There’s no “Population Bomb”
Our earth is finite. Resources limited. In the arena of public discourse there are those who blame any and all things except overpopulation for the problems of the day and push the idea of overpopulation to the side.
The fact is that most problems today in the areas of the environment, reduced resource availability, water supply issues, pollution, and so forth derive from higher demand from our ever-increasing world population. But those denying the role of over demand put the blame on things like “income inequality”. To them, the solution is income redistribution and increased production, rather than anything associated with population.
Today, countries and even states in the Us are fighting over water resources, and it’s just the beginning. Countries like China and India build more and more coal fired generating plants due to the demands of their burgeoning populations for electricity, and carbon footprints be damned.
Sustainable production of resources requires a lon and hard look at controlling demand based on controlling population. To do otherwise is to bury one’s head in the sand. Wealth redistribution and implementation of other PC programs won’t cut it.
The fact is that most problems today in the areas of the environment, reduced resource availability, water supply issues, pollution, and so forth derive from higher demand from our ever-increasing world population. But those denying the role of over demand put the blame on things like “income inequality”. To them, the solution is income redistribution and increased production, rather than anything associated with population.
Today, countries and even states in the Us are fighting over water resources, and it’s just the beginning. Countries like China and India build more and more coal fired generating plants due to the demands of their burgeoning populations for electricity, and carbon footprints be damned.
Sustainable production of resources requires a lon and hard look at controlling demand based on controlling population. To do otherwise is to bury one’s head in the sand. Wealth redistribution and implementation of other PC programs won’t cut it.
I'll volunteer to be no more
... in about 50 years or so. (/s)
TX - 268820 sq miles
sq mi - 27,878,400 sq ft
Earth pop - 7.6B
Me dino proposes that all libtards should feel perfectly at home up there.
And let them know that the Socialist Countries will immediately start shipping the Extra Oxygen they make in their Factories, Created by their Comrades working for FREE!
The world's capacity to produce food sailed right on past its predicted end 20 years ago. The oil supply also continued to grow until fake president Biden shut down production on government land in the West. The next president needs to sell that land off so that no future president will be able to do that again.
This is not sustainable.
In a poor country, individuals overbreed because it's the only way to get supported in your old age in a country that doesn't have pensions/Social Security. Conversely, rich countries underbreed and wind up having to accept some immigrants (and teach them to behave) lest they be overrun in the next war that the overcrowded poor countries are forced by circumstance to start.
This kind of unproductive churning of civilizations has happened over and over, most of it (presumably) before recorded history because the history of a conquered country tends to get erased.
Real sustainability, then, requires that the rich countries breed -- and correctly bring up! -- a lot more people than they would want if they were alone in the world, and more than the individual citizens want. And it may also require that they use other methods, such as colonialism, to grow in both area/resources and population. Nations unwilling to do this will sooner or later disappear from history.
The "limits to growth" people would tell you that some indispensable natural resources are about to run out forever. But that has proven not to be true of oil (even if the earth isn't making it any more, and we don't know that!), and more importantly human ingenuity has always found us substitutes when previous generations' "indispensable resources" (for example, whale oil) ran short. There is no reason to think that will change for billions of years.
Take Africa for example. Were you aware that in the chocolate industry, African nations aren't permitted to export refined cocoa products like powder and the highly-coveted cocoa butter - both of which require processing plants and expertise. And who prevents them from developing these industries and everything which goes with them (infrastructure, education, jobs, etc.)? It is the European governments themselves!
If one goes back slightly in history to the Ethiopian hunger crisis of the 1980's, one quickly finds that the problem isn't arable land or water, but government corruption and war.
Let's examine the US agricultural industry. Were you aware that only 100 years ago the primary occupation of half the US was that of a farmer? Now only about 2% of the population is farmers yet they are so productive that we waste tons of food per year per person AND we export shiploads of grains and other products to other nations?
I'm not sure where you are getting your facts or your ideas, but we haven't even begun to hit the limits of sustainability of this planet. That being said, I filly support colonies on the Moon and on Mars as well as beyond.
