, well, then go right ahead and believe it.  And when the famines do begin, you better get yourself on the local revolutionary council or whatever springs up in the ruins and get in a position to tell the masses who can live and who can die (recall those early scenes in Threads, anyone?) because it is going to be one heck of a fight.  My best guess is that the ideology/religion behind the coming wave will be "eco" based, so get Green now, start reading how Stalin, Hitler, Mao and other revolutionaries overturned old systems through mass violence and maybe you'll make the cut when the upheavals begin.  Otherwise, the "bad" people who still cling to the idea of human progress might come out on top and go back to living unsustainably.

Prepare now.  It's going to be one heck of a mess.

[Chip Haynes]

"According to the law of nature, the size of the Earth’s population should not exceed the amount of 529 million..."

   I'm curious as to where you came up with that "529 million" figure, eViLSeeD. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it seems mighty specific. My best guess would be that planet earth can sustain as many people as were here right around the year 1900- before the use of oil became so commonplace. From what I've read, that would fall right in line with your second figure iof 1.6 billion.

But where did the "529 mililon" come from?

[OldHorseman]

   We should all do our part and commence to slaying the surplus asshat population...

   As for the excess babies, J. Swift had a Modest Proposal to deal with them.

    Mmmmmmmmm. Baby!

[kyril]

I believe (not sure) that that's an approximate estimate of global population prior to the Industrial Revolution. If we were to swear off oil, natural gas and coal-powered machinery and coal heat, reserving coal for blacksmithing and using wood for heat, we wouldn't be able to sustain the population of 1900; 1700 would be a better guide. Maybe 1800, since in 1700 the Americas were largely not agriculturalized. That's a better target to shoot for as far as quality of life for the survivors, and since the die-off's going to be crappy either way I say we go all-out.