Population Control, anyone?

[AlexBP]

But it does not deal with how to maintain a birthrate of 1.0, which is what I asked for. Submitting a plan to do something else is not a response to what I asked. There is still only 1 plan on this thread on how we might enforce a birthrate of 1.0 per couple if it was needed.

I have responded to the comments here. I was not saying that there were no comments here. There have been many good responses, and I appreciate the feedback. I was saying there is only 1 plan listed to maintain a birthrate of 1.0 per couple if needed.

Imagine, if you will, that someone showed up on this forum and posted the following: "It may be necessary to exterminate the Jews. I support government research on this topic. I suggest that we exterminate the Jews using gas chambers. However, this is only a suggestion. If you have some better method for exterminating the Jews, I'd like to see it." Then many responders try to explain to him why his idea is so atrocious. He responds by saying: "There is still only 1 plan on this thread on how we might enforce the extermination of the Jews if it was needed." Do you see why this argument would fail to persuade?

You're basically saying that nobody has proposed a plan for reducing the population to 5.4 billion quickly other than forced sterilization of the planet. Well there's no need for studies and lengthy arguments to show that the only ways to get rid of billions of people are to prevent births or to kill a lot of people. Lesser minds than yours would suffice for the task. But as you can see, no one else here wants to reduce the world's population to 5.4 billion. Nobody believes your claims that doing so is necessary to prevent mass starvation. Consequently we ignore your demands to choose between mass sterilization and mass starvation.

The comparison between you and a hypothetical proponent of re-doing the Holocaust clearly offends you but it's an apt comparison. From 1933-1945 the question of how to get rid of Jews was a pressing one for many Germans. After 1945, it ceased to be a pressing question. Likewise the question of what to do about impending global starvation caused by overpopulation was a pressing one in the late 60's and early 70's. Then it ceased to be a pressing question. And it still isn't a pressing question for the vast majority of people. Obviously there are a few folks on the secular extreme left who still think that overpopulation is a pressing question, just as there are a few neo-Nazis who still think that getting rid of the Jews is a pressing question. There just aren't many.

That would, of course, bring up the question of why overpopulation has ceased to be a pressing question. The answer, or at least part of it, has been given to you many times already. Because in the 60's and 70's, there was a lot of hysteria, even from alleged scholars and other good sources, about how overpopulation would shortly caused starvation and other enormous problems. Then it never actually happened. Consequently anyone who wants to revive the hysteria about overpopulation has a tough sell, just as Bernie Madoff might have a hard time getting another investment company off the ground.

The other part of the answer has not been given, so I'll give it now. You may recall that after Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, someone publicized his electricity bill and we learned that he used 20 times as much electricity as an average American, while not bothering with even a few simple steps that might have reduced his carbon footprint. Obviously his own actions had little effect on global warming but it was an excellent symbol of how the secular left thinks. In their minds, we are always facing a crisis so severe that all individuals must be stripped of their freedom and power must be given to various organizations run by members of the secular left. On the other hand, the crisis is not severe enough that the members of the secular left need to alter their own behavior, even a small amount. This leads some people to suspect the sincerity of these people.

 

[doubtingmerle]

AlexBP,

If it turns out that we are in population overshoot, as many have concluded, and if there will indeed be billions of people dying of starvation in the future unless we reduce the birth rate to something like 1.0 per couple, what would you do? If you had to choose between billions of people dying of starvation, or organized efforts to control the population, which would you choose?

Just laws exist to restrict actions by one person which infringe the liberty of others. Murder, rape, armed robbery, paying beneath a living wage, and such are illegal because they infringe liberty. But having a child infringes on no one's liberty.

Excuse me, but I have explained this over and over on this thread. Population control is being suggested as a means to prevent the starvation of billions of people. So how can you suggest that having billions of children over the sustainable capacity of the earth harms nobody? It harms everybody! If billions of people die of starvation if we fail to control population, than that certainly does harm people's liberty.

You have been told repeatedly what this is about. It is about finding out if the earth is indeed headed to mass starvation due to overcrowding, and if so, to preventing that mass starvation. So please stop pretending that this has anything to do with wanting birth control or wanting to control people or wanting to commit a crime. This is only about what we do to prevent the starvation of billions of people.

Sir, if you had to choose between the death of billions of our children and grandchildren by starvation, or some sort of population control, which would you choose?

