Population Control, anyone?

[AlexBP]

LOL! The Chinese read my words, and decided to take my advice to heart?!?

And no, the incident in North Carolina had nothing to do with a mandatory population control in an emergency to save the lives of billions of people who would otherwise die of starvation. Apples and Oranges.

Defensor Fidei was making a clear point. Your are either refusing to acknowledge the point or else you're remarkably dense.

The point is this. What you suggest, namely forcible sterilization, is a crime against humanity. Almost everyone on this board, and almost everyone in this country, and a good portion of the world, believes that humanity has God-given rights, even though you apparently don't, if we're to judge by what you've written here. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Sound familiar?

What you're suggesting obviously takes away all three rights: life from the unborn and liberty and the pursuit of happiness from everyone. If anyone doubts that your proposal is a violation of human rights, we need only note the three historical occasions when governments have enforced population control on a massive scale: the eugenics movement, the Nazi Holocaust, and communist China. That's not exactly an illustrious company that you're trying to join, and it's one that most people would want to avoid at all costs.

So Defensor Fidei is challenging you to defend your suggestion for the worst crime against humanity in human history, which would be essentially a repeat of some other major crimes against humanity. I second the motion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But as has already been pointed out, the population rate is not continuing to grow. At the moment the population itself is growing, but the the rate at which it's growing is decreasing. (Or, as we calculus teachers would say it, the second derivative of the world's population is negative. If this trend continues, and all indications are that it will, the world's population will soon reach a maximum and then begin to decline.

My mistake I didn't mean to say the population rate was increasing. I meant to say the population was increasing.

Elsewhere in that same post I wrote, "Yes, I know that the birth rate has fallen from the high in 1960, but population continues to increase, and has increased by 1 billion people in the last 12 years."

While you keep saying that you want someone to do study of the issue, you are apparently unaware that the issue has already been studied and the consensus conclusion is that we're not in any danger of overpopulation because the population will soon reach a maximum and then decline. For example, from this report by the United Nations on world population:

In these projections, world population peaks at 9.22 billion in 2075.
​

That knocks the legs right out from under your argument.

There's no reason to believe that the world's population will continue to increase indefinitely.

Can you read the thread please, to understand what this is all about? Telling me population will stop at 9 billion has nothing to do with the opening post.

So have fun knocking the legs right off the argument above, but please understand that you are not responding to the topic of this thread. Anybody can knock the legs off a straw man.

The problem is that we may well be in an overshoot condition, in which there are more people on the planet today than the earth can sustain. I linked to one site that says we are 20% over the sustainable limit, and have another book that says we are 40% over the limit. If we are over the sustainable limit, and need to bring the population within that limit within a limited time, then what should we do? That is what this thread is about.

Please aim before shooting. When you spray and spray bullets from that distance, you are unlikely to hit anything.

I was not asking to study future population expectations. I was asking to study the sustainable carrying capacity of the earth.

Hence your demand--excuse me, your suggestion--that we need to commit the worst crimes against humanity in history because of the ever-increasing world population is not likely to convince anyone except yourself.

Sir, I am not here to propose one particular solution. I was mentioning that we may need to decrease world population by 30% in the next 50 years to avoid mass starvation, and we may find that voluntary efforts would not be effective enough. That would be a difficult problem. A back-of-the-napkin calculation suggested we would need to bring the birth rate down to one child per couple to reduce the population humanely by 30% within 50 years. When I was asked what I could suggest as a way to do this, I mentioned something I thought would be better than letting 2 billion people starve to death. Then I asked if anybody could think of a better plan.

OK, if you can agree with me that letting 2 billion people die of starvation is bad, and if we find we need to reduce the birth rate to 1 child per couple to prevent that, what should we do, please? You don't like my plan? Fine. Suggest something better, please. That is all I am asking.

