Is population reduction the solution to environmental problems?

[hamster143]

Polluted water, overfishing, polluted toxic waste sites, deforestration, land erosion, extinction of valuable species of plants/insects/wildlife caused by the aforementioned.

Much of that is caused by uncontrolled development, rather than overpopulation, and there's no reason to think that simple population controls would eliminate these problems.

To take overfishing as an example. It took fishermen of just a few small countries (Japan, Norway, Iceland and the UK did the bulk of the damage) less than 100 years to fish blue whales to the brink of extinction. The total population of these four countries combined was less than 150 million. It did not matter that there were a few billion poor people in Asia and Africa at the time, those billions have no say in the matter.

Deforestation is happening actively even in those countries where population does not grow significantly. The only thing that keeps the United States from losing its remaining forests is the government and its system of national parks. Lumber companies would only be too happy to cut down Yosemite as long as they can sell wood domestically for profit. And we can all think of a number of ways to use wood, as long as it's sufficiently cheap (wood-powered automobiles, anyone?), no matter if we have 3 billion, 300 million or 100 million people in the country.

 

[Evo]

Much of that is caused by uncontrolled development, rather than overpopulation, and there's no reason to think that simple population controls would eliminate these problems.

To take overfishing as an example. It took fishermen of just a few small countries (Japan, Norway, Iceland and the UK did the bulk of the damage) less than 100 years to fish blue whales to the brink of extinction. The total population of these four countries combined was less than 150 million. It did not matter that there were a few billion poor people in Asia and Africa at the time, those billions have no say in the matter.

Deforestation is happening actively even in those countries where population does not grow significantly. The only thing that keeps the United States from losing its remaining forests is the government and its system of national parks. Lumber companies would only be too happy to cut down Yosemite as long as they can sell wood domestically for profit. And we can all think of a number of ways to use wood, as long as it's sufficiently cheap (wood-powered automobiles, anyone?), no matter if we have 3 billion, 300 million or 100 million people in the country.

So you think that the population growth from ~1 billion humans in 1850 to ~7 billion today have not had a negative impact on the world and that the continued rate of population growth is not a problem?

 

[CRGreathouse]

There will come a point where there are literally so many people on the planet, that it would be utterly impossible to feed them all. By 2800-3000 A.D. There will probably be over 1,000,000,000,000 people on Earth.

 

[baywax]

So you think that the population growth from ~1 billion humans in 1850 to ~7 billion today have not had a negative impact on the world and that the continued rate of population growth is not a problem?

The biggest problem the population explosion has created is a group of people that want to diminish this population via war, famine, disease and a host of other nasty means. Soilent green... its people!

I voted that depopulation would be effective (in taking stress off of the environment) but it would also change the social dynamics of cultures, knowing that death was a solution to social ills. From there I have a feeling that the model of the compassionate community would slip down the slippery slope of fascism. And from there to even more depopulation... hopefully of the fascists.

 

[Evo]

The biggest problem the population explosion has created is a group of people that want to diminish this population via war, famine, disease and a host of other nasty means. Soilent green... its people!

I voted that depopulation would be effective (in taking stress off of the environment) but it would also change the social dynamics of cultures, knowing that death was a solution to social ills. From there I have a feeling that the model of the compassionate community would slip down the slippery slope of fascism. And from there to even more depopulation... hopefully of the fascists.

I'm not suggesting killing anyone, I'm talking about educating people to have fewer children.

 

[baywax]

I'm not suggesting killing anyone, I'm talking about educating people to have fewer children.

That is, ideally, a solution. But, in reality, if you look at China's one child policy, its producing a disproportionate number of males. Females are being aborted or killed. China is turning into a large pool of testosterone and that does not bode well for the future of peace.

Then if you look at other cultures, having children ensures a future. They work the fields or they work the tourists for money. So, not having children, in their minds, means having no future... or retirement fund.

 

[MotoH]

Is there a final solution for reducing the amount of humans?

 

[Evo]

If we aren't able to voluntarily stop population increase, sooner or later we won't have a choice anymore, there will become a point where it will lead to war over protecting property, the ability to provide food, sanitation, clean air and water, medical supplies, etc... will eventually lead to widespread health problems, which would lead to lowering populations, but most likely in poorer nations. Plus once natural resources like land and water are depleted or contaminated, it takes many human generations for the planet to heal these things, and that's in the event we allow it the ability to heal.

 

[MotoH]

Do humans really taste that bad? I could go for some Soylent Green right about now!

The only "humane" way of reducing population is to limit child output, but how do we enforce that in uncivilized Africa? It isn't like we can just go there and give them a crate of Durex condoms.

China we don't have to worry about. Eventually it will all be males, and the last time I checked it isn't easy to reproduce with yourself!

 

[CRGreathouse]

If we aren't able to voluntarily stop population increase, sooner or later we won't have a choice anymore, there will become a point where it will lead to war over protecting property, the ability to provide food, sanitation, clean air and water, medical supplies, etc... will eventually lead to widespread health problems, which would lead to lowering populations, but most likely in poorer nations.