 

[doubtingmerle]

As I and others have already mentioned already, the problem that the world faces right now is not overpopulation but rather underpopulation. You keep saying that you want the government to "study the issue". Governments around the world have studied the issue of population growth. They just didn't studying it to see how to rape the population en masse, but rather to see how they can encourage childbirth. Quoting from this article:

Uh, excuse me, but this says nothing about the issue I raised: determining the sustainable capacity of the earth. All this says is that governments wanted more people in a particular country at a particular time. It does not say how they determined that would be good.

Governments have researched population issues and many have reached a consensus that we need a lot more babies and we need them fast. The precise facts concerning two nations, Japan and Singapore, are given above. You can easily search and find evidence that many other governments have done similar things. The verdict is in, at least among people who have the power to make things happen at the national level. We have too few people and we need to make more.

You have a lot more faith in government then I do.

Politicians act mainly because it is to their political advantage to do something. They act as needed to win the next election, to calm the raging hoards, or to promote the bottom line during their term of office. Politicians seldom act in ways that require immediate sacrifices in order to provide benefit to future generations, unless the people themselves demand it.

So my guess is the Japanese government did this for political advantage, not because they had somebody study the carrying capacity of the earth and concluding that we needed more people 50 years from now.

But take a look and see if you can find a study that the Japanese government did on the sustainable carrying capacity of the earth before they acted. My guess is you will find no such study.

For that matter, if you've been following the news lately you may have heard about some going-on in places called Greece, Italy, and Spain, specifically that the national governments in those places are going bankrupt. Now why is this? Well, as it happens, all of those countries have fertility rates very near the 1 child per couple that you desire so highly. Greece has a 1.3, Italy a 1.2, Spain a 1.1, according to Mark Steyn's book America Alone. All these countries have generous pension funds, so they're giving a lot of money to old people. They also have a distinct shortage of young people, so there's not many folks who can work and pay taxes into the system. The result of those two choices--huge pensions and not enough children--are now coming due.

Though having fewer children may be part of our economic problems, it is by no means the major cause of the problem. The main cause is that we have mined the best minerals, produced the best oil, and exploited rich resources that were once available but are now gone. We now need to dig deeper and work harder to maintain the same level of resources. The soaring price of raw materials, especially gasoline, have greatly stressed the economy, just as peak oil writers have predicted. That is the root cause of this recession.

Yes, I understand that having fewer children causes hardships. But the hardships are much less than the results of inaction with an overpopulated planet, mass starvation.

Things would be better now if we had acted sooner. If we had cut back to 2 children per family in the 60's, we would probably have stayed within sustainable limits, and there would be no need to consider reducing to 1 child per family. This is why we need to act sooner than later. The longer we wait, the worse the impact of trying to fix the problem.

So if we had reduced population in the 60's, there would be far more cheap resources available today, and we would be in much better economic shape.

 

[AlexBP]

If it turns out that we are in population overshoot, as many have concluded, and if there will indeed be billions of people dying of starvation in the future unless we reduce the birth rate to something like 1.0 per couple, what would you do? If you had to choose between billions of people dying of starvation, or organized efforts to control the population, which would you choose?

Assuming that "organized efforts to control the population" is merely your euphanism for sterilization at gunpoint, I believe I've already answered this adequately, and so have other posters. But what the hey, I'll answer it again. I do not believe that there is an either/or choice between reducing the birth rate to something like 1.0 per couple and billions of people dying of starvation, nor that there will be in the forseeable future. Consequently I do not view this as a valid question, and thus I refuse to answer it. What you're trying to pull here is akin to the old canard: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It's a question that tries to trap the target because no matter what they say it sounds wrong. Needless to say, asking such a question is not on honest tactic, and does little to build up confidence that the questioner is debating in good faith.

(As a side note, when someone asks me whether I support stripping away certain individual freedoms in order to preserve lives or anything else, I recall the state motto of New Hamshire: "Live free or die.")

 

[AceHero]

Imagine, if you will, that someone showed up on this forum and posted the following: "It may be necessary to exterminate the Jews. I support government research on this topic. I suggest that we exterminate the Jews using gas chambers. However, this is only a suggestion. If you have some better method for exterminating the Jews, I'd like to see it." Then many responders try to explain to him why his idea is so atrocious. He responds by saying: "There is still only 1 plan on this thread on how we might enforce the extermination of the Jews if it was needed." Do you see why this argument would fail to persuade?

There's a huge difference between preventing future births and murdering people already on earth.