How many other plans have been submitted here to reduce population at that rate if we need it? Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Instead you throw up your hands and scream about the only solution on the table. Huh? If you don't like the only solution on the table, then suggest another solution, please.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Almost everyone on this board, and almost everyone in this country, and a good portion of the world, believes that humanity has God-given rights, even though you apparently don't, if we're to judge by what you've written here. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Sound familiar?

What you're suggesting obviously takes away all three rights: life from the unborn and liberty and the pursuit of happiness from everyone.

Huh? Can you possibly be serious? I am here defending life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I am saying that we may be in a population overshoot condition, in which billions will eventually die of starvation unless we do something about it. I am asking for further study, so we can see if this danger really exists. That is a plea for life! Billlions might die! Then lets look into the problem, and see if other people's calculations to this effect are true. If we agree there is a danger then lets do something to defend life!

And yes, let us do it with maximum attempts to maintain liberty. As I suggested, if we find we have a problem, let us first educate people, and seek to find ways to do this without passing any laws. But if we find we need laws to prevent this disaster, and can find general agreement to a path forward, then lets pass that law that prevents billions from starving to death.

And I have been begging for the pursuit of happiness. I have argued that it would be better for 5 billion people on earth enjoying comforts, then 10 billion in poverty. Why do I say that? Because the pursuit of happiness requires people be above the poverty level and have some leisure and spare money to pursue their dreams.

So when I have been arguing long and hard for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, how can you possibly pretend that I am against these things?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Once again, you seem to be utterly unaware of the basic facts in this debate. I'd highly recommend reading this article and getting some actual facts to correct your ignorance. Here's the key point:

During the last 50 years, fertility rates have fallen all over the world. From Africa to Asia, South America to Eastern Europe, from Third World jungles to the wealthy desert petro-kingdoms, every country in every region is experiencing declines in fertility. In 1979, the world’s fertility rate was 6.0; today it’s 2.6. Industrialized nations have been the hardest hit. America’s 2.06 is one of the highest fertility rates in the First World. Only Israel (2.75) and New Zealand (2.10) are more fertile.
​

So there it is in so many words. Fertility rates have fallen all over the world.

Whose debate is this anyway?

I have posted the opening post, in which I explored the possibility that birth rates may need to drop to 1.0 per couple. And how do you respond? You scream that I am unaware of birth rates near 2?!?

Huh? If birth rates are near 2 and if we find we need rates near 1, then you can scream all you want that they are near 2, but that does nothing to address the topic of this thread: Do we need to get birth rates down near 1, and if so, how in the heck would we do that?

If you come on a thread without understanding what we are talking about, and you spray bullets at random, you are unlikely to hit anything from that distance.

 

[AceHero]

Those of you not thinking this is a big deal need to remember that the problem isn't so much with the population itself, but whether or not the earth will be able to sustain that population with enough resources. For example, right now there are about 100 million cars in China. That number is expected to double by 2020. In contrast, there are over 250 million cars in the U.S. Could you imagine if the world lived the American lifestyle? It would be disastrous.

I certainly don't want to have to force people to only have one child. But as long as this continues to happen, we're going to have to talk about having fewer biological children.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

Huh? Can you possibly be serious? I am here defending life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No, you aren't. As AlexBP pointed out, what are you defending is a crime against humanity.

There is no population crisis. There is absolutely no justification for forced sterilization.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, you aren't. As AlexBP pointed out, what are you defending is a crime against humanity.

There is no population crisis.

How can you be so certain about that answer?

I asked you earlier in this thread if you were in agreement with finding out if the population is in overshoot. You answered, "Nope"! What can possibly be wrong with finding out if there are more people on this world than the earth can sustainably support? If there are serious studies that say that is true--and there are--then I would think everyone would be in favoring of studying this more, and finding out if this is true. And yet you have said, "Nope"! And then you come back and make definitive statements that you are right and the studies that conclude otherwise are wrong. Do you have any reasoning at all to support this denial?

There is absolutely no justification for forced sterilization.

The potential for billions of starving children would not be enough justification to consider mandatory birth control? Why not? Starvation is horrible. Have you not seen the pictures?