Here's my appraisal:
For decades, the Marxian conquest of humanity rested on a reliable mantra: "Capitalism is evil because it can't produce enough! See the people starving homeless in the streets! We must have socialism!"
So near the close of the 20th century, along comes President Ronald Reagan, who initiates some modest baby-steps back in the general direction of laissez faire - against enormous, withering opposition - and... even that modest adjustment is sufficient to usher in what would become a full quarter-century economic boom period. And guess what: The one economic group that advanced more in their standard of living during the '80s decade (the alleged "Decade of Greed,") was precisely the group who started the '80s decade at the absolute bottom, the poorest of the poor. In 1993 economist Jeff Scott and philosopher David Kelley compiled data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Analysis into an article they named "Gekko Echo" (after the EvilGreedyCapitalist character in Ollie Stone's movie "Wall Street,") in which article they reveal that while the rich got richer in the 1980s, the poor got orders of magnitude richer than anyone else. The article is here, and I recommend bookmarking and viral-izing because it's important:
https://reason.com/1993/02/01/gekko-e...
The facts tell us, conclusively: The "Reaganomics" policy works, and benefits everyone working within it, particularly those who are starting out poor. And since Reaganomics was just, again, a minor adjustment away from statist controls and in the direction of economic liberty (a.k.a. capitalism,) it's an irrefutable indicator of the pent-up potential of even a still-constrained capitalist remnant, to improve vastly the human condition, so say nothing of full capitalism's potential. So there's your solution to the "world's most vulnerable" problem among third-world nations: Adopt an American-type Constitution (to lay the essential foundation of human rights, particularly property rights and limited government,) then step aside, permanently, and let the self-regulating market forces work their magic.
Meanwhile: During that same late-20th-century period, socialism basically imploded worldwide - tossed onto the Trash Heap of History with pointed and righteous contempt by the countless millions who had been enslaved and brutalized under its catchy banners and slogans for decades.
So what's a poor vestigial Marxist ideologue to do? Simple: Flop to the obverse.
"Capitalism is evil because it produces too much! We are 'materialist' and 'consumerist' and we're 'raping the Earth' and 'depleting our natural resources' and 'the SKY is falling! Auuugghh!' We must have socialism! Huzzah!"
The immediate question this farcical flip-flop prompts is "What the hell do these fools want, really?" A step back and the answer to that is simple: It was never anything to do with a concern for "the most vulnerable, but rather the resumption of ...the Marxian conquest of humanity. A simple fact: There are people who are just plain evil, and who have coalesced their evil into a fetish for systematically enslaving and destroying other people. And there is no better system for accomplishing this task, particularly on a large scale, than socialism.
So this endless avalanche of eco-apocalypse Scary Stories is just a post-Soviet retooling of vestigial, recidivistic Marxism. That's all this entire charade is about.
As for "depleting natural resources," there is nothing I can possibly attempt that can top the voluminous work that Pepperdine University economist George Reisman has done, particularly in his 1996 treatise "Capitalism," but also in essays such as his 2010 piece "Natural Resources and the Environment" - which I also strongly recommend bookmarking and viral-izing:
https://georgereismansblog.blogspot.c...
And the last word on the Schneider-esque Scary Story that is "Overpopulation," is of course the late Julian Simon's book "The Ultimate Resource," which should be considered required reading in this context: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691003815/
Every new baby is potentially a vast expansion of usable resources - a potential Edison or Hill or Ford or Jobs - not a depletion of them.
.
Modern technology has made massed population centers unnecessary, which is one reason these archaic structures have significant unemployment. Much of today's business can be conducted remotely, with assembly line activity becoming increasingly automated. The freelance worker community has been growing steadily, and even large companies are going increasingly toward remote operations. USAA, an insurer that serves military, both active duty and retired, has over 22,000 employees, and has gone completely remote in its operations, as one example.
Restructuring populations to smaller communities would significantly reduce the stress on transportation and power systems. Regional nuclear power would improve the reliability, availability, and cleanliness of energy. With fewer workers having to commute, consumption of fossil fuels would be reduced, as would the demand on electric motive power.