The other part of the answer has not been given, so I'll give it now. You may recall that after Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, someone publicized his electricity bill and we learned that he used 20 times as much electricity as an average American, while not bothering with even a few simple steps that might have reduced his carbon footprint. Obviously his own actions had little effect on global warming but it was an excellent symbol of how the secular left thinks. In their minds, we are always facing a crisis so severe that all individuals must be stripped of their freedom and power must be given to various organizations run by members of the secular left. On the other hand, the crisis is not severe enough that the members of the secular left need to alter their own behavior, even a small amount. This leads some people to suspect the sincerity of these people.

So you're assuming every left-leaning person you disagree with is a hypocrite?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Imagine, if you will, that someone showed up on this forum and posted the following: "It may be necessary to exterminate the Jews. I support government research on this topic. I suggest that we exterminate the Jews using gas chambers. However, this is only a suggestion. If you have some better method for exterminating the Jews, I'd like to see it." Then many responders try to explain to him why his idea is so atrocious. He responds by saying: "There is still only 1 plan on this thread on how we might enforce the extermination of the Jews if it was needed." Do you see why this argument would fail to persuade?

Huh? There is a huge difference! The Nazi argument to kill Jews is bad! The humanitarian argument to prevent the future starvation of billions of children is good!

Once more. Killing Jews is bad. Saving starving children is good. Got it?

You're basically saying that nobody has proposed a plan for reducing the population to 5.4 billion quickly other than forced sterilization of the planet.

Huh? Many plans have been given to reduce population. I never said this is the only plan.

What I said is that those who criticize the only plan on the table in this thread refuse to prevent an alternative to that plan on this thread. What would you do if there was overwhelming evidence that the population was in overshoot, and it was known that billions would starve unless we did something about it? If there is anything at all that you would do in that case to prevent the starvation of billions, please let us know what you would do. You refuse to present a plan. That is what I am saying. I am not saying that everybody in the world refuses to present a plan.

The comparison between you and a hypothetical proponent of re-doing the Holocaust clearly offends you but it's an apt comparison.

Huh? Of course I am offended when you compare me to the Nazis. You too would be offended if you were compared to the Nazis.

If you didn't know it, publicly comparing people to the Nazis will offend almost anybody. And yet you come here and publicly compare people to Nazis, and then act surprised if they are offended! Huh?

Once more. Killing Jews is bad. Saving babies from starvation is good.

You will not convince me that it is wrong to take efforts to save billions of children by starving, just because you choose to compare the baby defenders with Nazi Germany.

From 1933-1945 the question of how to get rid of Jews was a pressing one for many Germans. After 1945, it ceased to be a pressing question.
Likewise the question of what to do about impending global starvation caused by overpopulation was a pressing one in the late 60's and early 70's. Then it ceased to be a pressing question.

Likewise the use of coal to oil technology was big in Nazi Germany and was a pressing issue. Then it ceased to be a pressing question (other than an application of coal to oil in apartheid South Africa). And now you promote coal to oil technology. And yet I would never use this fact to compare coal to oil proponents with Nazis.

Killing Jews is bad. New ways to get oil is good.
Killing Jews is bad. Saving babies from starvation is good.

Can you see the difference?

Obviously there are a few folks on the secular extreme left who still think that overpopulation is a pressing question, just as there are a few neo-Nazis who still think that getting rid of the Jews is a pressing question. There just aren't many.

To use your logic, obviously there are a few folks who still think coal to oil is a pressing issue, just as there are a few neo-Nazis who still think that getting rid of the Jews is a pressing question. There just aren't many.

Can you see how comparisons to Nazi Germany have nothing to do with civil discussion?

That would, of course, bring up the question of why overpopulation has ceased to be a pressing question. The answer, or at least part of it, has been given to you many times already. Because in the 60's and 70's, there was a lot of hysteria, even from alleged scholars and other good sources, about how overpopulation would shortly caused starvation and other enormous problems. Then it never actually happened. Consequently anyone who wants to revive the hysteria about overpopulation has a tough sell, just as Bernie Madoff might have a hard time getting another investment company off the ground.