I have asked you what you would do if it came down to choosing between letting billions of people die of starvation, or taking action to control population. You have inferred that you would prefer to see billions of people die of starvation. When I asked if you would clarify for us, and tell us if you really mean what your words imply, you have refused to clarify.

Choose what you like, but some of us are wondering how a person can choose mass starvation of billions of children over efforts to control the population as humanely as possible.

Do you have a different plan to throw on the table? If after intense study it is concluded that birth rates near 1 per couple are necessary to prevent mass starvation, and if voluntary efforts to reach that rate are proving ineffective, do you have any proposal at all to throw on the table to end the mass suffering that would result?

Please, please, if you don't like the only idea on the table, throw something else on the table. Nobody said that is the only idea we can throw on the table. We are here to talk.

 

[Kalevalatar]

I agree that we should be struggling to stabilize our population as quickly as possible, however I find the idea of a government telling people how many kids they can have repulsive. I think Europe is proof that government should never have to restrict peoples liberty to have children. Instead government should focus on improving education, opportunity and quality of life... once those three areas reach western levels, the population will stabilize.

I agree and would only add that education of women and girls, particularly, will make a difference. Educated young women will postpone their first pregnancy.

In some developed countries, the UK and the US, adolescent pregnancies are somewhat a similar problem.

I think that any talk about "population control" must consider the issue of a woman's right to have a child at any cost vs. a child's right to have the best possible shot at good life, and related to that a) the high infant and child mortality and maternal mortality rates as well as the HIV epidemic in the undeveloped countries on one hand and on the other, b) the "greying" of population in the developed countries, labour shortage and infertility & the ethics of the new reproductive technologies which allow even postmenopausal senior ladies to have children.

 

[AlexBP]

Sir, I am not here to propose one particular solution. I was mentioning that we may need to decrease world population by 30% in the next 50 years to avoid mass starvation, and we may find that voluntary efforts would not be effective enough. That would be a difficult problem. A back-of-the-napkin calculation suggested we would need to bring the birth rate down to one child per couple to reduce the population humanely by 30% within 50 years.

Your back-of-the-napkin calculation was based entirely on numbers you made up. Recall what you said in the first post:

It can be argued ... Let's assume ... Now assume ... assume ... Repeat the same assumption ... &c... &c...
​

So your first post didn't contain any numbers actually taken from reality; instead they all came from your own head. Thus there's no reason to care about them. The only occasion where you tried backing up your numbers was the claim that it would require 1.3 planets the size of the earth to maintain the demand of our current population on the renewable resources of this planet. The source you linked to was an anonymous webpage and thus has no credibility.

In post 52, I pointed out that you can't predict resource usage in the future because technology is always advancing, and those new technological advances can radically change what resources we use and how much. You responded in post 55 by saying that the number of patents was in decline and that few new technologies have appeared in the past 30 years. Both statements are transparently false and I said as much in post 57, which you didn't respond to. So we're left with the point still standing: trying to predict how much of a resource humanity will use in the future and when it will be used up is pointless, because no one knows how new technologies will be invented.

How many other plans have been submitted here to reduce population at that rate if we need it? Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Instead you throw up your hands and scream about the only solution on the table. Huh? If you don't like the only solution on the table, then suggest another solution, please.

I and other people have already submitted a plan to deal with the problem that you see happening. We have submitted it over and over again, but you seem to have missed it, so I'll present it again in clear, step-by-step form:

Step 1: Ignore the small number of folks on the secular far left who think that overpopulation is a problem.

Step 2: Move on to addressing the problem of underpopulation.

Now you see a plan for dealing with the problem of overpopulation. You can no longer claim that no one but you has offered a plan.

 

[AlexBP]

Peak Oil writers have dealt with the issue of tar sands, shale oil, and coal to liquids in great detail. What makes you think they don't know about this?