Transitioning to laboratory grown meats (proceeding well in Israel) would significantly reduce the environmental impact of the meat industry. Expanding the use of greenhouse grown produce would lessen the impact of those farming activities on the environment and transportation (if the produce was grown closer to the smaller communities).
Increasing medical technology to become more automated and enable better remote diagnosis and treatment would create a better distribution of care. Better distribution of medical care facilities in smaller communities would reduce the emergency services delay times, and make the "golden hour" survival time increasingly possible.
The problem is thinking rooted in fifteenth century social structures. Recognizing the technology revolution that is upon us, and skillfully adapting to the benefits of this revolution can be the solution to our population dilemma.
Finally, we are about to become a serious space society, with colonies off planet, either on other celestial bodies or in artificial habitats. That immense change in human society will create an environment for new wealth and exploration as we expand into space, insuring our survival.
People STILL Believe that Meat/FAT leads to heart disease. That Obesity is NOT caused by ADDICTIVE Processed Foods.
Every segment of our system is corrupted. And people simply cannot see it. If you try to show them, they have been so dumbed down they cannot comprehend.
After that, yes, over-crowding. Which technology is starting to fix as people no longer have to work in cities to get jobs for those companies.
We are inside of a 4th turning. When we come out, it will be a different world.
the Blockchain, DAO system will allow people to align with like minded people regardless of geographic distance. And to share the benefits ONLY with those who belong, and supported the efforts. Cool stuff comes our way once SOME of this evil is removed!
The economics of settling the Moon are roughly the economics of settling Antarctica. Both are possible, but very expensive. The only way I see either happening is if somebody discovers big money to be made there. For instance, if the Antarctic were discovered to have a mother lode of oil, or even as much as the Arctic, somebody will settle there, even if they have to fight a war to do it.
All the while we continue creating more people. Even colonizing the moon won’t help creating a stable population on earth. The 5.5 Billion ppl on earth who are living in the third world add 84 million to the world’s population every year. Try shipping 84 million to Mars or the Moon each year to stabilize population on earth.
Yes, if you fly over the country at night it looks like there’s lots of “open space”, but fly over during the day and that space is farmland, except for areas that are unsuitable. Overpopulation has nothing to do with empty space. It has everything to do with the ability to produce what is required, provide resources where necessary, and the ability to get the necessary materials/products/resources to where they are needed.
Third world countries like Somalia, and Ethiopia rely on food from elsewhere in the world because they don’t have the water to grow their own. Or as Sam Kennison once said, “They don’t live where the food is!!”.
The bottom line is that the earth is finite. We must understand and identify the limits, become more prudent in our exploitation of resources, and in increasing our numbers. Consumption is likewise finite, and has its own limits.
It’s better to address these issues now, while we can, than wait until we hit the limits and have nowhere else to go.
"See this?!? Its SAND! Nothing grows here.... nothings gonna grow here!"
"You want to help these folks? Stop sending them food. Send them luggage!"
I was in tears.
When we don’t have enough rainfall in an area like much of the Great Plains, we pump water from the ground. That water comes from aquifers that contain what is called “fossil water” because it has taken millions of years for the earth to deposit the water there. These aquifers are not easily restored. When they’re gone, they’re gone. Then we have to rely on local rivers and rainfall. And the use of water will be demanded by all living along them, and water wars will ensue. That’s happening right now in California over the water from central and Northern California between the cities making up Greater Los Angeles, and agricultural interests in the agricultural valleys to the North
75% or so of earth's human population live within 40 miles of the earth’s coastline. They depend on the interiors of the continents for their daily bread.
I’m neither a Marxist or communist, and I’m not trying to tell Scary Stories. Scientific studies have shown that in nature, any organism or community will naturally grow and continue to grow until it outruns its food supply, at which point the population will crash, and major portions of the population will die. That’s fact.
The earth is finite, and likewise it’s ability to provide what humans need. THE EARTH IS LIMITED! We are already seeing huge pressure on resources. That pressure can only increase if we continue to add and add to our population. We cannot grow our population forever because of these limits. That, by definition, is unsustainably.
