Optimum Population Trust

[tim]

The consequences of having no food and water would be far more damaging to liberty than telling people they can't have kids and removing government incentives for doing so. To me it spells the breakdown of society.

Allowing unrestricted population growth ties the hands of governments with regard to policy. This can already be seen in China. How can you follow a policy of sustainable development where you need to maintain 8% growth every year just to keep unemployment stable?

I'm not sure what 'luxury' has to do with it either. The drive to limit the ecological damage humanity is causing should incorporate wide ranging cutbacks on consumption as well as curbs on population growth.

Castrate the poor and keep them in their place?

 

[TomPaine]

Couldn't we maybe adopt an immigration policy though that is based upon zero growth i.e. if say 150,000 people leave in a year we issue 150,000 immigration visas? I know it goes against the concept of free movement of people, but I don't think having a waiting list is necessarily unfair. After all we are a nation who like to queue .
It also wouldn't restrict student visas and family/spouse visas nor tourism and business trips.

At least then the population would slowly drop of as I believe we have a negative growth with regards to our birth/death ratio?

 

[bluestreak]

Hmm, I think perhaps you need to wipe the spittle from your monitor tim, it's interfering with your ability to read what people are writing.

I think the general consensus here is that capitalism is the problem rather than over-population. Yeah, some of the liberals are not quite on message yet but no-one is talking about castrating the poor. For a start, capitalism needs the poor so that is never going to happen!

 

[tim]

Anytime you wish to trouble us with some science please do so, your ad homs are less than enlightening.

Malthusian catastrophes are not 'faith' but regularly documented population crashes in ecological science. They have also affected humans throughout their history. 3 examples that spring to mind rather immediately are the Polynesian populations of Pitcairn and Henderson islands, Kangaroo Island in South Australia and the Norse Greenland colonies. All three are isolated human populations that, like the reindeer died out due to over consumption of resources or ecological changes. The latter had metal working tool, literacy and advanced tool kits, but they died out when far more ‘primitive’ Neolithic tooled peoples survived in the same environment.

Other good examples of population crashes are the Easter Islands where the over consumption of a vital renewable resource (wood and birds) left the islands with a huge problem of overshoot. The population is thought to have crashed from c.15 000 to c.2000 in around 100 years (the numbers and timelines are not firm).
The period in European history following the Great Famine (1315-1317).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315-1317
The population of Europe had been sustain at very high levels by the gentle climate of the Medieval warm period but the population had reached its maximum. All it took was two bad harvests and it set of a chain of events that seen Europe’s population plummet to dramatically lower levels.
The collapse of the Mayan civilisation in Southern Central America is often strongly linked to drought and water mismanagement leading to a collapse of the complex society and a subsequent population collapse.

The list of population crashes from changes in climate or environmental degradation is long and well documented.

Understanding that it is possible is the first necessary to opening a dialogue on mitigation against these potential threats.

Lots of conjectue here and a clear focus on preindustrial often isolated island communities. How relevant is that to our technologically highly globalised and sophisticated society? I know that you greenies have a horror of scientific and technological progress, but it's made my life and that of billions of other better over the last few centuries.

I've no desire to live in your luddite fantasy fascist state, exterminating or pauperising those who don't meet up to your puritanical kow-towing to Gai the latest non-existent deity to spread misery amongst humanity.

 

[TomPaine]

capitalism is the problem

I'd add to that the other despot regimes around the world that force people to leave their homes through war/opression etc. as well.
Theocracies that stifle freedom of speech and other practices are always going to cause a problem with people having to flee their homes in order to protect their families.

 

[stavros]

I know that you greenies have a horror of scientific and technological progress, but it's made my life and that of billions of other better over the last few centuries.

Are you really that old?

 

[tim]

Hmm, I think perhaps you need to wipe the spittle from your monitor tim, it's interfering with your ability to read what people are writing.

I think the general consensus here is that capitalism is the problem rather than over-population. Yeah, some of the liberals are not quite on message yet but no-one is talking about castrating the poor. For a start, capitalism needs the poor so that is never going to happen!

I've read what they've said, have you? Overpopulation this and that; reducing the population of the UK by 3/4; give up our liberties now to prevent Bedlam in the future; stopping women from getting fertility treatment;they even seem think the Chinese government are too wishy washy. There's bugger all about the evils of capitalism on this thread and lots about those horrible surplus human beings.

The kind of shit Jimmy Goldsmith and John Aspinall (read the article to remind yourselfof the latters desire to wipe out 3.5billion and bring on a fascist coup in the UK) were cacking out 20 years ago

 

[tim]

Are you really that old?

I plug myself in every night. As I've already said, technology is amazing.