Allow me to answer that question directly. I've read several books and articles written by people who believe that "peak oil" has been reached or soon will be reached. In all of them, the writers presented statistics concerning only liquid crude reserves, and defined "peak oil" as the moment when production of from wells pumping those liquid crude reserves reaches a maximum and then starts to decrease. I've never heard any writer who's talking about "peak oil" mention the tar sands, the shale oil, or liquid coal. However, those things certainly should be mentioned if we're going to make sensible predictions about the future of energy reserves. The total amount of tar sands in the world could produce six trillion barrels of oil, give or take. Here's a citation for that fact.

Now you're claiming that "Peak Oil writers have dealt with the issue of tar sands, shale oil, and coal to liquids in great detail." Very well, if that's true, then please tell me exactly which books and articles written by those who believe in "peak oil" actually address tar sands, shale oil, and liquid coal. If you tell me, I'll read they if they readily accessible and perhaps change my opinion. However, I have a funny feeling that you won't actually give me any titles.

 

[AlexBP]

I am saying that we may be in a population overshoot condition, in which billions will eventually die of starvation unless we do something about it. I am asking for further study, so we can see if this danger really exists. That is a plea for life! Billlions might die! Then lets look into the problem, and see if other people's calculations to this effect are true. If we agree there is a danger then lets do something to defend life!

And yes, let us do it with maximum attempts to maintain liberty. As I suggested, if we find we have a problem, let us first educate people, and seek to find ways to do this without passing any laws. But if we find we need laws to prevent this disaster, and can find general agreement to a path forward, then lets pass that law that prevents billions from starving to death.

You came in the OP proposing the biggest crime against humanity in all of history. When we called you to either defend or retract your claim, you instead tried to weasel away from your statement by saying that you were merely suggesting it as a possible response to a possible situation. Yet this is a ridiculous excuse, for reasons that ought to be obvious. If someone were to "suggest" that we have all Jews rounded up and sent to gas chambers in order to prevent a possible problem, it would be a morally atrocious thing to say, even if they pretended it was just a suggestion. If some were to "suggest" that black people should be enslaved and forced to pick cotton in order to prevent a possible problem, it would be a morally atrocious thing to say, even if they pretended it was just a suggestion. To suggest a repeat of major crimes against humanity on an even larger scale is morally unacceptable not matter how it is phrased or what justifications are offered.

So when I have been arguing long and hard for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, how can you possibly pretend that I am against these things?

That book by George Orwell which you're reading is a social satire, not a how-to guide. You're the one arguing--excuse me, suggesting--that people be denied the right to choose how many children to have, while everyone else in this thread is arguing the opposite position. That makes us pro-liberty and you anti-liberty by definition. Liberty exists when persons have the right to make their own decisions, tyranny when the government takes over decisions that should be personal. Likewise you're arguing--excuse me, suggesting--that billions of future human beings should not be allowed to live at all. That makes you anti-life by definition.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Your back-of-the-napkin calculation was based entirely on numbers you made up. Recall what you said in the first post:

It can be argued ... Let's assume ... Now assume ... assume ... Repeat the same assumption ... &c... &c...
​

So your first post didn't contain any numbers actually taken from reality; instead they all came from your own head. Thus there's no reason to care about them.

Oh, please. That was a quick calculation to determine a rough estimate of the birth rate that would be required to reduce the earth to sustainable levels if we are indeed 30% over the sustainable limits. Do you have a better estimate? If the world is 30% over the sustainable population limit, and we need to bring that down to the sustainable population limit in 50 years, what birth rate is required? I think the calculation given there is a good ballpark figure. If you can give us a more accurate calculation, please do. If you can suggest more realistic assumptions instead of what is given there, please do.

The only occasion where you tried backing up your numbers was the claim that it would require 1.3 planets the size of the earth to maintain the demand of our current population on the renewable resources of this planet. The source you linked to was an anonymous webpage and thus has no credibility.