Uh, overpopulation ceased to be a debate because we were in the green revolution in the 60s, and food supply growth seemed to be endless. But few people thought about how this revolution was fueled through crude oil and natural gas, and asked what we would do when the cheap supplies of these materials were no longer available. Food was becoming plentiful, and that was that. Few realized we were depleting topsoil, phosphorous, fisheries, fresh water aquifiers, and rain forests to obtain our food. But now that we see what is happening, a real case could be made that it would have been better to level off at a sustainable population of perhaps 3 to 4 billion people in the 60s, rather than build to unsustainable levels and worry about how to reduce population humanely and painlessly.

The other part of the answer has not been given, so I'll give it now. You may recall that after Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, someone publicized his electricity bill and we learned that he used 20 times as much electricity as an average American, while not bothering with even a few simple steps that might have reduced his carbon footprint. Obviously his own actions had little effect on global warming but it was an excellent symbol of how the secular left thinks. In their minds, we are always facing a crisis so severe that all individuals must be stripped of their freedom and power must be given to various organizations run by members of the secular left. On the other hand, the crisis is not severe enough that the members of the secular left need to alter their own behavior, even a small amount. This leads some people to suspect the sincerity of these people.

Huh? You find an act of hypocrisy on the left, so therefore you suspect the sincerity of anybody in that group? And people should react this way every time they see an act of hypocrisy? Is that what you are saying? Are you telling us that if we ever see an act of hypocrisy, then we should never believe the sincerity of anybody in that group? Interesting. I once saw a Christian commit an act of hypocrisy. Should I follow your reasoning above, or should I use common sense and recognize that this act would not negate all of Christianity?

 

[doubtingmerle]

If it turns out that we are in population overshoot, as many have concluded, and if there will indeed be billions of people dying of starvation in the future unless we reduce the birth rate to something like 1.0 per couple, what would you do? If you had to choose between billions of people dying of starvation, or organized efforts to control the population, which would you choose?

Assuming that "organized efforts to control the population" is merely your euphanism for sterilization at gunpoint, I believe I've already answered this adequately, and so have other posters.

No, "organized efforts to control the population" is not merely a euphanism for sterilization at gunpoint. "Organized efforts to control the population" was an expression that means "organized efforts to control the population".

If you had to choose between billions of people dying of starvation, or organized efforts to control the population, which would you choose? Your words indicate that you would choose the starvation of billions, but I won't put word into your mouth. You could answer if you wanted to. Which would you choose?

But what the hey, I'll answer it again. I do not believe that there is an either/or choice between reducing the birth rate to something like 1.0 per couple and billions of people dying of starvation, nor that there will be in the forseeable future. Consequently I do not view this as a valid question, and thus I refuse to answer it.

Huh? "What the hey, I'll answer it again...thus I refuse to answer it."

In other words, you won't answer it. If the studies I pointed to are true, and if we are many millions over the sustainable limit of the planet, and if the only way to prevent future mass starvation and unimaginable poverty is to control population before we get into that mess, then you refuse to say if you would want to control population?

Fine, but if your grandchildren are part of a starving crowd in an exhausted planet, and they wander why grandpa didn't care to address that question, what will you say?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Bernie Madoff might have a hard time getting another investment company off the ground.

Exactly. The problem is that Madoff operated a Ponzi scheme that required hundreds of new investors to pay off the earlier investors. As long as Madoff could continue to bring in multiple new investors for each investor who wanted to be paid off, he could continue the scheme. But the problem with that scheme, as in all pyramid schemes, is that one cannot continue to double the new inputs into that scheme forever on a finite planet. Eventually it gets to the point where there are many people invested, and the only way to pay them off is to recruit many more people than have already invested in the scheme. In a finite planet, such schemes always come to an end sometime.

The same thing happens with the scheme to have 8 children per family as was suggested earlier in this thread. That poster figured that those 8 children would support her in her retirement years, so that was her justification for a large family. The problem is that she is living in a finite planet. If every generation is 4 times the size of the previous generation, then we quickly grow from 3 billion people per generation, to 12 billion, to 48 billion, to 192 billion, to 768 billion, to infinity and beyond (OK, I exagerate).

Ponzi schemes do not work forever. And continuously supporting retirement by having more children in the next generation than the previous generation will not work forever. Europe is running into that problem now, with fewer working people around to support the aging. The answer is not a return to the population pyramid schemes of the past. The answer is to live sustainably.

If you can see the futility of Madoff's Ponzi scheme of paying off old investors with mulitple new investors, then maybe you can also see the futility of supporting elderly on this planet by increasing the size of each generation. We need a more sustainable solution.

