Population: Public Enemy No. 1

[Shared Humanity]

We simply cannot grow our way out of a problem whose root cause is growth It defies reason that anyone would suggest this. You cannot look at any macroscopic metric and not find evidence of growth in the form of exponential trends.

[TerryM]

I don't believe that Jack Ma has ever claimed to be a humanitarian. Fearing a population decline might be rational if your sole goal is to sell more stuff. George Carlin had a few good riffs on "more stuff".
Those seeking a better, sustainable future for mankind seem almost united in calling for a future without population growth.
 
I stroked the "almost" as I removed Das Elon from the list of those that even go through the motions.
Terry

[dnem]

The goal of Bezos and Ma, Amazon and Ali Baba, is to remove all friction from the consumption process.  They desire a world where more products can get into the hands of more consumers, as quickly and easily as possible. It is essentially the diametric opposite of what the world needs: slow, artisanal, localized production of products that are useful, valuable, sustainable and bring meaning to the maker and the user. Globalized, low cost, mass production and true sustainability are mutually exclusive.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Bernie Sanders in climate change 'population control' uproar
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49601678

"The answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies, and make reproductive decisions.

"The Mexico City Agreement which denies American aid to those organisations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd.

"So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly support."

[wdmn]

Bernie knows what's up

[Tom_Mazanec]

The World and the UN Must Reduce Population Growth
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/new-sdg-dampen-population-growth-by-frank-gotmark-and-robin-maynard-2019-09

On September 24-25, world leaders will gather at the United Nations in New York to review progress toward the UN’s 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs, which aim “to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all,” are commendable, and summarize the kind of world many of us wish to see in 2030. But if this vision is to have any chance of materializing, governments must now add an 18th goal: “Dampen population growth.”

[Tom_Mazanec]

For many reporters covering climate, population remains the elephant in the room
https://www.cjr.org/covering_climate_now/population-climate-crisis.php

If any article is only talking about flying less, or eating less meat, “it’s borderline dangerous and misleading,” Erica Gies, an independent journalist who has written about population and her personal decision not to have children, says. “Or the writer is ill-informed, doesn’t want to look at the reality, or open themselves up to the personal attack that is writing about it.”

If not having another child saves more than 20 times more carbon per year, why aren’t more journalists talking about human population in proportion to the climate impact that it can have?

[Tom_Mazanec]

Teens pledge to stop having babies over climate change
https://nypost.com/2019/09/19/teens-pledge-to-stop-having-babies-over-climate-change/

As a result, Lim started a website where people can pledge to abstain from having children until “the government can ensure a safe future for them.” The site has garnered almost 1,000 pledges as of Thursday morning.

“It breaks my heart, but I created this pledge because I know I am not alone,” Lim writes on the site. “I am not the only young person giving up lifelong dreams because they are unsure of what the future will hold. We’ve read the science, and now we’re pleading with our government.”

Her fellow pledges echoed her sentiment with one environmental abstainer from Germany saying “I see it as irresponsible to bring children into such dangers.”

[Tom_Mazanec]

Is population control the answer to fixing climate change?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/population-climate-change-1.5331133

"It is a very complicated, multifaceted relationship. Population issues certainly are an important dimension of how society will unfold, how society will be able to cope with this crisis over the course of this century," said Kathleen Mogelgaard, a consultant on population dynamics and climate change and an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland.
"But it's not a silver bullet, and it's certainly not the main cause of climate change. And fully addressing population growth is not, on its own, going to be able to solve the climate crisis. But it is an important piece of the puzzle."

God told Man to fill the Earth. When you've filled a cup, you don't just keep pouring.

[Sigmetnow]

Todd R. Jones on Twitter: "Falling fertility around the world, 100+ years.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/toddrjones/status/1195476826728128514
Truncated image below.  Four graph-gifs in the thread.  Worth a look.

[dnem]

I found this a thoughtful and interesting essay about falling fertility rates and "late capitalism."  Longish but well worth the time.  Her basic point is that late capitalism is increasingly failing to create the social context within which procreation makes sense.  And people around the world are recognizing that.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/opinion/sunday/capitalism-children.html

[Tom_Mazanec]

dnem:
I am not going to waste one of my few free articles on this,, but I was wondering...
Does this include Africa and the Middle East, which IIRC were still rapidly growing a few years ago?

[nanning]

Hmm I don't know if that's nice of you Tom, that sounds like the rich country people (you) don't have 'mirrors' and knowledge of our current predicament's causes and global per capita carbon footprint.
Please have some empathy and generosity for the poor in the middle east when you're there.
Perhaps I misinterpret you Tom.

[dnem]

Hmm I don't know if that's nice of you Tom, that sounds like the rich country people (you) don't have 'mirrors' and knowledge of our current predicament's causes and global per capita carbon footprint.
Please have some empathy and generosity for the poor in the middle east when you're there.
Perhaps I misinterpret you Tom.