That solution will be found by people who want to find a solution - not those who simply wish to have what they are not willing to work to obtain.
There is no downside to fewer.
and we MUST move into space
Let's do more with Thorium.
You're asking people to make conscious lifestyle choices based on things that won't affect them or their children (except the absence of such) or even your children's children - and all based off some future event. The choice to have children and how to provide for them is very much a philosophical/religious decision. It goes right to the heart of one's fundamental beliefs about life, its purpose, how one pursues happiness, etc.
And, in a word, yes, I am asking people to see the signs and make lifestyle changes that might forestall various potential crises in the future, including having fewer children - voluntarily.!While the things that are coming at humanity may not fully affect us immediately, they will indeed affect future generations. I propose we act as much as we can now, while we are able to still impact these coming problems.
Below are links to two videos. One is a presentation by Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, and often referred to as “The Gumball Video”. Mr. Beck’s primary subject is immigration and its effect on the United States. I have included 2 videos by Mr. Beck, as there is some different information in each.
I have also included a video by Hans Rosling, a Swedish specialist in world population. I believe he is overly optimistic in saying that world population will never be more than 11 Billion. He says we will reach that 11 Billion number in 2100 or there abouts. Contrast this with a link to a United Nations study from 1996 stating that we won’t reach 11 Billion until 2200.
I have also included a link to a video titled “World population growth 1800 to2100”. This video has no narration, but shows an expanding graph of world population from 1800 to 2100. It’s worth the ten minutes it takes to watch.
Finally, i believe we as a species is placing too much faith in technology to save the day. There are some things technology can do, and some it can’t. Moore’s Law is nearing its limit, and whether calculated with a computer, a quantum computer or an abacus, the finite nature of the world’s resources are the same.
I recall that some years ago (not many) someone suggested that we solve our population problem by colonizing the moon, Mars, and other planets or moons. The problem with this is that the 5+Billion people on earth earning less than the average worker in Mexico (see The Gumball Video), add about 80 to 84 million new people each year. Stabilizing the earth’s population through space colonization would mean sending millions to these new locations. EVERY YEAR!! Really? No.
As noted above, tech can do some things and not others. One thing it cannot do is increase the world’s resources. While deposits of some raw materials are abundant, others, even today, are not. As an example, I have provided links to two other videos. One is from USA Today, and one is by National Geographic. Both address the issue of water resources in the United States, specifically the western states dependent on the Colorado River, and other River systems along the West coast.
These videos examine the problems these areas already have today, such as the fact that there has been a 20 year drought in the region, that farmers, not just there, but in other parts of the country - like Kansas, Florida, and others - are pumping billions of gallons of the “fossil” groundwater from aquifers that cannot be recharged, and that Lake Meade’s water level has dropped by 128 feet just during the last 10 years or so. It’s only 200 feet or so from being unusable as a water source.
Please note that neither of these videos mention population growth, except perhaps obliquely.
I do not believe in forcing anyone to do anything, and I support Galt’s idea of living for yourself. But we do not live in a Galtian vacuum, and population growth and resource scarcity will certainly be something we should pay attention to, and do what we can to impact them.
Roy Beck, NumbersUSA
https://youtu.be/VSKNvvhKazM
https://youtu.be/muw22wTePqQ
Hans Rosling - world population
https://youtu.be/2LyzBoHo5EI
World population growth 1800 to2100
https://youtu.be/neAzeAAq0hc
The water crisis - National Geographic
https://youtu.be/3VyfN30XzDM
Pumped dry - The global crisis of vanishing groundwater - USA Today
https://youtu.be/RjsThobgq7Q
United Nations population study
https://www.un.org/press/en/1998/1998...
So I’ll leave it there. I believe that open discussions where widely differing views can be expressed are healthy and positive. I therefore thank you for you expressing your thoughts on the subject. Regards
I respect the right of every person to choose their course in life provided that course doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same. I respect and appreciate the fact that you are willing to advocate for a course you believe in without resorting to coercion. Thank you. I wish more people were as tolerant and thoughtful and you are a credit to the Gulch and humanity itself.