 

[Wolveryeti]

What exactly do you suggest the benign green dictators should take:

Government black ops to either put contraceptives in the water supply or genetically engineer an airborne version of that STD that is symptomless but can make you infertile (Chlamydia I think it is).

 

[david dissadent]

Lots of conjectue here and a clear focus on preindustrial often isolated island communities.

This may be because we only have about 200 years worth of industrilised history. And even that offers the grim specter of the collaopse of the Soviet Union, and that was a nation with the worlds second largest energy reserves, plentiful water and good land and no discernable global warming at the time of collapse.

Industrial societies can collapse by simple mismanagement let alone running low on vital resources.

I know that you greenies have a horror of scientific and technological progress,

And again ad hominem in place of reasond argument.

but it's made my life and that of billions of other better over the last few centuries.

Well done! And now address the points previously raised.

 

[david dissadent]

I think the general consensus here is that capitalism is the problem rather than over-population.

I would say that it is the potential of running out of resources meaning that we have more people in the future than food or potable water.

But I would agree that capitalism will not provide the answers.

And as I have not said too much about the overpopulation, I honestly do not know if we are in a situation of population overshoot or what a ideal or even bearable population for the world should be. I do strongly feel that there are a few problems rapidly aproaching that make having a very long and hard look at those questions very important.

 

[laptop]

Blimey, it's like arguing with Frank Furedi.



Scarily like it...

 

[tim]

This may be because we only have about 200 years worth of industrilised history. And even that offers the grim specter of the collaopse of the Soviet Union, and that was a nation with the worlds second largest energy reserves, plentiful water and good land and no discernable global warming at the time of collapse.

No global warming in the early 90's? that's not the line that you lot usually push.

And Russia and other former republics are still around. Russia still has it's reserves and despite low birthrates and vodka induced deaths a nice big population. It has't quite gone the way of your reideer.

 

[tim]

Blimey, it's like arguing with Frank Furedi.



Scarily like it...

I was at university with a lot of those RCPers, an odd lot.

 

[david dissadent]

No global warming in the early 90's? that's not the line that you lot usually push.

And Russia and other former republics are still around. Russia still has it's reserves and despite low birthrates and vodka induced deaths a nice big population. It has't quite gone the way of your reideer.

Tim. I am not used to dealing with slow learners but I will persist anyway. You do realize that when it collapsed the Soviet Union did so in a world where a number of financially well endowed powers had an interest in maintaining some semblance of order and continued to exist as trade partners?

Ok let us review the lessons so far.
-Organisms are capable of reaching population levels that are termed 'overshoot', where they are dependent on non renewable (or slowly renewing) resources. When these run out the population experiencing crashes that in extreme cases can lead to extinction of the population group.
-Due to potential constraints upon crops and water it is reasonable to believe the current human population could be approaching an overshoot.
-Unlike you have stated, human populations are 'dumb' enough to have had population crashes that have led to local extinction.
-Even past complex societies have experienced collapse and population reductions.
-Unlike you have stated, there are examples of industrialized societies that have collapsed.

Ergo there is no fundamental reason to assume that our current society is not vulnerable to a collapse and even a die back.
It is reasonable and prudent to examine the threats posed and to discuss mitigation. Some argue that managed population reductions may be a necessary mitigation.

 

[tim]

A Marxist perspective on all this highlighting the fact that this reactionary Malthusian shit has been pedaled for the last two centuries. The same nasty arguments used by used to justify the same conservative anti-human stance.

A nice little quote from Engels on Malthus and his ideas: "...the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed, a system of despair which struck down all those beautiful phrases about love thy neighbour and world citizenship."

 

[smokedout]

This may be because we only have about 200 years worth of industrilised history. And even that offers the grim specter of the collaopse of the Soviet Union, and that was a nation with the worlds second largest energy reserves, plentiful water and good land and no discernable global warming at the time of collapse.

Industrial societies can collapse by simple mismanagement let alone running low on vital resources.

and 40 years of the cold war, sorry but your argument here doesnt add up, the soviet collapsed for military, economic and political reasons

i dont recall there being a population crash

 

[frogwoman]

There's been a population crash post-1989 though.

nice one IMF

 

[durruti02]

I dont really think the world is overpopulated. There are some places that are overpopulated and migration makes this worse,but others underpopulated.If you look at Ireland before the famine the population was 5 m compared to the uks population of 8 million.
Parts of the British Isles are overpopulated but others like Ireland and the highlands definetely aernt. And its the same across the world.
What is needed is a more even spread of wealth and people across the globe.

there is little question the earth is underpopulated in most areas as regards humans .. the question is what happens to the rest of the species that used to live in these places

 

[durruti02]

A Marxist perspective on all this highlighting the fact that this reactionary Malthusian shit has been pedaled for the last two centuries. The same nasty arguments used by used to justify the same conservative anti-human stance.