 

[AlexBP]

The same thing happens with the scheme to have 8 children per family as was suggested earlier in this thread. That poster figured that those 8 children would support her in her retirement years, so that was her justification for a large family. The problem is that she is living in a finite planet. If every generation is 4 times the size of the previous generation, then we quickly grow from 3 billion people per generation, to 12 billion, to 48 billion, to 192 billion, to 768 billion, to infinity and beyond (OK, I exagerate).

Who exactly suggested a scheme to have 8 children per family? I recall Etsi mentioning that her family has eight children but I do not recall anyone suggesting that families in general should do so, much less be forced to do so. Don't forget that just because you choose to demand--I mean suggest--that everyone's childbearing freedom should be stripped away and placed in the hands of the liberal elite doesn't mean that everyone wants to take away childbearing freedom from individuals. In fact, everyone in this thread but you supports individual freedom, as do the vast majority of Americans and the vast majority of the world. When one person says that she personally has eight children it doesn't mean that she's suggesting the same thing for everyone else.

 

[AlexBP]

No, "organized efforts to control the population" is not merely a euphanism for sterilization at gunpoint. "Organized efforts to control the population" was an expression that means "organized efforts to control the population".

Okay, you say that "organized efforts to control the population" is not merely a euphemism for sterilization at gunpoint. Please give examples of what would constitute an organized effort to control the population other than the sterilization at gunpoint plan that you've demanded--I mean suggested. Please do not try to escape from this by insisting that it's everyone else's responsibility to provide alternatives to your plan. If you want us to think that "organized efforts to control the population" does not mean the same thing as sterilization at gunpoint, then it's your responsibility to explain how we could have the one without the other.

If you had to choose between billions of people dying of starvation, or organized efforts to control the population, which would you choose? Your words indicate that you would choose the starvation of billions, but I won't put word into your mouth. You could answer if you wanted to. Which would you choose?

If you list all the options which you would classify as "organized efforts to control the population", I will tell you which ones I would and wouldn't approve of.

Fine, but if your grandchildren are part of a starving crowd in an exhausted planet, and they wander why grandpa didn't care to address that question, what will you say?

I do not plan on being in such a scenario, for reasons already given.

 

[AlexBP]

Uh, excuse me, but this says nothing about the issue I raised: determining the sustainable capacity of the earth.

During my wanderings around the internet, I've encountered a lot of people who believe, or at least claim to believe, that a major catastrophe is coming to all of mankind in one form or another. Some believe that the world will end of December 21, 2012, because the Mayan calendar supposedly ends on that day. Some believe that the Illuminati or the Bilderberg Group or some other shadowy organization is planning to take over the world. Some believe that global population is above the earth's sustainable capacity. Some believe that the Federal Reserve's policies are guaranteed to lead to hyperinflation and global catastrophe. Some believe there are giant bubbles of methane beneath the ocean surface which will soon pop and doom us all.

I do not believe any of these predictions.

I am well aware that advocates for all of these doomsday theories (and many others) have a lot of data which supposedly proves them correct, that they all have alleged experts on their side, have nice graphs and charts and tables, and can even put it all in PDF format. Nonetheless, I do not believe them, because I do not accept the sources and premises as credible. To take the first example, it may (or may not) be true that the Mayan Calendar ends on December 21, 2012. However, I do not believe that the ancient Mayans had accurate knowledge about the data of the world's end. Consequently I ignore the doomsday warnings and continue to lay plans for Christmas of 2012.

Likewise, when I hear that population is over the earth's sustainable capacity, I don't believe because I don't believe that the sources are credible or that the premises are reasonable.

Now I anticipate a possible objection here. Supposedly there's some study which says that population is over the earth's sustainable capacity, so shouldn't we believe that study until we see a better study challenging it? Well consider. The best studies out there about the Mayan calendar do, indeed, predict the apocalypse to happen on Dec. 21, 2012. Why is that? Because the vast majority of people don't believe that the Mayan calendar is worth paying attention to at all. And thus the vast majority of people don't bother producing studies or courses or books about what's going to happen on Dec. 21, 2012. Instead, the vast majority of people just ignore the issue entirely. Likewise, the vast majority of people don't take the concept of "earth's sustainable capacity" seriously, and thus don't bother churning out studies and books and such about the topic. So the few people who have worked themselves into a permanent state of hysteria regarding the topic are the only ones producing material on the topic. That doesn't make their material reliable.