My personal source is the book The Post Carbon Reader that I currently have on my Kindle. In the chapter on population, it lists a study by David Pimentel of Cornell as a source, and also mentions the GFN organization. I was able to follow some links and come to a resource published by WWF--and no, I am not talking about the wrestling goofballs--at http://www.footprintnetwork.org/press/LPR2010.pdf . It estimates we are now 60% over the sustainable limit, which makes the problem much worse. You can read more about how that calculation was done.

In post 52, I pointed out that you can't predict resource usage in the future because technology is always advancing, and those new technological advances can radically change what resources we use and how much. You responded in post 55 by saying that the number of patents was in decline and that few new technologies have appeared in the past 30 years. Both statements are transparently false and I said as much in post 57, which you didn't respond to. So we're left with the point still standing: trying to predict how much of a resource humanity will use in the future and when it will be used up is pointless, because no one knows how new technologies will be invented.

Thanks for the information. I may have been mistaken on patent quantity. That does not change the fact that the growth of solutions to our energies problems in the last 30 years has been small. We always seem to bump into the Laws of Thermodynamics, and they aren't about to change.

For instance, we were discussing wind turbines. They have changed little in the last 30 years. They are still economically inefficient. Wind turbines are not practical unless they are subsidized by the government. That would work, if only governments had spare money.

I and other people have already submitted a plan to deal with the problem that you see happening. We have submitted it over and over again, but you seem to have missed it, so I'll present it again in clear, step-by-step form:

Step 1: Ignore the small number of folks on the secular far left who think that overpopulation is a problem.

Step 2: Move on to addressing the problem of underpopulation.

Uh no, that doesn't address the question I had raised. If we find that we are indeed at 30% overshoot or more as others have calculated, and if we need to reduce that to sustainable limits, and if that requires a birthrate of 1.0 per couple, how would you enforce that birthrate?

Your objection seems to be arguing that the premises are not correct. So we can go back and review the premises.

Now you see a plan for dealing with the problem of overpopulation. You can no longer claim that no one but you has offered a plan.

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.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

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.

Why would we want to do that? Once again, the problem is not overpopulation, but rather, the opposite. As the Baby Boomer generation greys, there is a shortage of people of younger generations to fill their jobs and support them in old age. The population is in many Western nations older than its ever been before. We need more children, not less.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Once again, the problem is not overpopulation, but rather, the opposite

Once again? What good does it do to repeat the same assertion multiple times?

You understand that repeating an assertion multiple times does not make it true, don't you? So what is your evidence for your claim? Do you have any evidence at all that overpopulation is not a problem?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Now you're claiming that "Peak Oil writers have dealt with the issue of tar sands, shale oil, and coal to liquids in great detail." Very well, if that's true, then please tell me exactly which books and articles written by those who believe in "peak oil" actually address tar sands, shale oil, and liquid coal. If you tell me, I'll read they if they readily accessible and perhaps change my opinion. However, I have a funny feeling that you won't actually give me any titles.

The following books on my Kindle reference tar sands:
Confronting Collapse by Michael Ruppert(29 times)
The Post Carbon Reader By BillMcKibben et.al. (16 times)
Fleeing Vesuvius by Richard Douthwaite and Gillian Fallon(9 times)
The Crash Course by Chris Martenson(6 times)
The End of Growth by Richard Heinberg (5 times)
The Econtechnic Future John Michael Greer(4 times)

I get similar results when I search for Shale Oil and Coal to liquids. So yes, these things are being discussed.

Here is a list of links of discussion about Tar Sands on the Oil Drum website: The Oil Drum | Search .

Here is a list of articles on Shale Oil: The Oil Drum | Search

And here is a whole book about Tar Sands: http://www.amazon.com/Tar-Sands-Dirty-Future-Continent/dp/1553654072

 

[doubtingmerle]

You came in the OP proposing the biggest crime against humanity in all of history. When we called you to either defend or retract your claim, you instead tried to weasel away from your statement by saying that you were merely suggesting it as a possible response to a possible situation. Yet this is a ridiculous excuse, for reasons that ought to be obvious.

