What has happened to us?

[Callie Del Noire]

Considering how some birth control pills work.. by preventing the fertilized egg from clinging to the uterine (sp?) wall, that would violate the 'Personhood' conception of life right off the bat. Reminds me of what my mom told me about getting birthcontrol for herself in Ireland back in the 70s.

"I had to find a doctor willing to write the perscription, and a druggist wiling to fill it'."

[LustfulLord2011]

I'm sorry, but given the gross and ever-accelerating overpopulation problem in this country, I am actually in favor of, rather than legally trying to challenge the right to birth control, MANDATING it's use, legally, until one has reached a certain age, and even then, reinstating it's use after one has borne/sired two children.

[TheGlyphstone]

Personally, I'd rather see, instead of funds being used to mandate birth control, take all those millions/billions of dollars and throw them at NASA and space development initiatives. The world's getting overpopulated? Let's go find another one, and live there too.

[Zakharra]

I'm sorry, but given the gross and ever-accelerating overpopulation problem in this country, I am actually in favor of, rather than legally trying to challenge the right to birth control, MANDATING it's use, legally, until one has reached a certain age, and even then, reinstating it's use after one has borne/sired two children.

Good luck trying to enforce that restriction without a civil war.   I'm not sure why you would want to enact it anyways. The entire Western (First) world is in a population decline. The US's population has only grown because of immigration. China and India are not in the First world status yet (they are getting there).

Besides, there's still plenty of space left in the US.

[LustfulLord2011]

I'm not talking our country... I am talking globally. We are in trouble. Our food production capabilities are one day comparitively soon fall far short of our need, on a global level, both due to a lack of arable land, and due to political instability in the global food baskets (such as Egypt, which produces 1/6th of the world's grain in that one little river valley). Plus, overcrowding is what makes plagues like the bubonic plague, and smallpox, and other pandemics throughout history possible.

[TheGlyphstone]

Heck, same situation. Instead of wringing our hands and passing ineffectual resolutions against global warming and pollution that developing countries (the ones contributing the most to said problems) either ignore or get written-in exclusions for, assemble a true multinational space development initiative. Private industry is pulling ahead of government space programs by now, and by increasing margins...if we had the motivation and desire to actually cooperate, I could see humans with extraplanetary colonies in fifty years, and extrasolar colonies in a hundred.

[LustfulLord2011]

The problem is that by now, it's already too late. Currently accepted estimates in the scientific community place our global population at ~12 billion by 2030, or even sooner. And what's worse, any worlds we colonized now, without some kind of population control in place, would be just as crowded as Earth within a couple generations. I agree that space colonization needs to be a priority for us (instead of, say, dropping bombs on civilians across the globe), but by itself, it will only delay the problem by a couple of decades, not cure it.

[Zakharra]

The problem is that by now, it's already too late. Currently accepted estimates in the scientific community place our global population at ~12 billion by 2030, or even sooner. And what's worse, any worlds we colonized now, without some kind of population control in place, would be just as crowded as Earth within a couple generations. I agree that space colonization needs to be a priority for us (instead of, say, dropping bombs on civilians across the globe), but by itself, it will only delay the problem by a couple of decades, not cure it.

So.. population control is necessary for a modern society? Even though Europe, Russia and the other Western (First world) nations are having a falling population problem now?  I'm sorry, but any society that feels it's -necessary- to control the population of it's citizens, is not one worth following. That is a very totalitarian type of government I would not be comfortable with.

Do the estimates take into account where the population will be exploding?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Third world countries and populations with lower socioeconomic standing in the world community are the sources for large populations primarily.  Much of these societies still benefit from larger family units as they are agricultural based and rural.  So having five or six children on hand to help at home is a boon for them, rather than an economic hindrance as found in more urban and wealthy areas.  While the birth rate is falling, major urban areas are experiencing larger populations from the influx of people coming in and fewer people leaving.  The issue is not so much the birth rate as it is the death rate.  We are living significantly longer lives now.