A phenomenon in the United States should also be noted in this conversation: the migration of people AWAY from socialist governments and TOWARD more conservative/capitalist ones. California recorded net population losses in every single county in the last Census. After decades of robust growth and an explosion of Representation in the House, they actually lost a seat.
Let me see if I can be clearer.
In the arena of population, resources, water, food and the limits thereof, there is little that we can control directly. The earth contains a finite amount of iron ore, bauxite, and other resources. There is a finite amount of fresh water, unless there is massive investment in de-salinization. The amount of food that the earth can produce is limited by availability of water, and suitable soil. We are already abandoning some farmland due to it’s exhaustion of nutrients, and removing arable land to build housing developments around major cities.
In each case we are bumping into the limits imposed by nature, and all technological responses are only stopgap.
However, the one thing we can control is population. By controlling population we control demand, and thus reduce pressure on food, water and available resources.
Reduction of population would allow for the development of population limits which, along with technology, recycling, and other measures, can result in the development of sustainable systems of all essentials for the long term.
I am NOT a communist or authoritarian or socialist. I’m not advocating such systems which by their nature crush freedom and human rights. Rather I am simply trying (perhaps poorly) to point out the realities we face, and hope that awareness of these limits in the hope that voluntary alternatives can be developed. Like it or not, there is not room on the planet for unlimited population and unlimited growth.
Would the population of Africa have increased from 74 mil in 1820 to a projected 1449 mil[1] in 2030, if they hadn't received outside help i.e. health care, utilization of resources etc?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimat...
While strictly true, we aren't even beginning to scratch the surface of existing deposits. While I'm not saying that any given resource is infinite, we should be very careful about making broad categorizations about the scarcity of earth's resources since most are very rough estimates. Please understand that I do not advocate for waste, I simply point out that we have to be realistic about the availability.
"In each case we are bumping into the limits imposed by nature, and all technological responses are only stopgap."
Technological advances have allowed for more efficient mineral extraction which has greatly increased the available economically-viable deposits. Take the oil in shale deposits and sand for example. Inventions such as these can hardly be described as "stop-gap." Human ingenuity finds a way to solve the problem.
"I am NOT a communist or authoritarian or socialist."
Then just how do you intend to enforce population control?
It should also be noted that the nations with positive population growth aren't the First-World nations. Even the United States just this year dropped below replacement rate for births. Europe has been upside down for decades which is why they have been importing from the Middle East and Africa. China's one-child policy has produced an entire generation where 1/3 of their men have to go looking outside their country for companionship. And good luck persuading Third-World nations to adopt such a mindset when they have repeatedly and pointedly told the UN to take their birth control products and abortion providers and leave - for good. For those peoples - and for many others around the world - children (and grandchildren) are the single biggest source of joy which exists. And you're going to tell them they can't have that? Good luck...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p....
China, the US, and India are the world’s largest polluters.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/cou...
The city of Los Angeles has no water, and must import its water from the Colorado River, Lake Meade and other sources to its north. The growers along the way are being limited in their use of available water.
https://theproducenews.com/california...
Egypt and Sudan are in a dispute with Ethiopia over the letter’s planned Blue Nile project.
https://apnews.com/article/ethiopia-s....
The world’s population growth is potential disaster.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGC...
Increasing populations only exacerbate these and other problems. While the world is technically not overpopulated, most population increases take place in areas where most already live in poverty. These areas add some 84 million more people births over deaths from the world’s population each year.
As to the world's population growth creating a potential disaster, it's a "what-if" scenario. Here's a reality: the US produces enough agricultural products that not only are Americans incredibly wasteful, but we are net exporters of ag products. Why? Again because of technology. A single farmer can feed a thousand Americans (3.4 million farm workers out of 365 million people according to the USDA https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-product... - and then some. So let's posit another "what-if" scenario: what if this same technology existed the world over?
