Overpopulation and possible answers.

[dannieyankee]

We're overpopulated. I'm not sure whether or not that's debated, but I think it's pretty obvious.

So, in a world where resources and the future could be severely impacted by how many people are on the planet, why do we still reject ideas of 'population control' such as overseas adoption, abortion, and homosexuality?

1st: China is limiting it's number of US parents adopting by saying you have to be married, in a certain age range, and at a healthy weight. Guess what? That means fewer adoptions in the US. That also means worldwide adoptions And that basically says 'no' to all homosexuals who want to adopt.

2nd: Abortion is always debated. The fact that China forces a 1-child per family quota has angered many Bible-Belt Americans who believe the world revolves around making as many babies as possible. Although I don't like the idea of enforcement here in the US, in a place like China where at least 1/5th of the world population resides, they really need it. There needs to be some serious care going on here.

3rd: Homosexuality is seen as something bad because it does not follow religion, and does not produce children. Well, honestly, do we *need* anymore children? No. So wouldn't accepting homosexuality more be a better step than saying it's bad?

The encouragement of adoption over vitro-fertilization should be something that doctors do.

Another loosely related topic is that of birth-control. Since an Abstinence-only education doesn't seem to work, shouldn't schools encourage a Birth-Control and Safety in Sex education better? The fact that you need to be 18 to get B.C. on your own suggests something - America doesn't want your kids to take birth control. So when kids decide to have sex (and they will) there will be births. Is it so bad for teens to have sex, especially when they're protected?

[DougF]

Hello dannieyankee,

You bring up some very good points on the subject of overpopulation, some of them might of been brought up before but I can't remember where I read them,

dannieyankee
So, in a world where resources and the future could be severely impacted by how many people are on the planet, why do we still reject ideas of 'population control' such as overseas adoption, abortion, and homosexuality?

If we keep up the way were are going we wont have enough land to grow food or water to drink. we all need to make some changes before it's to late.

[dannieyankee]

Originally Posted by DougF

Hello dannieyankee,

You bring up some very good points on the subject of overpopulation, some of them might of been brought up before but I can't remember where I read them,



If we keep up the way were are going we wont have enough land to grow food or water to drink. we all need to make some changes before it's to late.

I'm surprised that no one has pointed to overpopulation for the enviornmental problems we are facing. Increased energy use, consumption, and CO2 expellment is often blamed on increased technology, but in reality it's probably caused by the immensely large population, all of which use energy and increase green house gas emissions.

[Boerseun]

I think in the very first instance, overpopulation and how to deal with it, will require brutal honesty from all concerned.

For instance, the following:

1) In Africa, fathers are paid "lobola" by suitors for their daughter's hand. "Lobola" could come in many forms; a herd of cattle, a fat sum of money, a fancy car, it doesn't really matter. But this ancient cultural tradition have resulted in men (and their wives) having as many kids as possible, where their daughters are viewed as salable property - seeing as they bring in a handsome income on marriage. Everybody, including the Africans themselves and the Western Liberals who so respect African tradition and culture, should accept the fact that this particular culture is broken. It has no place in the modern world where advanced medical care and attention result in very low infant mortality and very long lifespans (very long relative to life without it). This cultural trait should be relegated to anthropology museums.

2) The same applies to big families in the West, as a result of completely idiotic principles like the Catholic distaste for Birth Control. They are simply wrong, and not in line with reality. People will have sex, and they will have it for recreation - sex for sex's sake. Regardless of what the priest may tell them at mass. With that being the case, you might as well face reality and approve of condoms (and various other means of birth control). Start at the fountainhead - get the Pope to appear in a Durex advert. Use photoshop if you must - the political fallout afterwards will just add fuel to the Catholic's impatience with their church, as it is.

3) Instead of getting the West to supply aid to Africa in the form of tons and tons of food, use the money to establish free vasectomy clinics all over the continent - paired with a massive advertising campaign as to the benefits of getting the snip. Let each couple in Africa have one child - if the child were to die through any form of misfortune, the vasectomy is reversable - the couple can try again. It sounds cold and heartless, but in light of increasing demand for an ever-shrinking pile of resources, it's the way to go.

Matter of fact, give tax-breaks to anybody undergoing a vasectomy after his first child all over the world. Enforce a one-child family policy all over the world, until the population reaches 1 billion. Then maintain a two-child family ad infinitum.

But that's just me.

But like I said, brutal honesty should be the very first step. And to expose cultural idiocies like the African approach where daughters are seen more as tradeable assets than individuals, and the non-sensical catholic approach to birth control, and the American Bible-belter's view of children being a sign of God's blessing where the more you have, the better for God, the better we'll all be off. It should be the very first step.

And hysterics like bitching about a "one-child" policy impeding on your privacy should be viewed in the light of increased resource usage your "privacy" will result in.

[DougF]

Boerseun
For instance, the following:

1) In Africa, fathers are paid "lobola" by suitors for their daughter's hand. "Lobola" could come in many forms; a herd of cattle, a fat sum of money, a fancy car, it doesn't really matter. But this ancient cultural tradition have resulted in men (and their wives) having as many kids as possible, where their daughters are viewed as salable property - seeing as they bring in a handsome income on marriage. Everybody, including the Africans themselves and the Western Liberals who so respect African tradition and culture, should accept the fact that this particular culture is broken. It has no place in the modern world where advanced medical care and attention result in very low infant mortality and very long lifespans (very long relative to life without it). This cultural trait should be relegated to anthropology museums.