[LustfulLord2011]

That is a valid point. However, the "where" doesn't matter. I'm not talking about something that affects just one country. I am talking about the quality of life GLOBALLY. The norm for most people, percentage wise, is living in packed, filthy conditions that help to breed disease and promote starvation. We here in the western world take our lifestyle as the norm, but it isn't... More than half of the world is still so shockingly behind our standard of living that it's unbelievable to those who haven't witnessed it first hand (I haven't, but a friend who toured Africa, southern Asia and the Pacific Islands brought me lots of pictures and videos that would give a grown man nightmares). The more people there are in any given area, the more impossible it becomes to feed them EXCEPT through outside sources, because there simply isn't enough arable land within their territory to support them. Also, the more people there are GLOBALLY, the faster and easier diseases spread. These aren't new ideas; the correlations had already been clearly detected by the time of the Renaissance, and yet somehow people still think that it's okay to continually improve global food production without improving food distribution and finding more room for the resulting people.

[Zakharra]

These aren't new ideas; the correlations had already been clearly detected by the time of the Renaissance, and yet somehow people still think that it's okay to continually improve global food production without improving food distribution and finding more room for the resulting people.

That though is a political, economical and sometimes religious issue preventing food and medicines from flowing in. 

[LustfulLord2011]

To an extent, you're right. But in the end, the fact remains that there are too many people, and soon, really soon, it's likely to make pandemic disease, starvation, and bloodshed across the globe common.

[Zakharra]

 Too many people? Where?  China and India have a population problem and parts of the Third world, but other places not so much.  The First World definitely does not have a population problem.

Who determines how many is too many people?   If I remember right, it was once thought, not too long ago, that the world could not sustain 6 billion people, yet it does fairly easily.

[LustfulLord2011]

Are you aware of the concept of an event horizon? Here is what WILL happen... guaranteed... unarguably... very very soon. We will hit the point where our population growth becomes not just uncontrolled (as it is now), but UNCONTROLLABLE. At that point, it's just a matter of time. The world population is expected to double in the next twenty years. Doublings of the global population have been happening regularly, and the time intervals REQUIRED for them has been decreasing. Once we hit that point... Where population growth in uncontrollable... a collapse is inevitable. A bad one. Famine, disease, and unhealthy, undersirable living conditions will become the norm across the globe. Just because the planet supports us now does NOT mean it always will. In fact, it CAN'T. Any time uncontrolled growth occurs in any system, eventual collapse is assured. It's as consistent as gravity. More so, because while you can't BREAK the law of gravity, you can bend it and play with it a little. This one can't be. Both history and science have shown us that it's one of the very few certainties in the universe. The grim future I have painted is not just a possibility, but a certainty if the current trends continue, and if not within my lifetime, certainly within my children's.

[Jude]

Currently accepted estimates in the scientific community place our global population at ~12 billion by 2030

Current UN estimates (which are the scientific consensus) put our population at 9 - 11 billion by 2050, not 12 billion by 2030.  The rest of the stats and information you give are equally as spurious.

Add to this the fact that the amount of offspring that each individual woman on the planet is producing has been gradually declining (it was like, 5 at around 1920, reached 2.5 in 2000, and is already close to 2), and we will eventually hit a statistical point where we're losing people, not gaining.

This trend is all about industrialization and increased lifespan, and it will eventually balance itself out as the world moves in the direction of Industrialized Nations which have hit a very good population stasis point.

That isn't to say that overpopulation is not something to be mindful of, but the doom and gloom here is quite blatantly inaccurate.

[LustfulLord2011]

Actually, I get my figures from projections of what has ALREADY happened. Also, admittedly the figures that I quoted do not include attrition, which the study mentioned in it's footnotes (which admittedly, I only JUST read), so your numbers probably ARE more accurate in that sense. However, we also have all of the evidence of history to tell us that, whatever may be happening NOW, in terms of contraction of birth rate, it will A) stay above two, and B) continue to rise, on average, over time. We are not talking the patterns of millenia here, but nor are we talking the pattern of years... we are talking the pattern of decades. Contraction may be happening NOW, but it's a temporary wave. It won't stabilize, because people will continue to live longer, and to produce MORE offspring than people who die, and to have more offspring who, thanks to good medical care, nutrition, and comparative (I stress that word) safety live to reach breeding age themselves.

[Jude]

Could you give us links to your evidence?

[LustfulLord2011]

I can give you one... I cleared my history, so it will take me a while to find it again. Also, I need to do some source verification on the numbers... I am not entirely convinced, after hearing your figures, that the ones I found were necessarily meticulously calculated. For example, I have checked four different sources since you quoted your figures, and ALL give me different projections, ranging from the numbers I quoted to 7.5 billion by 2050 (which I believe is absurd, even if you ACCOUNT for attrition). Instead of trying to focus on specific numbers (since it appears no sources I can find agree), lets stick with concepts for a bit.