No, international wealth redistribution/socialism etc, i.e. it's one/more countries providing welfare to other countries! The receiving country's ideology has got nothing to do with it.
In order for a nation to give, they have to "have" something in the first place. (The US has perverted that by taking advantage of the strength and ubiquity of our currency to give away money we don't have in exchange for taxes on future production.) The problem with socialist nations is that they only survive as long as their producers can out-produce the inevitable rise in spending. So giving money as welfare to other countries hastens their own demise regardless what the other country does with the aid.
As to technology, it can provide many benefits for a while. Maybe for a few hundred years. The problem is that eventually tech will run into limits too. If ag tech as per the US were to exist worldwide, it would be a great boon for many areas - for a while. Again, tech will run into natural limits - either limits in terms of exhausted farm land, or the limits on getting fertilizers at more and more expensive prices, which could cause the cost of food to rise to the point where ordinary people, particularly those in the third world, can’t afford it. And there’s still the question of what to do with places like Ethiopia, Somalia, and other parts of Africa and Asia. Those ppl have little or no water to irrigate crops. Ethiopia, for example, has been in a drought and the population on the verge of starvation for decades. Yet they still reproduce and add more people to their population.
More to the bottom line: abundant food leads to increased population. (No, I’m NOT advocating letting anyone starve to death.) the increases in population is fine as long as you can provide them with life necessities such as food. But if you’re going to solve the food-more-people-food-more-people-food viscous cycle, the place to stop it is in the “more people” part of the cycle, and find ways of getting people to accept limits on their populations before we hit the limits mentioned. This would be a whole lot better than letting people starve.
However, if there is a question or issue that effects everyone, I don’t think Galt’s oath precludes my voluntary participation in a solution to a such a problem so long as I retain my right to chose participating or not. I don’t think Rand intended Galt’s oath to mean that I should live in a bubble, isolated from the rest of mankind. There are just too many out there with stick pins.
The same could be said about world population. We can choose to do nothing and charge ahead in our belief that economies and populations can grow forever, or do what we can to begin to apply the brakes so as to develop a sustainable population for the long term without catastrophe.
In short, those of us who believe there is a long term problem should do what we can to raise awareness, hence this thread.
I should note that when I say “long term” I’m talking 200 to 300 years in the future. You and I will certainly be taking the Eternal Dirt Nap, but humanity’s progeny will hopefully still be there, living a fulfilling, sustainable life.
That's the real problem: how do you motivate people about a hypothetical problem which doesn't apply to them or anyone they know? How do you ask someone to mortgage their present for the possibility that someone hundreds of years in the future (even assuming your timeline is accurate) will thank you - posthumously? Good luck...
Contrary to that, educating people about overpopulation can see the seeds of understanding and action. You do that by telling them the truth - and it is especially important to do so because the world’s population is increasing at an ever increasing rate due to people living longer because of better nutrition and advances in healthcare - ie, we have and are removing the natural forces that naturally control population.
I strongly recommend the “Gumball Video” at NumbersUSA.com, or you can find it on YouTube.
Ideology/size of government/extent of government intervention etc makes no difference?
Today the world population adds about 84 million, births over deaths, each year. The world seems to be able to absorb this increase at the present for a time. But unless this number can be reduced, population will at some point increase exponentially, and natural limits will come into play. I believe it best to try to raise awareness and do something now while we can, rather than wait until a major portion of the human population is starving to death, even if that time is 200 years away.
Here's a separate but critical question to answer: accepting the assertion from the Declaration of Independence that all men have the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (and I will add in the original right of Property), how does one square these rights with your concerns?
After much research and thoughtful consideration, I must admit that I am unsure how to answer your question, or even if I can answer it. You may well ask why this would be the case. The answer, in both cases, is complicated. In other words, I will need to be long winded.
Population is a global issue. To address the ever expanding population would require a global solution. In the 70s there was a small activist group called Zero Population Growth, or ZPG for short, which tried to convince people to have only two children. This would cause an increase in population in the near term, but over time would stabilize population at something close to the population level at the time. Nice theory, but it didn’t take.