Huh? What I proposed in the opening post was:

Should we be asking our governments to study this problem [overpopulation] in detail, and if we really need to reduce to 1 child or less per family for the next 50 years, to begin a program to enforce that?
​

I still stand behind that 100%, and have never made the slightest attempt to weasel out of it. Once again, where in the heck are you getting this stuff?

Yes, we should be studying the problem. If we are indeed at 20% overshoot as the first link suggests, or at 60% overshoot as the WWF concludes, or even worse as David Pimentel concludes, then we absolutely should be studying this problem to see if future generations will indeed face a worn-out planet that can no longer support the billions alive. I firmly support this research. Nothing that I have said here is in any way an attempt to weasel out of my desire for such research.

Also, if such research concludes strongly that we should reduce family size to 1 child per family for a while to avoid disaster, then I strongly suggest that the people of this world should work together to find a way to limit the number of births in order to avoid the mass starvation that would otherwise ensue.

If someone were to "suggest" that we have all Jews roundedb up and sent to gas chambers in order to prevent a possible problem, it would be a morally atrocious thing to say, even if they pretended it was just a suggestion. If some were to "suggest" that black people should be enslaved and forced to pick cotton in order to prevent a possible problem, it would be a morally atrocious thing to say, even if they pretended it was just a suggestion. To suggest a repeat of major crimes against humanity on an even larger scale is morally unacceptable not matter how it is phrased or what justifications are offered.

Sir, anybody who suggests that that we send Jews to gas chambers or enslave other races would be suggesting atrocious crimes.

Nothing that I said here remotely suggests that we should do any such crimes. I am absolutely against such atrocities.

I was asking that we study the sustainable capacity of the earth. It is not a crime against humanity to study the sustainable capacity of the earth, for crying out loud. How can anybody possibly equate studying the sustainable capacity of the earth with recommending the Holcaust?!?!

And I was asking that, if further study makes it obvious that the future population of the world must be less than the current population in order to prevent mass starvation, then we should find a way to humanely control population so that we do not have mass starvation. The most humane way to control population is to come to an agreement on how to limit the number of births.

That book by George Orwell which you're reading is a social satire, not a how-to guide.

You're the one arguing--excuse me, suggesting--that people be denied the right to choose how many children to have, while everyone else in this thread is arguing the opposite position.

Speaking of rewriting history, why are you rewriting the history of this thread? Some people agree that we should control population, some disagree. So why in the heck do you write that everybody is going in the opposite direction as me on this thread? Are you hoping that nobody will actually read this thread, and see how you have rewritten history?

Uh, and what was that you were saying about George Orwell?

That makes us pro-liberty and you anti-liberty by definition. Liberty exists when persons have the right to make their own decisions, tyranny when the government takes over decisions that should be personal.

Oh, please. Is a person who wants to legalize rape pro-liberty? Is the person that wants to be allowed to defecate at will on his neighbor's lawn, pro-liberty?

We are all pro-liberty. We all argue for the right to swing our arm if we want, but we also recognize that our right to swing our arms ends where another person's nose begins.

The person who want to make it illegal to use his neighbors yard as a bathroom is not "anti-liberty by definition". The world needs some laws to maintain society, for crying out loud.

Likewise you're arguing--excuse me, suggesting--that billions of future human beings should not be allowed to live at all. That makes you anti-life by definition.

Huh? If two teenagers go out on a first date, would you then argue that they should be making a baby on that date? If they do not have sex and conceive a baby, is the "future person" that they would have conceived then a victim of their "crime" of not having sex? Are teenagers that do not have sex committing a terrible crime against the future people that otherwise would have lived if they had been promiscuous?

Oh please! Deciding to not have a baby is not a crime against humanity, for crying out loud.

Does being against teenage pregnancy make one anti-life by definition???????

So how can one possibly call the family who decides they have had enough children "anti-life by definition"?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Can you actually name the oil fields that have produced far less than expected and back up your claims with a reliable citation?