No, not explicitly.  The article is more about how even in places with what should be the best conditions supporting family life, increasingly people are turning away from it, for a range of reasons, causing below replacement rates all over the developed world. She attributes this to a range of failings of modernity.  I believe she makes mention of the desire to expand high-consumption lifestyles to the lesser developed world and how that might impact choices about procreation down the road.

[Tom_Mazanec]

nanning, I am on disability. When I was working I was at or near minimum wage. I am living off disability and my father's inheritance. I have to decide what sources of information I can afford. When there is so much available for free on the World Wide Web, I am not going to pay the New York Times for unlimited articles. So I have to pick my monthly articles very carefully.
As for my feelings of people in the places I mentioned, my understanding was that their fertility rate, last I heard, was the highest in the world, and well above the replacement level. My question about them was whether that had changed in recent years.

[nanning]

Thanks for the explanation . I would admit that I am wrong were your text not posted in this thread "Population: Public Enemy No. 1". Do you understand what I mean?

[Tom_Mazanec]

I do not want population to grow until we are living on the planet Gideon. I don't see why it has to grow more than it has so far, at least until we start building space colonies or discover star drives or something.
Keep population stable with NFP or contraceptives.

[Stephen]

The biggest problem with population is that there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, short of genocide.  I mean, what exactly would you suggest, forced contraception?

Saying that population is a problem is like sitting on a beach and saying that an approaching tsunami is a problem.  Yes. It is.  But there is nothing you can do to stop it.  The only thing we can do is try to figure out how to deal with the consequences.

[Paddy]

As has been said in this thread a few times before, population growth can be reduced quite ethically by increasing women's access to education, employment and contraception, all of which reduces the fertility rate and population growth; women have fewer children later when they have education and jobs to focus on.

[Stephen]

As has been said in this thread a few times before, population growth can be reduced quite ethically by increasing women's access to education, employment and contraception, all of which reduces the fertility rate and population growth; women have fewer children later when they have education and jobs to focus on.

Yes, I know, but that's a very long term solution.  It doesn't help us in the next 10 or 20 years.  Also, it probably won't happen at all because the big religions are all opposed to women's rights and access to contraception and education.  If religion wins the war of culture and ideology then it will be because they can outgrow all of us sophisticated, ethical, secular types. 

[oren]

The biggest problem with population is that there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, short of genocide.  I mean, what exactly would you suggest, forced contraception?

Saying that population is a problem is like sitting on a beach and saying that an approaching tsunami is a problem.  Yes. It is.  But there is nothing you can do to stop it.  The only thing we can do is try to figure out how to deal with the consequences.

A. You are quite right.
B. Just to note, I would suggest immediate global voluntary avoidance of having babies for two decades, except for a single child per woman over the age of 27 and then only if she wants it.
C. It will not be implemented, for political and social reasons. But the same is true for a global carbon tax, ban on flights and over-consumption, moving the economy to a war footing and converting it rapidly to renewables, and other such good solutions. That does not mean one cannot advocate for them, especially on this forum.

[SteveMDFP]

nanning, I am on disability. When I was working I was at or near minimum wage. I am living off disability and my father's inheritance. I have to decide what sources of information I can afford. When there is so much available for free on the World Wide Web, I am not going to pay the New York Times for unlimited articles. So I have to pick my monthly articles very carefully.
...

There's a workaround.  Many of these sites use javascript to tell you to subscribe.  In many browsers, you can install a javascript switch add-on.  Block javascript, and most of these will open to your eyes.  Turning off javascript selectively can be handy.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Intersting, SteveMDFP.
I admit I used to sometimes watch cartoons on pirate sites, and downloaded oldies music on such sites, but I have repented of this and ceased and desisted. How is this morally different?

[sidd]

A. discussion on abortion broke out on another thread. I suggested part of that discussion be moved here, to wit: the pros, cons and moral implications.

Something to note is that humans, great apes and some chimpanzees are the only placentals with an invasive placenta, not easily aborted by the host mother. Other species can resorb the foetus or spontaneously abort with greater ease.  Rabbits do that a lot in response to stress.

sidd

[nanning]

<snip>How is this morally different?

Good morning Tom.
Whether something is legal or not has no direct connection with morality. Morality is not dogma or law.
XR is a high morality activity but it breaks the law.

[Ktb]

I am sure it has been posted before, but making abortion illegal DOES NOT stop abortion. It makes abortion dangerous. Because it will still occur. Except now it will be by coat hangers, baseball bats, and assorted liquids purchased over the internet, instead of by medical professionals.

If people truly wanted to stop/decrease abortion, the way to go about it is better sex education and free, unlimited prophylaxis (condoms, the pill, IUD).