This attitude is common in many parts of the world, we call it a Dowry

A dowry (also known as trousseau or tocher) is the money, goods, or estate that a woman brings to her husband in marriage.[1] Compare bride price, which is paid to the bride's parents, and dower, which is property settled on the bride herself by the groom at the time of marriage. The same culture may simultaneously practice both dowry and bride price. The dowry is an ancient custom, and its existence may well predate records of it.

Dowry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
here but is know buy many names in as many places, it was a common practice to have a lot of kids so you had more hands to work your farm or ranch, but today we either need to curb our population or start sending the surplus in to space.
I don't see this happening any time soon, even though the alternative is sure DEATH if we don't.

[Boerseun]

There's a big difference in the Western practice, and the concept of "Lobola", in that the value of the "Lobola" is determined by the father of the bride, and if a suitor doesn't cough up, to the dime, the father simply refuses the marriage.

Big negotiations ensue, where the wedding ends up being organized more like a business deal than anything remotely to do with love.

But be that as it may, it's a broken culture. It needs fixing, and, like you say, the only alternative is death through a massive die-off if we keep going at this pace.

[DougF]

It would seem to me that what we need is a change but how do we convince the world to change there beliefs there religious beliefs in order to cut the population growth,
I don't know if it can be done, you can't force them into change we'll just end up with rebellion, we would want them to "want to change".

[dannieyankee]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Matter of fact, give tax-breaks to anybody undergoing a vasectomy after his first child all over the world. Enforce a one-child family policy all over the world, until the population reaches 1 billion. Then maintain a two-child family ad infinitum.

I agree with most of it, though maybe not QUITE as harshly, except that last sentence. Assume the following statistics: The population is one billion. 5% of the population is homosexual. That leaves 950,000,000. Assume the population is roughly 50% male, 50% female. Also assume that 80% of the heterosexual population will have children. 50% of that will have the maximum (2) children. So 190,000,000 couples will have one child, and 190,000,000 will have two. That will equate to 570,000,000 children born, on top of 380,000,000 parents, 190,000,000 people that did not have children, and 50,000,000 homosexuals who do not have children (by the way, assume 10% of homosexuals use vitro, which adds 5,000,000 children to the world.) In total, the population will be at 1,755,000,000 the following year, assuming the death rate to be at approximately 10% a year. Now, find the percentage increase and keep multiplying it.

At one billion, restrictions may still be necessary. The only difference is that right now, it is IMPENDINGLY necessary.

[Miranda]

We could just make it illegal to have children if under the age of 18 or perhaps 21...after all, technically speaking, drinking ages are put in place because younger individuals are too irresponsible. So why should it be any different when having children? A 16-year-old child can have their own child but can't even buy a glass of wine? This can at least clear up some teen pregnancy stats.

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Matter of fact, give tax-breaks to anybody undergoing a vasectomy after his first child all over the world. Enforce a one-child family policy all over the world, until the population reaches 1 billion. Then maintain a two-child family ad infinitum.
But that's just me.

Along with your idea of tax breaks, anyone who wants to have children should have a mandatory yearly fee imposed for each child. Or perhaps the number of children allowed per houshold should be dependent on household income. This could maybe reduce the amount of children living in poor conditions, on welfare, or even homeless...key word being maybe.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by dannieyankee

I agree with most of it, though maybe not QUITE as harshly, except that last sentence. Assume the following statistics: The population is one billion. 5% of the population is homosexual. That leaves 950,000,000. Assume the population is roughly 50% male, 50% female. Also assume that 80% of the heterosexual population will have children. 50% of that will have the maximum (2) children. So 190,000,000 couples will have one child, and 190,000,000 will have two. That will equate to 570,000,000 children born, on top of 380,000,000 parents, 190,000,000 people that did not have children, and 50,000,000 homosexuals who do not have children (by the way, assume 10% of homosexuals use vitro, which adds 5,000,000 children to the world.) In total, the population will be at 1,755,000,000 the following year, assuming the death rate to be at approximately 10% a year. Now, find the percentage increase and keep multiplying it.

At one billion, restrictions may still be necessary. The only difference is that right now, it is IMPENDINGLY necessary.

Dannieyankee, I think you've got the cat by the tail, so to speak.

Yes, a population of a billion might have, let's say, 100,000,000 couples interested in having kids (the rest of the population is too old, too young, or already up to their 1-kid limit). That'll bring the population to 1,100,000,000. But it seems as if you're calculating as if the very same people will have kids every year.

It's a simple exercise: A kid's got a father and a mother. There are two people involved in creating a child. Now, if those same two people were to create two children, then they would replace the mother and the father after their respective deaths, resulting in a 0% population growth. This is, of course, ignoring such things like extramarital sex, but any offspring from those kleptogamic encounters will be made impossible via enforced vasectomies. Now, it should be abundantly clear that if a 1-child policy were to be strictly enforced world-wide, the global population must come down - because the new generation is now only replacing one of the parents.

The biggest problem lies in convincing the global population to the benefits of such a scheme - and how to enforce it.