Sure, there is this little place in the Middle East called Saudi Arabia--I'm sure you heard of it--that appears to have far less oil then expected. Matthew Simmons studied their engineering journals in detail, and documented how they are currently using secondary recovery methods to get out the remaining oil. If they really have as much oil as originally expected, then it should be freely flowing without resorting to the secondary recovery methods normally used at the end of an oil well's lifecycle. Simmons tells about it in his book, Twilight in the Dessert. Amazon.com: Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy (9780471790181): Matthew R. Simmons: Books . Of course we don't yet know what the final oil total will be, but it looks like it will be far less than expected.

A recent leak from Saudi Arabia confirms his conclusions, stating that we may only get 60% of the expected oil out of Saudi Arabia: WikiLeaks: Saudi Arabia Overstated Its Oil Reserves : The Two-Way : NPR.

 

[AlexBP]

I was asking that we study the sustainable capacity of the earth. It is not a crime against humanity to study the sustainable capacity of the earth, for crying out loud. How can anybody possibly equate studying the sustainable capacity of the earth with recommending the Holcaust?!?!

Did anybody equate study the sustainable capacity of the earth with recommending the Holocaust? No. The fact that you must resort to straw man arguments like that demonstrates that you're unable to support your position with facts and logic. Now to state the obvious, what I compared to the Holocaust was the major crime against humanity that you're promoting--I mean suggesting--namely the forced sterilization of billions of people. That is very much comparable to the Holocaust, the chief difference being that while the Nazis were willing to limit their crimes against humanity to only a few tens of millions of people, you are not willing to put any such limit on your suggested crimes against humanity.

So I and others have asked how you justify promoting--I mean suggesting--such a major crime against humanity. The response you've made is to claim over and over again that you're not promoting it, but only suggesting it. However, that's doesn't justify what you're saying, as I pointed out when I posted this:

This is a ridiculous excuse, for reasons that ought to be obvious. If someone were to "suggest" that we have all Jews rounded up and sent to gas chambers in order to prevent a possible problem, it would be a morally atrocious thing to say, even if they pretended it was just a suggestion. If some were to "suggest" that black people should be enslaved and forced to pick cotton in order to prevent a possible problem, it would be a morally atrocious thing to say, even if they pretended it was just a suggestion. To suggest a repeat of major crimes against humanity on an even larger scale is morally unacceptable not matter how it is phrased or what justifications are offered.
​

Your second excuse is to say this:

Sir, anybody who suggests that that we send Jews to gas chambers or enslave other races would be suggesting atrocious crimes.

Nothing that I said here remotely suggests that we should do any such crimes. I am absolutely against such atrocities.

But you are suggesting such crimes. You're suggesting forced sterilization of billions of people, which is a crime against humanity of the same kind and degree as the Nazi Holocaust, only on a much larger scale. Genocide by mass murder and genocide by mass sterilization are essentially the same. Both are ways of saying that the governing elite has the authority to control the lives of individuals, up to deciding that certain individuals should be prevented from existing on earth at all. So I once again pose the question: how do you justify the enormous crime against humanity that you're promoting--I mean suggesting?

Speaking of rewriting history, why are you rewriting the history of this thread? Some people agree that we should control population, some disagree. So why in the heck do you write that everybody is going in the opposite direction as me on this thread? Are you hoping that nobody will actually read this thread, and see how you have rewritten history?

Actually I'm right on this point while you're wrong. Recall that you're responding to what I said here:

You're the one arguing--excuse me, suggesting--that people be denied the right to choose how many children to have, while everyone else in this thread is arguing the opposite position.
​

So the question is no whether anyone else agrees that population should be controlled, but rather whether anyone agrees with your demand--I mean suggestion--for forced sterilization. Some folks have said things like this:

I agree that we should be struggling to stabilize our population as quickly as possible, however I find the idea of a government telling people how many kids they can have repulsive.
​

So while some agree with you on the desire for a stable population, every single person who's posted has disagreed with your proposal for forced sterilization.