A nice little quote from Engels on Malthus and his ideas: "...the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed, a system of despair which struck down all those beautiful phrases about love thy neighbour and world citizenship."

" nor is it to be deny that population growth is one of the most serious problems of the contempoary age " from the link above page 10 third para

Tim you have done a classic here .. you are arguing against people who are not here .. no one is arguing what you accuse them of .. i see everyone on this thread ( well at least me!) arguing that capital is the issue .. but that within that the issue of population needs to be discussed ..

marx and engels quite rightly saw capital to be revolutionary .. capital by its essence needs growth including of population .. post capitalists/socialists / revolutionaries should not be denied arguing how sustainable post capitalist societies would work re population by daft arguements they are trying to resurrect Maltusian arguements or worse give credence to green fascism

specifically can i ask why does post capitalism i.e. communism need growth as does capitalism?

 

[tim]

" nor is it to be deny that population growth is one of the most serious problems of the contempoary age " from the link above page 10 third para

Tim you have done a classic here .. you are arguing against people who are not here .. no one is arguing what you accuse them of .. i see everyone on this thread ( well at least me!) arguing that capital is the issue .. but that within that the issue of population needs to be discussed ..

marx and engels quite rightly saw capital to be revolutionary .. capital by its essence needs growth including of population .. post capitalists/socialists / revolutionaries should not be denied arguing how sustainable post capitalist societies would work re population by daft arguements they are trying to resurrect Maltusian arguements or worse give credence to green fascism

specifically can i ask why does post capitalism i.e. communism need growth as does capitalism?

To provide people with a decent quality of life, something that most people still don't have and which the approach advocated by some here would prevent them from having.

Whatever you may be arguing there are clearly posts here with a different overtly reactionary agenda, look back and read them if you don't believe me, pushing an overtly neo-Malthusian line, backed up by the old disaster is innevitable; there are too many people; what about the other species nonesense.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Clamouring for global systemic change whilst ignoring vastly more achievable goals such as curbs on population growth is like calling for the installation of a fire alarm while the house is burning down.

 

[smokedout]

whilst ignoring vastly more achievable goals such as curbs on population growth

so how do you suggest that global population reduction is achieved

 

[Fruitloop]

It's important to note that population growth isn't a geographically uniform phenomenon, it's happening in particular places for particular reasons. Europe's population is declining, for example.

So maybe the place to start is to look at the areas with the greatest increase in population and try to work out what is going on there.

 

[fredfelt]

It seems that blaming environmental problems on population growth neatly moves the responsibility of climate change from the stable populations of the West to the growing populations of the developing world.

Economic growth, driven from rich countries is rising faster than population growth. In the rich world per person we produce, I guessing here, 50 times more carbon than someone in developing world.

For these reasons trying to focus the blame on the problems facing our planet on population growth is not helpful.

 

[Fruitloop]

Yeah I agree. But if the world population is going to be allowed to grow uncotrolled to 9-10 billion then we are all going to have to live very fucking sustainably, not to say rather meagrely. Or move to space.

 

[laptop]

Yeah I agree. But if the world population is going to be allowed to grow uncotrolled to 9-10 billion then we are all going to have to live very fucking sustainably, not to say rather meagrely. Or move to space.

The "allowed" is the huge gap in the population lobby's thinking.

Again:

The population bomb has already gone off.

If every woman now of fertile age has only two children on average, we're still headed for 9 billion people in 2050.

The issues now are unemployment and hunger, not contraception, although many people still need easier access to the contraception they want.

Reproductive rates are already declining fast: if this trend continues, population will fall after 2050. The only ways to slow it further would be an even more rapid fall in birth rates - which would need impossibly rapid cultural change - or a massive rise in mortality.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926630.100-what-price-more-food.html

The women who are going to have those babies have already been born. Nearly half the world's population is under 14.

The things that do appear to have an effect on the number of babies those women choose to have are:

• first, by a long way, education for all girls
• second, healthcare for all
• third, by a long way, availability of contraception

A crash programme to do these things, though good in its own right, would have a marginal effect on the peak population.

So we're left wondering whether the population lobby is advocating a massive rise in mortality, and by what means. We're left wondering whether they're advocating death for the wrong sort of people.

 

[Fruitloop]

Death for the wrong sort of people is already upon us, witness the declining population in Southern Africa due to HIV infection.

 

[Fruitloop]

Also, really I wonder if that 9-10 billion 'peak' will actually be reached. There are a lot of externalities around stuff like resource sustainability, climate change, pandemic etc etc.

 

[elbows]

Yes and how much of that 9-10 billion figure is due to long life expectancy? Because that could easily be reversed, say for example if antibiotics lose their effectiveness.