 

[doubtingmerle]

During my wanderings around the internet, I've encountered a lot of people who believe, or at least claim to believe, that a major catastrophe is coming to all of mankind in one form or another. Some believe that the world will end of December 21, 2012, because the Mayan calendar supposedly ends on that day. Some believe that the Illuminati or the Bilderberg Group or some other shadowy organization is planning to take over the world. Some believe that global population is above the earth's sustainable capacity. Some believe that the Federal Reserve's policies are guaranteed to lead to hyperinflation and global catastrophe. Some believe there are giant bubbles of methane beneath the ocean surface which will soon pop and doom us all.

I do not believe any of these predictions.

And some people actually predicted that the levies around New Orleans would not be able to withstand a hurricane! And weatherman actually gave tornado warnings this year!!!!! And some people predicted that oil prices would soar after world oil production peaked--which it did in 2005.

Uh, some predictions about bad things come true. We cannot simply look at a prediction and say, "Does it predict good or bad? Bad? Oh, then it is wrong."

Each claim should be reviewed on its own merits. When credible men and organizations come forward with studies verifying the population has overshot its limits, then it would be wise to find out if what they say is true. Simply lumping their prediction with that of wackos in no way proves they are wrong.

Ah what the hey, we are in the Christian Forums, lets end this post with a quote from the Bible:

1Ki 22:7-8 And Jehoshaphat said, [Is there] not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might enquire of him? And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, [There is] yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.
​

 

[doubtingmerle]

Who exactly suggested a scheme to have 8 children per family? I recall Etsi mentioning that her family has eight children but I do not recall anyone suggesting that families in general should do so, much less be forced to do so.

Correct, nobody said she demanded that eveybody should have 8 children. The point was that if everybody did what she did, then the earth's population would quickly rise above earth's carrying capacity.

So we cannot suggest having 8 children as a retirement plan. We should have plans that are sustainable.

Don't forget that just because you choose to demand--I mean suggest--that everyone's childbearing freedom should be stripped away and placed in the hands of the liberal elite doesn't mean that everyone wants to take away childbearing freedom from individuals.

[sigh] Where in the heck are you getting this stuff?

The interested lurker can check it out for himself. Nowhere in this thread did I ask that childbearing freedoms be stripped and placed into the hands of a liberal elite who would make that decision for them. My plea is for people to understand the problem, and come together to a solution. Nowhere did I ask for the liberal elite to control their lives.

In fact, everyone in this thread but you supports individual freedom, as do the vast majority of Americans and the vast majority of the world.

Huh? I have told you before, I am for individual liberty.

But there are times we need to have laws.

We all agree that people should not be allowed to kill their neighbors, so we pass laws prohibiting this. Does that make us anti-liberty? No, of course not! We all believe in liberty, but we all recognize that our neighbor's right to swing his arm ends where our nose begins.

If we agree to prohibit dumping raw sewage in the river, that does not make us anti-liberty.

And if we have general agreement that billions will die unless we do something to limit population, and we agree to a law to limit population, that does not make us anti-liberty.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you had to choose between billions of people dying of starvation, or organized efforts to control the population, which would you choose? Your words indicate that you would choose the starvation of billions, but I won't put word into your mouth. You could answer if you wanted to. Which would you choose?

If you list all the options which you would classify as "organized efforts to control the population", I will tell you which ones I would and wouldn't approve of.

One way to limit the birthrate down to 1.0 children per couple is to allow everybody to have 1 child. If they want additional children, then they must buy a credit from another adult who is willing to sell. Modifications to this plan could allow higher birth rates in poorer countries, which have lower ecological footprints. If a credit could not be found, a payment could be demanded. Details of the plan could of course be negotiated.

If it was overwhelmingly shown to be true that we are in overshoot and mass starvation will result within 50 years unless the birthrate dropped to around 1.0 per couple, would you rather allow billions to die of starvation, or adopt such a plan?

 

[PHenry42]

Please note that the only analysis on the table so far--(see Ecological Footprint )--says we are 20% over the sustainable amount. What is your source that says otherwise?

If you have an analysis that says otherwise, then please put that analysis on the table.