Oh, please. Is a person who wants to legalize rape pro-liberty?

As already mentioned, the person who wants to legalize rape on a wide scale--and make it compulsory--is you, and you're against liberty.

But more broadly speaking your argument still fails. 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.

So how can one possibly call the family who decides they have had enough children "anti-life by definition"?

Nobody has called the family who decides they have enough children "anti-life by definition". I've called the person who wants to--I mean suggests--used forced sterilization on billions of people anti-life by definition, for reasons that I've already given.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

Once again? What good does it do to repeat the same assertion multiple times?

You understand that repeating an assertion multiple times does not make it true, don't you? So what is your evidence for your claim? Do you have any evidence at all that overpopulation is not a problem?

Ah, but Goebbels, that's been your tactic throughout this entire thread. Repeating the same 'overpopulation' lie over and over again, and convincing no one.

 

[AlexBP]

Once again? What good does it do to repeat the same assertion multiple times?

You understand that repeating an assertion multiple times does not make it true, don't you? So what is your evidence for your claim?

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:

The Japanese government has been trying to stoke fertility since the early 1970s. In 1972, when Japan’s fertility rate was still above replacement, the government introduced a monthly per-child subsidy for parents. Over the years, the government tinkered with the subsidy, altering the amount and raising the age allowance. None of which made much difference: The fertility rate fell at a steady pace. In 1990, the government formed a committee charged with “Creating a sound environment for bearing and rearing children,” the fruit of which was a Childcare Leave Act aimed at helping working mothers.

In 2003, Japan passed the “Law for Basic Measures to Cope with a Declining Fertility Society,” followed two years later by the “Law for Measures to Support the Development of the Next Generation.” To get a sense of how daft the Japanese bureaucrats and politicians are, one of the new provisions required businesses to create—but not implement—abstract “plans” for raising the fertility level of their workers.
​

Governments in other countries are doing similar things. In Singapore, for instance:

In an attempt to boost fertility rates among the elites, the government began offering big tax breaks to highly educated women who had three or more children. A matchmaking service was created by the government for university graduates to encourage young professional men and women to get married. The government dissolved the Family Planning and Population Board. “Two Is Enough” was replaced by “Have Three Or More Children If You Can,” a slogan broadcast on TV and radio and pushed in print ads and on billboards. Posters abounded proclaiming the joy and fulfillment of family life.

Tax-incentives were given to families with more than three children, as were school admissions preferences. Unpaid maternity leave for government workers was increased from one year to four years.

In 2000, the government announced a series of new initiatives. The first was the “Baby Bonus” program, which paid families for having children: $9,000 for the second child and $18,000 for the third. The tax code was modified to give a hefty break to mothers under the age of 31 who had a second child. The government created “Child Development Accounts,” which function like a 401(k) for kids, with the government matching parents’ savings dollar-for-dollar. Mothers were granted 12 weeks of paid maternity leave with each birth.

The government offered better, larger housing for families with children and made it easier for young married couples to buy a home. They even embarked on a program to find grandparents housing close to their grandchildren, to help ease the burden of childcare. At the same time, the government did its best to undo the disincentives it had created a few years earlier. The $10,000 bonus for sterilization was scrapped. Officials were reluctant to ban abortion outright, but launched a public campaign against it. Women with fewer than three children who sought either sterilization or an abortion were required to attend counseling before any procedure would be performed.

Singapore had become a pro-natalist utopia, where aggressive government intervention was married to a willingness to talk frankly about demographic failure and uphold traditionalist mores.
​

So you say that you want governments to research population issues and reach a consensus. 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.

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. Underpopulation is ruining nations while you read this post. It's baffling that you would ask for evidence that underpopulation is a problem. Pick up a newspaper and you'll read about what's happening because of underpopulation, as opposed to something that's supposed to happen at an undetermined future date because of overpopulation.