[Aporia_filia]

Totally agree ktb. Me, as usual, bring back the idea of finding patterns of behaviour in humanity as a hole. I find Asimov's invention, the psychohistory, a very interesting path to follow. Some of you have just mentioned our impossibility to confront actual population growth, at least in time to stop a catastrophe. Humanity behaves out off control for individual minds.
This is a long read focusing in the effort done in this direction by a few mathematicians. I find the results a bit pathetic comparing them to what our individual understanding can grasp from our little knowledge. Obviously the task of dealing with our evolution is not easy. It's easy to see how we're loosing our jaw and teeth but not where our behavior is taking us to (although we expect problems)
But again, is population boom the only parameter found to explain a latter collapse.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/12/history-as-a-giant-data-set-how-analysing-the-past-could-help-save-the-future

[TerryM]

No woman should be forced to have an abortion.
Terry

[nanning]

I agree. And no woman should be forced to not use abortion.
What if she's raped, the poor human.

[Shared Humanity]

The biggest problem with population is that there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, short of genocide.  I mean, what exactly would you suggest, forced contraception?

Saying that population is a problem is like sitting on a beach and saying that an approaching tsunami is a problem.  Yes. It is.  But there is nothing you can do to stop it.  The only thing we can do is try to figure out how to deal with the consequences.

This is a very difficult problem and genocide and forced sterilizations are not the solution. The thing is, if we can't figure out a solution, mother nature will impose it's own and it is going to be nasty.

[TerryM]

I think that by eliminating abortion and sterilization you've eliminated all of the least horrific solutions possible.


An infinite population in a finite space simply isn't possible. China has shown that a one child policy is viable. When will the rest of the world conceded that breeding more people than can be cared for is inhumane, unjust & impractical.


If you attempted it with any other animal species you would properly be arrested.
Terry

[Paddy]

As has been said in this thread a few times before, population growth can be reduced quite ethically by increasing women's access to education, employment and contraception, all of which reduces the fertility rate and population growth; women have fewer children later when they have education and jobs to focus on.

Yes, I know, but that's a very long term solution.  It doesn't help us in the next 10 or 20 years.  Also, it probably won't happen at all because the big religions are all opposed to women's rights and access to contraception and education.  If religion wins the war of culture and ideology then it will be because they can outgrow all of us sophisticated, ethical, secular types.

Except that it is happening, among the religious and the irreligious.  The net reproduction rate has fallen to 1.09 daughters per woman.  9% fewer and we're at replacement fertility.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Except that it is happening, among the religious and the irreligious.  The net reproduction rate has fallen to 1.09 daughters per woman.  9% fewer and we're at replacement fertility.

I thought replacement was about 1.05 daughters, to allow for a few who don't reproduce (die early, never marry, etc.)

[oren]

Except that it is happening, among the religious and the irreligious.  The net reproduction rate has fallen to 1.09 daughters per woman.  9% fewer and we're at replacement fertility.

I thought replacement was about 1.05 daughters, to allow for a few who don't reproduce (die early, never marry, etc.)

I'm not sure where the 1.09 number comes from, but I'm sure it already takes into account those that don't bear children, averaging with those that do.

[GoodeWeather]

I think that by eliminating abortion and sterilization you've eliminated all of the least horrific solutions possible.


An infinite population in a finite space simply isn't possible. China has shown that a one child policy is viable. When will the rest of the world conceded that breeding more people than can be cared for is inhumane, unjust & impractical.


If you attempted it with any other animal species you would properly be arrested.
Terry

Sorry gotta do it.   China's One Child policy was not viable for the continued stability of their economy which is why they ended it in 2015.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/oct/07/john-oliver-china-one-child-policy-last-week-tonight-recap

The most alarming thing about this, is the ratio of men to women now in China.  Roughly 34 MILLION more men than women.  Also with an aging population it is putting incredible stress on the younger generation.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Roughly 34 MILLION more men than women.

Knowing the position of genders in China, I'm surprised it's that low.

[Paddy]

Except that it is happening, among the religious and the irreligious.  The net reproduction rate has fallen to 1.09 daughters per woman.  9% fewer and we're at replacement fertility.

I thought replacement was about 1.05 daughters, to allow for a few who don't reproduce (die early, never marry, etc.)

I'm not sure where the 1.09 number comes from, but I'm sure it already takes into account those that don't bear children, averaging with those that do.

Correct: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_reproduction_rate

[vox_mundi]

World's Population to Hit 7.75 Billion in 2019
https://dw.com/en/worlds-population-to-hit-775-billion-in-2019/a-51758905

The alarming increase is the estimate from a German foundation that monitors populations. It also suggests the 8 billion mark will be reached in the year 2023.