My first postulation is that continued population growth is inevitable. That it will not stabilize, but that even if it is only .0001 percent annually, it WILL continue to rise. My second postulation is that our current pattern of agriculture depends upon decidedly finite resources (oil). My third is that more people leads to more crowded living conditions, which promotes the spread of disease. Are there any of these points on which we disagree? If so, I would like to hear which, and why.

[Oniya]

Out of curiosity, are the projections based on a purely increasing function (blue line), or an asymptotic one (red one)?


Source: Population Biology 'e-handout', apparently from the University of Winnipeg

[LustfulLord2011]

None of the curves I have seen resemble either of those, but seem rather to range between them. I mean, first off, there is also an uncertainty principle involved because of factors we can't POSSIBLY reasonably predict (such as unnatural large numbers of deaths due to war, natural disasters, or other things). Also, there is the relative reproductive potential of men versus women... A woman can only POTENTIALLY bear a certain number of children in her lifetime, whereas a man can sire ten children a day, or even more, if he has that many fertile women to play with (in fact, one Moroccan Emperor is thought to have sired around 800 children in his lifetime, and is suspected to have potentially sired another 500 that are less certain).

[Oniya]

Those are, of course, idealized curves, but the critical distinction is that one continues to increase at an increasing rate (blue - unrestrained growth) and the other increases at a decreasing rate (red, indicating an eventual leveling off).  I suspect that one major reason that the human population isn't closer to the red curve is that we continue to make advances to make better use of what resources we have.  That change in efficiency sort of 'resets' where the potential maximum would fall.

[Callie Del Noire]

The 'fun' will be seeing how the next few decades affect China.. given some of the gender disparity in some regions is very tilted towards males. (Some regions going as 5 male:1 female by 2050 if it isn't changed)

[Oniya]

The phrase I've heard is that in 20 years, there won't be a single undesirable woman in China.  :P  Either that, or the ethnic diversity in China is going to take a shift.

[LustfulLord2011]

Male-weighted populations (such as that in many areas of China, where the disposal of female children at birth was not an uncommon practice for a very long time) have a naturally more limited reproductive capacity than those that are balanced, and a MUCH more limited one than those that are female heavy. I expect an eventual decline in birth rates in those areas (though not necessarily population, due to potential for immigration from other nearby areas, etc) until the gender balance stabilizes.

As to the curves, I don't think we have really hit unrestrained growth, because TRUE unrestrained growth is the point beyond which no control is possible. We haven't hit it yet, but I see the potential, for a couple of reasons. 1) We continue (globally, if not locally) to overproduce food, so while some populations are starving, globally, we have the food production (currently) to comfortably feed about double the amount of people we have (and that capacity will, at least for a while, continue to improve). 2) expanded capacity for health care, particularly of the preventative variety, means people are living longer and men, in particular, are reproductively viable for many more years than in the past. 3) most modern forms of birth control, for some women, anyway, are getting less reliable, EVEN IF USED CORRECTLY. I have a close friend who has never had unprotected sex in her life, and has religiously taken the pill since she was sixteen... She is currently nursing her sixth son. She's an extreme case, but I hear of more and more "accidents" all the time. I am not sure to what extent this phenomenon is taking place globally, nor it's rate of acceleration if indeed there IS one (I don't even know of any studies that have been done on the topic), but it's a factor, to whatever small degree.

[Zakharra]

3) most modern forms of birth control, for some women, anyway, are getting less reliable, EVEN IF USED CORRECTLY. I have a close friend who has never had unprotected sex in her life, and has religiously taken the pill since she was sixteen... She is currently nursing her sixth son. She's an extreme case, but I hear of more and more "accidents" all the time. I am not sure to what extent this phenomenon is taking place globally, nor it's rate of acceleration if indeed there IS one (I don't even know of any studies that have been done on the topic), but it's a factor, to whatever small degree.

We're going to need to see a link for that. Modern contraceptives becoming -less- effective? That had better have some solid proof backing that statement up.

And you seem to be ignoring that nations that have a First world level of technology, the birth rate has dropped off. Dropped off a lot in some nations, they are going into a population decline. As more of the world reaches the First world status, birth rates seem to fall off as people put off having children for a later time.