I'll give you my own analysis of why that website is poppycock. Quote:

The total “footprint” for a designated population’s activities is measured in terms of ‘global hectares.’ A global hectare (acre) is one hectare (2.47 acres) of biologically productive space with an annual productivity equal to the world average. Currently, the biosphere has approximately 11.2 billion hectares of biologically productive space corresponding to roughly one quarter of the planet’s surface. These biologically productive hectares include 2.3 billion hectares of ocean and inland water and 8.8 billion hectares of land. The land space is composed of 1.5 billion hectares of cropland, 3.5 billion hectares of grazing land, 3.6 billion hectares of forest land, and 0.2 billion hectares of built-up land. These surfaces represent the sum total of biologically productive hectares we rely on for our survival. They represent the earth’s natural capital, and their annual yield represents our annual natural capital income.

Ecological Overshoot Demonstrated
Dividing the 11.2 billion hectares available by the global population indicates that there are on average 1.8 bioproductive hectares per person on the planet. The 2004 Living Planet Report indicates that the actual usage was 13.5 billion global hectares or 2.2 hectares per person – more than a 20% overshoot.2 The overshoot result indicates that our annual draw down of natural capital is liquidating natural capital income, as well as reducing natural capital itself ( see Natural Capital and Income). Such an overshoot is ecologically unsustainable. Time series of the global Ecological Footprint indicate that human activities have been in an overshoot position for approximately three decades, and the overshoot is increasing over time.

Red highlights mine.

First it says that there are 11.2 billion hectares of biosphere. Then it quotes another source which says that we are currently using 13.5 billion hectares of biosphere for economic use. In other words, we are using more than 100% of the earth's surface! We are, according to their analysis, using land that doesn't exist! There's a contradiction in numbers here and the suggestion of a theoretical impossibility, not a case of overexploitation.

I think the cause of the 20% discrepancy was just a different calculation of how much land there is available in total, and has nothing to do with "footprint" or how much anyone needs.

The article further commits the fallacy to presume that there is such a thing as a fixed-size human areal footprint to begin with. Which is false. The space needed to support one person depends on things like production technology. Modern farming produces many times higher yields per hectare than, say, medieval farming.

Neither is nature equal to capital that pays dividends of free stuff. The stuff must be harvested, which is a non-trivial economic operation.

The earth has, even today, massive unused food production capacity. We could eat plankton from the sea. We could distill fresh water out of the saltwater of the seas. We could recycle our poo if we used it to fertilize our farms instead of using chemical fertilizer. None of these are economically feasible atm, but are reserves that can be tapped into on necessity (which it will be economically profitable to do if food prices rise due to alleged shortage).

Not to forget that, of current world grain production, about half goes to animal fodder. Meaning that grain turns to meat, but at a conversion that retains at most something like 20% of the input energy. If we stopped using grain to feed animals and instead ate the grain directly, we'd double the total number of calories available for humanity. And if food really becomes short, grain prices will go up until it's no longer economical to use it for animal fodder.

 

[AlexBP]

Uh, excuse me, but this says nothing about the issue I raised: determining the sustainable capacity of the earth.

Actually it says everything we need to know about determining the sustainable carrying capacity of the earth. Obviously people in Japan are aware of the claims that Earth's population is too large and needs to be brought down. If the Japanese government is making social policy with the aim of encouraging childbirth--and it is doing exactly that--then obviously the Japanese government believes that the claims about population exceeding earth's carrying capacity are hogwash and has decided to ignore them. And if the Japanese government, and the governments of most other industrialized and well-educated nations, feel that way, I'm willing to accept what they say. After all you keep saying that your demand--I mean suggestion--for sterilization at gunpoint will go into effect only "if there is broad agreement" with what you're saying. Obviously there's not broad agreement with what you're saying as long as a great many governments are actively encouraging more childbirths. So doesn't that make your plan dead in the water at the moment?

You have a lot more faith in government then I do.

Politicians act mainly because it is to their political advantage to do something. They act as needed to win the next election, to calm the raging hoards, or to promote the bottom line during their term of office. Politicians seldom act in ways that require immediate sacrifices in order to provide benefit to future generations, unless the people themselves demand it.

So my guess is the Japanese government did this for political advantage, not because they had somebody study the carrying capacity of the earth and concluding that we needed more people 50 years from now.

Interesting, as I recall, you spent the whole thread saying things like "Governments should be studying this problem in detail." Yet now, when I point out that what governments are already doing entails that they've reached the opposite conclusion from what you want them to reach, you declare that governments can't be trusted anyway. That was a rapid turnaround.