The estimate gauges that the world's population will have increased by 83 million since January 1 2019, which equates to roughly the number of inhabitants in Germany.

The globe's population is increasing at the rate of 156 every minute and Germany's Foundation for World Population (DSW) predict the 8 billion mark will be surpassed within four years.

The foundation also predicts that Africa's population will double over the next 20 years. An African mother bears 4.4 children on average compared to the global average of 2.4.

[nanning]

Historic (in my view):

Civilisation's perverse population explosion was driven primarily by:

• Religion historically (to this day) massively pushed for more births, more people, more influence and power for their religious group.
• The idea of family in separate 'mother/father/house'-units takes away society-wide responsibility and planning of new members (babies). There is no limit on family size and because family-units are sub-groups in larger society, most won't be satisfied with just one child. Families' uncontrolled right to procreate without any planning or oversight from larger society. Uncontrolled and excessive growth.

Modern:

• Governments (commerce) are focussed on economic growth and want more consumers, more consumerists. More people = extra consumers = more growth.
• Poor rural families in poor countries have a higher dead rate, no old-age pensions and tough manual labour. More hands means less work and more safety. Many grandchildren mean you are being cared for when you can't work yourself anymore.
• Since late 19^th century a dramatic decrease of civilisation's dead-rate through medical high technology (antibiotics etc.).

[oren]

So very true nanning.

[nanning]

Thank you oren.

[dnem]

I agree Nanning. But none of it would have been possible without mining out and using millennia of densely stored solar energy in one quick century - aka fossil fuels.

[philopek]

Historic (in my view):

Civilisation's perverse population explosion was driven primarily by:

• Religion historically (to this day) massively pushed for more births, more people, more influence and power for their religious group.
• The idea of family in separate 'mother/father/house'-units takes away society-wide responsibility and planning of new members (babies). There is no limit on family size and because family-units are sub-groups in larger society, most won't be satisfied with just one child. Families' uncontrolled right to procreate without any planning or oversight from larger society. Uncontrolled and excessive growth.

Modern:

• Governments (commerce) are focussed on economic growth and want more consumers, more consumerists. More people = extra consumers = more growth.
• Poor rural families in poor countries have a higher dead rate, no old-age pensions and tough manual labour. More hands means less work and more safety. Many grandchildren mean you are being cared for when you can't work yourself anymore.

quite a good resume considering it's shortness, means +1

[nanning]

Thanks philopek.
I forgot to mention the dramatic decrease of rich countries' dead-rate after ca. 1900 through advances in medical technology (antibiotics etc.).

[Paddy]

Not just rich countries. Every country on the planet today has a greater life expectancy than, say, the USA did in 1900 (49.. The global average life expectancy today is 72.6 and climbing.

[nanning]

Thank you for the correction Paddy.

[Shared Humanity]

Teens pledge to stop having babies over climate change
https://nypost.com/2019/09/19/teens-pledge-to-stop-having-babies-over-climate-change/

As a result, Lim started a website where people can pledge to abstain from having children until “the government can ensure a safe future for them.” The site has garnered almost 1,000 pledges as of Thursday morning.

“It breaks my heart, but I created this pledge because I know I am not alone,” Lim writes on the site. “I am not the only young person giving up lifelong dreams because they are unsure of what the future will hold. We’ve read the science, and now we’re pleading with our government.”

Her fellow pledges echoed her sentiment with one environmental abstainer from Germany saying “I see it as irresponsible to bring children into such dangers.”

We need one entire generation of humans to forgo having children and the problem is solved. The remainder of all sentient life on the planet will applaud our decision.

[Bruce Steele]

“ Nofuturenochildren “ has gained about five thousand pledges. There were only one thousand back in September when that ny post article was written.

http://www.nofuturepledge.ca/our-stories.html

The movement ,if it were to grow substantially, would be a serious threat to the growth paradigm . If another anti- growth consumer pledge could intensify a degrowth message for those of us to old to make a no child pledge maybe we could collectively get government cooperation on carbon controls ?
Or would we just test Jevon’s paradox one more time ?

[oren]

Or would we just test Jevon’s paradox one more time ?

Unfortunately I'm afraid this would be the case. Those that care the least about the subject are those that will have the most children.

[nanning]

For readers who don't know Jevon's paradox (me):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises due to increasing demand.[1] The Jevons paradox is perhaps the most widely known paradox in environmental economics.[2] However, governments and environmentalists generally assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the paradox arising.[3]

I can't figure out how e.g. the poor Africans figure in this, having a very low carbon footprint and no social security or other means, and no heavy equipment to work the land.
I wonder what would happen with the indigenous Amazon tribes if they wouldn't have children for 20 years.

I'm all for this but please focus on the wrong doers, i.e. the rich countries and the global top 10%.