I'd be in very big trouble if the 2 child policy was in effect here.

Though over the last few years here the federal government has been paying people to have more kids to support us old people in retirement (damn I never got paid to have kids). :-(

Cheers.

Offering tax breaks or some reward for people who undergo a voluntary sterilisation?
That way the system is based on reward rather than punishment.
Carrot rather than stick.
Just a thought.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

It simply can't happen Wiggo, we all know that. China gets away with it because it is a communist state, the Western world isn't, thank God. But the world is experiencing an exponential rise in population. So how do we go about dealing with that? Birth control advice, put something in the water supplies?

No its not.

wikipedia

graph

another graph

growth rate decreases actually

The idea that the worlds population increases exponentially is a myth from the 18th century when British economist Malthus stated that such a thing would happen and that as a result at some point the future everyone would be starving. As a result, he advocated some pretty harsh policies directed at poor people. For some inexplicable reason people always assume that what he stated was true even though its total nonsense (along with his prediction about our inability to increase food production). The reality is as shown in the graphs. Yes, population is projected to increase but not at an exponential rate. In most western countries birth rates are actually dropping, and one can see that virtually all of the population growth happens in developing countries. It is projected that once they reach a certain level of wealth and economic development, birth rates will start to drop there as well.

Also, think about it, in order for exponential growth, on average people would need to get little over 4 children per family. In reality, the average number of children per family is something around 2.4 children.

We don't want them to stop breeding altogether, but i'm not convinced it's outside our power to regulate it somewhat.
In normal biology, an organism finds an equilibrium with it's environment (in terms of food, shelter, mating partners, etc) so the population rises to a sustainable level and is maintained until some outside factor intervenes (flood, drought, geological upheaval, whatever).
Humans have short circuited this process (by building artificial shelter, farming, medicine, etc) so our growth has become unsustainable. But, the advantage we have as a species is our intelligence and ability to plan ahead. So it's time we did something about it, surely that can't be beyond our capability?

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

The examples you have shown are of too short time span, try going back a few hundred years.

As the population has doubled in the last 50 years, if it ws a straight line, then about 100 years ago the population of the world would have been zero.

I can't see that happening either Simon. The honest fact is that we cannot stop the human race breeding.

You can try to ask them not to
You can try to make them not to

But human nature says they will anyway. And it is true the the poorer nations will probably be a bigger problem than the richer ones. So, at the end of the day, what does the world do about it? I haven't got an answer, has anyone else?

Yeah, that graph covers 2000 years of human growth rates so it appears exponential. Current predictions show that human population will stop growing after 2050. On top of that, this world can easily sustain a population of 11 billion people. Obviously, we may have to make certain changes in our food production (like not leave it to the free market) and the way we use our space. But mass starvation can easily be held off. Along with advances in technology we can probably increase the amount of food (cloned meat anyone?) decrease the amount of waste, and if you are a real optimist, perhaps even reduce the need for food to a minimum (digitized personalities living in cyberspace!). Technology can save us.

The examples you have shown are of too short time span, try going back a few hundred years.

As the population has doubled in the last 50 years, if it ws a straight line, then about 100 years ago the population of the world would have been zero.

It was exponential. Now it stopped being exponential. Therefor the statement that human growth rates are exponential is false. If it were, it would still show on the short time span graphs as well.

@Мишель - Technology will save us. Not against human nature it won't.

Human nature is overrated and easily tricked. Procreation is not part of human nature, sex is. And since the invention of extremely effective contraception methods, we have plenty of sex without spawning a litter of children. If you look at the statistics for the west you can see a turning point in birth rates that virtually happens overnight. One year we are mass producing babies, and a decade later we suddenly only have 2-3 children on average.

So yeah, I'm convinced that technology triumphs over human nature.

@Мишель - Technology will save us. Not against human nature it won't.

Human nature is overrated and easily tricked. Procreation is not part of human nature, sex is. And since the invention of extremely effective contraception methods, we have plenty of sex without spawning a litter of children. If you look at the statistics for the west you can see a turning point in birth rates that virtually happens overnight. One year we are mass producing babies, and a decade later we suddenly only have 2-3 children on average.

So yeah, I'm convinced that technology triumphs over human nature.

It's is not all about technology, it is also about education. Educate people that it is more economical to have have smaller families and that there are give them the technology to prevent births.

graphs, and you only get the decrease if you increase efforts in Africa and a few other places.

It's is not all about technology, it is also about education. Educate people that it is more economical to have have smaller families and that there are give them the technology to prevent births.

Well thats the thing. For now it is actually more economical in these developing countries to have more children. First because a lot of them won't make it into adulthood, and second, children there are basically their parents insurance for the future. They can help on the land, they can take care of their parents when they are old and sick, etc. So before it makes sense to tell them that its better if they have less children, we first need to structure their economy and state in such a way that parents no longer need children to help them earn money or take care of them when they are old. At the same time, its probably not a bad idea to increase the cost of having a lot of children as well. That way you create a viable economic environment that would stimulate the use of birth control methods.

But in any case, advances in technology can for a large degree mitigate the pressure of a larger world population.

Washington post has a World map of population growth

I wonder what Australia would have looked like if we didn't have the "Baby Bonus".

Cheers.

I can't see that happening either Simon. The honest fact is that we cannot stop the human race breeding.