You present a false choice. There will be no sudden time when that happens -- the various pressures will just increase as we tend toward the limiting capacity of a particular resource. Living in the first world, I notice this mostly in terms of depletion of certain rare heavy metals used in electronics manufacturing.

And of course the process is going on, right now... in most of Africa, for example.

 

[Evo]

You present a false choice. There will be no sudden time when that happens

I didn't mean literally one day everything is ok, then we have a week to make a decision. It's a manner of speaking "there will come a point".

 

[The Kirby]

The only "humane" way of reducing population is to limit child output, but how do we enforce that in uncivilized Africa? It isn't like we can just go there and give them a crate of Durex condoms.

*cough* Nukes *cough*

Only kidding. I'm not for or against abortion, but I think that not only should 1-child laws be passed (because America has many families of 10+ children), but the state should have control of the children...I mean, what to do with the children. I think, to avoid the male domination problem, all babies born should be taken into consideration with the current population situation in that state. They should try to keep only a slight amount more of males, and if the baby born would put the gender percentages out of line, it would be aborted. If twins or triplets were to be born, only one baby would be kept by the family. Any others would be put up for adoption or put to sleep. As cruel as it sounds, it would be a moderately effective way of stopping overpopulation.

(Written at 3 AM, so sorry if it comes off sounding...bad.)

 

[baywax]

If all the people who think someone else should die or not be born (to save the human race) were euthanized, a very large percentage of the human population would disappear. Problem solved.

 

[The Kirby]

I was half-kidding though. The real question we should ask is: "Would further human population hurt or heal Earth?"

 

[MotoH]

If we force people to not have children, than that is infringing on their "natural human rights" You sure as heck shouldn't have 10 kids if you live in a metro area, but on a farm I believe it is still ok.

One major change that could happen now, if the UK gets rid of its paying for children dealio, the entire population of muslims and chavs would stop having as many babies and reaping the benefits.

 

[BenVitale]

Bill Gates on Ted Talk : Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero!

Bill Gates talk about energy and climate.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html


Bill Gates calls for population reduction, for a Malthusian population manipulation.

What do you think?

 

[baywax]

Which reminds me. People that want to own a dog should be forced to own acreage to the tune of 5 acres per 3 ounces of the weight of the dog. This way I don't have to watch them scooping up after their little precious. Hell, we could really be a bunch of little Hitlers if we wanted, eh.

 

[Evo]

Which reminds me. People that want to own a dog should be forced to own acreage to the tune of 5 acres per 3 ounces of the weight of the dog. This way I don't have to watch them scooping up after their little precious. Hell, we could really be a bunch of little Hitlers if we wanted, eh.

That doesn't make any sense. If you were making a joke, I apologize, I didn't get it.

So, do you believe that the number of humans on this planet and the rate at which the population is increasing is not a problem? If so, why? And do you have any studies to show that the increasing world population is not negatively impacting our environment?

I've posted links to studies that show it to be having devastating effects.

 

[baywax]

That doesn't make any sense. If you were making a joke, I apologize, I didn't get it.

So, do you believe that the number of humans on this planet and the rate at which the population is increasing is not a problem? If so, why? And do you have any studies to show that the increasing world population is not negatively impacting our environment?

I've posted links to studies that show it to be having devastating effects.

I have a feeling the population will decrease without humans purposefully limiting births, increasing deaths etc...

The answer to your question is in the studies you have... our population will be decreased by our devastated environment. We don't last long without clean water, in high radiation from the sun or underwater from rising sea levels. We don't live well when every human is making plans for themselves and screwing everyone else... but that has always been the human way... on average. As far as the planet goes, it will survive either as a rock or a home to some examples of life.

As a devil's advocate I will link you to on study that questions the relationship between population growth and a deteriorating quality of environment...

A complex problem

While the global and local list of environmental problems is long and growing, it's difficult to be certain of the extent to which population growth is a contributing factor. For example, land degradation in Australia is a major concern. Rabbits are a major cause of land degradation in some regions of the country, yet they were introduced to the country by just one person. This is a problem of too many rabbits, not too many people.

Clearly, the relationship between the environment and population is complex. To explore it further, we need first to look at population growth.

http://www.science.org.au/nova/087/087print.htm

The one person to too many rabbits idea can be seen in reverse where we see a larger population creating its higher standard of living which in turn takes into account the environment... as a paramount issue. For instance, the solar energy project in Northern Africa, by 2016, is capable of generating enough energy for the entire world economy. This would greatly reduce stress on the environment... and its an idea bourn of humans from a growing population... in Germany. So, you can see that from the bowels of the "evil" large population, comes ideas that actually reduce stress on the environment... and things may be surprising.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/16/solar-power-europe-africa

Its just too difficult to stay away from racism when discussing over population. Its becomes obvious that the northern, caucasian sub-species is dwindling in size while the billion Indian and the 1.4 billion Asian populations are growing at an alarming rate. So, when you talk about imposing a limit on births or a limit on any individual pursuit... you have to ask yourself how you would feel under those same circumstances. I know I would probably revolt and move to Canada... or the US where I could have all the children I want.