As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Europeans have been reproducing at less than replacement levels for some time. US population would also be below replacement levels were it not for immigration, legal and otherwise.
In the rest of the world the population continues to grow at the rate of about 84 million people per year, births over deaths, and this is where the bulk of the problem lies. (see NumbersUSA.com, The Gumball Video on YouTube.)
Now before you go pulling out the “racist” card, or argue that this is something created to blame “people of color”, please know that it is nothing of the kind. These are facts and can be verified with a little research work.
So how does one implement something that impacts everyone on the planet?
Thomas Jefferson is quoted as having said:
“A well informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.”
Likewise, if I may be so bold as to apply a similar thought to the item under discussion, it could be said that a well informed world population is the best way to make needed changes while safeguarding our rights and liberty. A balancing act to be sure. And what of those who disagree? After all, there are a myriad of people, myself included, who chafe at the top-down implementation of restrictions on personal liberty by those pushing Global Warming.
Jefferson had another thought regarding these:
“The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.”
And….
I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.
But let us not think that the third world is a place where population management could take no hold. Even the most uneducated, illiterate, subsistence fisherman has seen the population of his area increase, fish species being depleted or gone completely, and some of the effects of pollution, never mind Global Warming. This could be fertile ground to teach the idea of population control, it’s repercussions, and options. That, then, gets into the subject of what is this fisherman to do when he is too old to fish? Today he has a dozen sons who can collectively take care of Mom and Dad in their old age. Could they be cared for if they had only two children? Maybe. But this is where the government must step in and help. And that’s a whole other topic.
John Jay said in Federalist 2:
“Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.”
And….
WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.
To address your question; the time of our Founding Fathers saw, perhaps, the greatest collection of intellect and ability in those same men, than has ever existed on our planet at any one time. And this collection is even more remarkable in that they were all focused on the same object, at the same time, and worked together to give us The Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the other founding documents we have today. There were disagreements to be sure. But one only need read The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the letters of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to name but a few, to realize just how brilliant these men were.
That said, and to put that in context, those remarkable men were trying to solve the problem of how to govern after winning independence from England. That period was such that the entire North American continent west of the Appalachians available for national expansion (not withstanding native Americans). Thus I do not believe they focused on the concept so what to do if the earth begins to reach its limits. Yet I think that the quotes above may apply to our time. We will need governments world wide to take action based on a majority consensus of “The People”, and it then becomes our job to consider the facts soberly, and to then educate the people to the need for action. Such action may require some relinquishment of the people’s liberties, at least for a time as per John Jay above.
Now I must be off to split a few more hairs.
Regarding global population growth, I share your view that it isn't racist. It simply is. It is almost universally third-world nations who still retain a positive population growth rate. Some posit that this is a result in the choice between materialism and family and I'm inclined to agree.
"...a well informed world population is the best way to make needed changes while safeguarding our rights and liberty."
I whole-heartedly agree.
"This could be fertile ground to teach the idea of population control, it’s repercussions, and options."
The UN found quite the opposite. African nations overwhelmingly rejected pro-abortion laws and birth control lobbies - even when given out with no cost to that nation.
"But this is where the government must step in and help."
Here is where we diverge paths. Any time the government gets involved, its screws things up. There's no solution involving the government which lasts long-term. We need only look at the debacle of Social Security in the US to see what a disastrous policy this is. If you want to talk about retirement funds, privatization is the only workable option. But here's another question: who gets to retire in a third-world country? Answer: Nobody.
There has never been a government solution to society's ills whether those be poverty, crime, or anything else. Politicians use these crises to benefit their own political careers rather than look for real answers. The only solutions have come from changes in behavior of the people themselves.
What we need is to educate people on universal, moral principles. Until we do that, I don't think we'll need to worry about "overpopulation" because the world is going to collapse into war, poverty, and disaster. And if we had an educated and moral populace (see John Adams), you'd have a population willing and able to have these kinds of policy discussions.
"the world is going to collapse into war, poverty, and disaster" What if Atlas/the producers keeps it going?