You can try to ask them not to
You can try to make them not to

But human nature says they will anyway. And it is true the the poorer nations will probably be a bigger problem than the richer ones. So, at the end of the day, what does the world do about it? I haven't got an answer, has anyone else?

Yeah, that graph covers 2000 years of human growth rates so it appears exponential. Current predictions show that human population will stop growing after 2050. On top of that, this world can easily sustain a population of 11 billion people. Obviously, we may have to make certain changes in our food production (like not leave it to the free market) and the way we use our space. But mass starvation can easily be held off. Along with advances in technology we can probably increase the amount of food (cloned meat anyone?) decrease the amount of waste, and if you are a real optimist, perhaps even reduce the need for food to a minimum (digitized personalities living in cyberspace!). Technology can save us.

Take farming out of the free market? Are you joking? How did those collective farms work out for Russia? I seem to recall the US sold them a lot of damn wheat and other grains. Mass starvation can be easily held off? Since when? It still happens today.

I like the idea about getting paid not to have kids. You have more than two your tax rate goes up. Get fixed you get a tax reduction. I like that idea a lot. Can I get retroactive pay for my vasectomy:)

---

[/quote]

Old James

Maybe that there is theoretically enough land and technology to feed 11 or 12 billion, but is there enough water. Over thirty years ago there were predictions that the next major wars would be about water rights.

There are several problems in the US already that could be guides to what could happen, if it was not in the US, but were countries with already strained relationships.

Maybe that there is theoretically enough land and technology to feed 11 or 12 billion, but is there enough water. Over thirty years ago there were predictions that the next major wars would be about water rights.

There are several problems in the US already that could be guides to what could happen, if it was not in the US, but were countries with already strained relationships.

You are correct on the water problems. we have several states laying claim for water rights. Florida and Georgia. The Great lake states have asserted there claim to the water rights from being sent down south to a neighboring state. Out west I cant recall off hand what states are fighting over water rights. It will get nasty if a severe drought hits in the US. I cant even think what will happen if another country tries to horn in.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Maybe that there is theoretically enough land and technology to feed 11 or 12 billion, but is there enough water. Over thirty years ago there were predictions that the next major wars would be about water rights.

There are several problems in the US already that could be guides to what could happen, if it was not in the US, but were countries with already strained relationships.

You are correct on the water problems. we have several states laying claim for water rights. Florida and Georgia. The Great lake states have asserted there claim to the water rights from being sent down south to a neighboring state. Out west I cant recall off hand what states are fighting over water rights. It will get nasty if a severe drought hits in the US. I cant even think what will happen if another country tries to horn in.

What if your northern neighbour decides they don't like you taking water from there half of the Great lakes?

Maybe that there is theoretically enough land and technology to feed 11 or 12 billion, but is there enough water. Over thirty years ago there were predictions that the next major wars would be about water rights.

There are several problems in the US already that could be guides to what could happen, if it was not in the US, but were countries with already strained relationships.

You are correct on the water problems. we have several states laying claim for water rights. Florida and Georgia. The Great lake states have asserted there claim to the water rights from being sent down south to a neighboring state. Out west I cant recall off hand what states are fighting over water rights. It will get nasty if a severe drought hits in the US. I cant even think what will happen if another country tries to horn in.

What if your northern neighbour decides they don't like you taking water from there half of the Great lakes?

They are one half of the great lakes agreement. They dont like sending water out of the system either.

---

[/quote]

Old James

There are Water problems in CA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California

Take farming out of the free market? Are you joking? How did those collective farms work out for Russia? I seem to recall the US sold them a lot of damn wheat and other grains. Mass starvation can be easily held off? Since when? It still happens today.

The alternative to free market farming is not collective farming. Furthermore, free market farming is a disaster waiting to happen. Oh wait, its already a disaster in progress. The problem of the free market is that without subsidies it produces at a sub optimal rate. It grows only enough food that would get them that magical spot where the supply and demand curves meet. Sadly that means people are going to be left out in the cold because the price is to high. Furthermore, farmers will sell their food to whoever pays the most. In the United States for example, the people paying the most are not the consumers, it are biofuel companies. 60% of all corn produced in the US gets turned into biofuel. Great, but that means less food, which btw, also affects the supply and demand curve and prices go up.

Then there is of course the problem of speculation. Since we introduced more free market into the food sector, food prices have been going up like crazy, thanks to speculators on Wall Street who earn truckloads of cash by doing this. Great right? Well, not really that great if you live in Africa and now can't afford to feed your family because some rich dude on Wall Street saw fit to artificially inflate the price of food.

Finally there is of course the problem of companies like Monsanto who's business practices resemble that of some evil James Bond organization, forcing farmers to pay each year for using their seeds. Not much of a problem in the west but if you are an African farmer, that might be troublesome. And in any case, it drives up the price of food.

All in all, these practices result that while a small group of people get extremely rich, poor people in Africa are starving. And in case of a population of 12 billion people, if we want to feed them, we gotta use our food production capabilities to the limit if we want to put a decent amount of food on the table for everyone. That objective conflicts with the objectives of the free market and therefor the market must be made less free. Not by collectivization because indeed, that doesn't work. But subsidizing your farmer has already proven to result in over production, and at the same time the consumer doesn't have to pay a ridiculously high price in the super market.

Maybe that there is theoretically enough land and technology to feed 11 or 12 billion, but is there enough water. Over thirty years ago there were predictions that the next major wars would be about water rights.

Two-thirds of the planet's surface is covered with water, there's plenty.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.