I also recall that you said in post 43, regarding China's broad campaign of forced abortion and forced sterilization known as the "one-child policy":

"it is still understood to be better than the alternative, mass starvation and overpopulation."
​

So it seems as if you trust the Chinese government to be honest about why it pursues the policies that it does. If you have so little faith in government and believe that politicians are so dishonest, why are this total acceptance of what the Chinese government? How can you argue that the brutal communist government of China is trustworthy while the governments of free and democratic countries are not?

 

[Vylo]

Want to help world population while spreading your seed? Have one kid, adopt a second. There are plenty of children out there who need a good home.

 

[AlexBP]

One way to limit the birthrate down to 1.0 children per couple is to allow everybody to have 1 child. If they want additional children, then they must buy a credit from another adult who is willing to sell. Modifications to this plan could allow higher birth rates in poorer countries, which have lower ecological footprints. If a credit could not be found, a payment could be demanded. Details of the plan could of course be negotiated.

Before I make a decision on whether I'd support such a plan, I need to know some rather important details. First of all, you say your goal is "1.0 children per couple". However, couples are not static entities. People are constantly leaving partners and founding new ones. So if Mr. Smith marries Mrs. Smith, they have their one permitted child, then they divorce and each remarries someone else, do the newly formed couples get to have children or not?

Secondly, anyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the past fifty years knows that a lot of children aren't born to couples at all, but rather to singles. In your plan would single women simply be banned from having children since they aren't included under the "one child per couple" rule? If not, then how does your plan treat them?

Third, who is responsible for peeking into a woman's uterus and making sure that she doesn't have an illegal child in there?

Fourth, when the aforementioned uterus-peeker finds an illegal child, who will be punished and in what way?

Fifth, you doubtlessly know that thanks to China's "one-child policy" which you've already talked about, many Chinese couples prefer to have a male child, and consequently if their first child is female they often murder that daughter so they can take another shot at having a son. (Read this book if you need a citation.) Under your plan this sort of mass murder would spread worldwide. Would you be willing to endorse a plan that has that as a consequence?

 

[AlexBP]

[sigh] Where in the heck are you getting this stuff?

In this case I'm getting it from post #44, where you said this:

I propose:
1. Detailed study of the issue.
2. If it is agreed that population reduction is the best policy, try voluntary measures and education.
3. If that is not adequate--and it almost certainly would not reduce the birth rate to 1 child per couple--then do something mandatory. The best I can think of is mandatory strerilization [sic] of both parents after childbirth.
​

So you certainly did suggest that childbearing freedom should be stripped away from individuals. You not only suggested it; you said that voluntary measures "almost certainly" would not be adequate and that stripping away childbearing freedom from individuals is "the best I can think of". So you've made clear that in your mind that is the preferred solution, not just a suggestion. The only question then is whether you want the liberal elite to be in control. But of course whenever the government regulates people's lives the liberal elite are in control because bureaucrats are overwhelming from the liberal elite in America and virtually everywhere else.

The interested lurker can check it out for himself. Nowhere in this thread did I ask that childbearing freedoms be stripped and placed into the hands of a liberal elite who would make that decision for them.

Yes you did. See above.

 

[AlexBP]

The article further commits the fallacy to presume that there is such a thing as a fixed-size human areal footprint to begin with. Which is false. The space needed to support one person depends on things like production technology. Modern farming produces many times higher yields per hectare than, say, medieval farming.

That a very good point and indeed it's a much better statement of what I've been trying to say throughout the thread. Scientists are already working on technologies such as vat meat and vertical farms. When those are ready for their close-up in a few years, yields per acre may be hundreds of times higher than what they are today, and we'll easily feed the world's population with a fraction of the space that's currently being used for agriculture. Even if problems such as topsoil erosion are actually real right now, they will no longer be relevant.

It's also worth pointing out that the idea of a fixed-size footprint per person is fallacious for another reason: it assumes that all individuals consume the same amount. But individuals consume vastly different amounts. On one end of the spectrum we have groups such as Cistercian monks or the Amish, who eat very little food, burn no automotive fuel, use little or not electricity, and consume very little of anything. On the other end of the spectrum is Al Gore, who's happy having many houses that all consume as much electricity as several of his neighbors and who jets around the world with a sizable entourage and rides in limousines to venues where he lectures people on the need to limit resource consumption.

Obviously the world could support an enormous number of Cistercian monks, but only a small number of Al Gores. Hence it's bogus to claim that there's a certain number of hectares necessary to support one person. Thus the entire line of reasoning in doubtingmerle's study can be safely thrown out.