While I’m not familiar with UN efforts at birth control in Africa, I’m going to guess that the refusals may have come from autocratic leaders. When in proper context, I think that fisherman might be a better audience if he can be shown why his fish are gone.
I don’t think we diverge that greatly. I agree that todays government involvement equals a mess. That’s because the politicians in todays governments have all manner of self-interests and hidden agendas. What we need is to elect people more in line with the citizen legislators as envisioned by the Founders. We need more people in office who serve first the needs of “The People”. And I agree with your moral populace of John Adams, and would add only Jefferson’s informed populace.
I would encourage you to do your own research. It was the people themselves - not the leaders - who rejected the UN. May have had something to do with the horrendous civil rights violations committed by UN "peacekeepers" ...
"What we need is to elect people more in line with the citizen legislators as envisioned by the Founders."
If you can find them, I'll vote for them. The problem is that - like George Washington and Ronald Reagan - very few honorable people go into politics willingly.
Is this the Thomas Jefferson quote you were referencing?
“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.” I agree.
We can get to “citizen legislators” by instituting Term Limits for both Representatives and Senators. One six-year term for Senators, (repeal the 17th Amendment and return selection of Senators to the legislatures of the several states.) and three terms for Representatives.
The theory being tested is NOT whether socialism would cause them to “propagate”, i.e. grow their populations more than they otherwise would. This theory is not being tested per se, The hypothesis being discussed is that with finite world resources, the ever-increasing demands for them cannot by definition continue to increase forever. Increasing food supplies can increase populations for a time, but not forever, because food supplies need water to grow, and there are limitations on water as well. The Florida v Georgia suit over the Chatahoochee water went on for ten years until the Supreme Court ruled for Florida. Point being that as populations grow, and demands increase, we will see more disputes over water.
While the US agriculture situation is currently as you describe today, the fact is that to maintain this situation requires fertilization and refertilization, which requires more and more of the limited resources that are used to produce the fertilizer. This also produces an increase in population, which demands more farming, which demands more water and fertilizer, which demands more resources, which produces more population increases, which….see where I’m going?
The truth grain in my hypothesis is that the easiest way to avoid this cycle - and this is only one such cycle to deal with - is to maintain or reduce today’s population and reduce the ever-increasing demands on food, water, and resources.
I should note that as I write this, there are developers in my city and county buying up productive surrounding farmland at $100,000 or more per acre to build housing developments. This is due to population increase in our area.
Finally, I was told many years ago by Dr. Karl Raitz, professor emeritus at the University of Kentucky, that a population - any population; mice, men, aardvarks - will increase its numbers until it outruns its food supply, at which time the population will crash, and mass starvation will follow.
If we are as smart as we think we are, we will find ways to controlling our population without striping everyone’s rights and freedom, so as to avoid the devastating end result of ignoring this problem and our planet’s limitations.
We, do we live in a collective?
Western countries are limiting their populations.
It's a far more complex issue than strict government coercion. On the one end you have China with its direct and explicit policies enforcing population control - and destroying their future in the process. On the other end you have the socialist tax policies which make it economically prohibitive to have a large family due to the high cost of living. That's certainly what has happened in the EU which has to supplement its populace with immigrants just to keep it stable. To a lesser degree the United States is starting to fall into the same malaise as in the past few years our birth rate has fallen below replacement.
The thing that makes me shake my head is that all of the redistribution schemes fail when population drops like that because the country inevitably ends up with more takers than producers. And its so transparently obvious that is what is going to happen. The obliviousness of progressives/socialists makes me cringe.
Would the population of Africa have increased from 74 mil in 1820 to a projected 1449 mil[1] in 2030, if they hadn't received outside help i.e. health care, utilization of resources etc?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimat...
The second is the very Europeans who claim to want to "help" yet put trade embargoes on African products. Take cacao for example. The raw cacao beans are grown almost exclusively in Africa. They require a tropical climate. But Europe prohibits importing refined cocoa products from African nations. Those refineries could be generating thousands of jobs for Africans. It's disgusting - and racist.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimat...