Poll Should there be a global strategy for population reduction?

[ELF]

Would a non coercive global strategy of population reduction be a good thing to help solve some of the many environmental proplems such as global warming, polution,recource depletion, species extinction etc.???

It would be interesting to know the breakdown of opinion from the posters on this forum as it seems to be a very polarizing issue.

Elf

[August]

Population reduction is impossible. We shall have to accept the solid fact that the world's population is going to rise for at least another forty or fifty years, reach 9 billion souls, and then hopefully start to stabilize.

The answer is NO. Simply because it is absurd to be in favour of something that is absolutely impossible, as proven by the mathematics of population dynamics.

Unless, of course, you want to start killing people off deliberately. - Which would be a solution that I could never be in favour of.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by ELF

Would a non coercive global strategy of population reduction be a good thing to help solve some of the many environmental proplems such as global warming, polution,recource depletion, species extinction etc.???

It would be interesting to know the breakdown of opinion from the posters on this forum as it seems to be a very polarizing issue.

Elf

On a slightly less harsh note...

I voted "not sure" - but not for the question being too vague, but more because it isn't clear what a "non-coercive" global strategy of population reduction would entail. On the one hand, there are already non-coercive strategies in terms of controlling (the rate of) population growth; these have generally not been to effective (but at the same time that does not necessarily mean I am suggesting anything "stronger" at this point).


@ your signature "What should the inhabitants of Easter island have done to maintain a sustainable community???" - is that a reference to these:

[Deathridesahorse]

I put yes, but hang on: what is a non-coersive strategy anyway?!?

[include]

Most western populations are stagnating, and population growth globally is slowing down. Increasing wealth is the best way to reduce population growth.

[ELF]

Originally Posted by Karl

@ your signature "What should the inhabitants of Easter island have done to maintain a sustainable community???" - is that a reference to these:

It references the fact that Easter island was once covered in forest and had a thriving eco system the first inhabitants had a strong culture and writen records. There are now no trees on easter island the early culture has vanished the writen language is also gone..and the survivors were reduced to canibalism...If they had managed to curtail their population and consumption of their rescources maybe their society would not have self destructed.

Re "non coercive population reduction" I suppose it means making contrapceptives available for free as well as visectomies and tubular legations as well as a global campaign encouraging smaller families through advertising and education getting away from polocies where some countries are actually encouraging higher birth rates for economic reasons.

Elf

[krystof]

ELF--your question is well phrased. I understood immediately. But maybe "non coercive" should be replaed with "voluntary". This may reduce apparent misunderstanding by some people.

I voted yes and to me this is a rhetorical question. I am shocked to see almost as many voting no. More shocked to see one person say population reduction is "impossible".

Just let me say this: even if population reduction is impossible, nonetheless the best way to slow down population growth as much as possible is to attempt to reverse it. And if we do not do this by "non-coercive" means soon, we will be forced to use coercive measures in the future, as in China and in numerous science fiction films.

I heartily agree with the introduction to this subforum. "We are living on this planet as if we had another one to go to." Surprisingly, in another forum the population problem was discussed, and one person said no need to worry we will move to other planets. I replied, oh great, we are going to spend a thousand years or so finding or recreating another paradise so that we can destroy that also, instead of the one we have. It would be better just to send some bacteria to other worlds, to allow a chance for a new species to develop, rather than the human race which if we do not control our population is a proven failure.

My own personal revelation started with a story about early explorers leaving rabbits on an island in the South Pacific for food supplies on long voyages. They figured they could stop and find rabbits to replenish their food supply. Instead they found no rabbits, no birds, no vegetation, everything completely destroyed because. The rabbits with no predators ate every piece of vegetation and this in turn killed every source of life. We are the same as those rabbits and the earth is our island.

Here also is a quotion from my own article that I will post in another subforum soon.

In my opinion, the primary juggarnaut behind all pollution and all extinctions is human overpopulation, and this cause is drastically under-emphasized by almost everyone including most environmental advocates. Instead of cutting the human population by half, the defacto emphasis appears to be to improve recycling, food production and energy efficiency, meanwhile leaving scant disincentive for the human population to double yet again. This obviously will result in the same net problems, plus an exponentially greater economic difficulty in solving them. Meanwhile the already critical problems of overfishing and habitat destruction are hardly entered into the equation. These receive mainly the vain hope of supposedly being kept surfing forever along the crest of disaster by game preserves or international laws.

[August]

Originally Posted by krystof

... More shocked to see one person say population reduction is "impossible".

That would be me. - My point of view is well developed and described in the below thread. Check it out.

The population explosion: a challenging piece of knowledge

Originally Posted by krystof

Just let me say this: even if population reduction is impossible, nonetheless the best way to slow down population growth as much as possible is to attempt to reverse it. And if we do not do this by "non-coercive" means soon, we will be forced to use coercive measures in the future, as in China and in numerous science fiction films.

There is only one possible way to reducing the world's population in ways more humane than simply killing people off in a most genocidal manner, and that would be to allow for no more than one child-birth per woman. Now, such a policy is not on any political agenda as of current. Chinese policy makers are in fact suggesting a move towards allowinging people to have more children than what is the case today. And from the perspective of all African peoples, the idea of having only three children per woman is totally absurd. All in all, it is fair to believe that the on-going population explosion is going to continue, and that a reduction of the world population might be a good idea, but unfortunately one that is not particularly realistic.

[August]

When it comes to the basic problem of population explosion in Africa (some countries can expect their population to increase by more than 120 percent in the next forty years; no kidding!), it must be very obvious that this is a problem that the Africans themselves must come to terms with, and start dealing with, before the natural and social environments of theirs deteriorate to the point at which the only thing that can possibly ensue is one terrible era of urban pollution, countryside deforestation and desertification, food scarcity (hunger), water scarcity (thirst), conflicts over land (civil wars, genocide), etc., etc., etc. I mean: I am not afraid of being called a racist now that I am simply pointing out that Africans, in particular, are up against problems of such magnitude that it is absolutely imperative that they all woke up and faced the music.

[imp]

Originally Posted by August

When it comes to the basic problem of population explosion in Africa (some countries can expect their population to increase by more than 120 percent in the next forty years; no kidding!), it must be very obvious that this is a problem that the Africans themselves must come to terms with, and start dealing with, before the natural and social environments of theirs deteriorate to the point at which the only thing that can possibly ensue is one terrible era of urban pollution, countryside deforestation and desertification, food scarcity (hunger), water scarcity (thirst), conflicts over land (civil wars, genocide), etc., etc., etc. I mean: I am not afraid of being called a racist now that I am simply pointing out that Africans, in particular, are up against problems of such magnitude that it is absolutely imperative that they all woke up and faced the music.

I believe that your comments are racist. You are essentially advocating eugenics. Some famous groups that advocated for eugenics incluse the KKK and the Nazis. Some people think that a black life born into poverty in Africa is a bad thing - I think that is the height off arrogance as life is life and it is all valuable.