Population control - do we need it?

[MidnightFlyer]

The population of the world is three times what it was sixty years ago.

China has already introduced this, and we all know what people do over there because of it.

It seems a bit too controlling for me, but when we bear in mind that the millions born every year will all need places to live, food to eat, health care etc. I personally don't know what is best, but we can't carry on at this rate.

Anyone else?

 

[SS4]

Sort of. Certainly in LEDCs there needs to be population control but if you look at MEDCs the birth rate needs to increase to stop a decline.

The trouble comes in enforcing it. Here in Britain how do we stop the work shy and the immigrants having quite so many children yet encourage the "natives" to have more?

 

[Greenback]

This planet does not have infinte resources. The rate of population increase needs to be slowed down otherwise we will face very difficult choices in a few years time.

How we achieve this I don't know - perhaps it is best left to the individaul countries, but then we run the risk that the population explosion will continue.

 

[thefab444]

Almost certainly yes, the world can hardly support the level of population we have at the moment let alone the projected rise to about 9 billion by 2050.

For LEDCs, perhaps aid could be distributed on the basis of birth rates i.e. the lower the birth rate, the higher the aid rate. For MEDCs, there would no doubt be considerable resistance to a Chinese style "One Child Policy".

 

[Class172]

Well the global population is set to reach 9 million billion shortly after 2050; after that it will flatten out or even decrease due to the lack of vital resources such as food and water. Furthermore, a greater population contributes to more pollution and loss of habitats, thus contributing to climate change.

England is one of the most (if not the most) densly populated countries in the world. We talk about trains being cattle trucks, soon it'll be the whole country! Take the M25 for example - is that an enjoyable experience being stuck for upto 2 hours in a traffic jam.

[Moan mode] Here in Droitwich, developers have put up a proposal for 800 homes and a 200 bed caring facility. If it goes ahead it will add upto 3000 people to a town of just 23,000. The site is nearer to Worcester than it is to Droitwich centre. It is completely unsustainable - Highways Agency have already put it on hold due to the traffic impacts it'd have. Now, it has been shown there is no local demand for houses, so who do you think they'll go to? Most likely people who will not benefit the town (ie work elsewhere/benefits) or are from other countries.[/Moan mode]

(Sorry I got a bit carried away!)

 

[ainsworth74]

For MEDCs, there would no doubt be considerable resistance to a Chinese style "One Child Policy".

Not sure that MEDCs need to really worry much about population control in terms of births as the vast majority of them have fertility rates below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) meaning over time the population would slowly decrease (if you ignore migration that is). In Japan for example the birth rate is actually lower than the death rate! So I'm not sure MEDCs really need to worry about population control but instead the issue there is what do you do with regards to immigration.

In the LEDCs however there could be something to be said for your idea of linking aid with birth rate but at the same time how would they go about it?

Well the global population is set to reach 9 million shortly after 2050

I hope not as that would mean in excess of 6 billion deaths in the next 40 years!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

England is one of the most (if not the most) densly populated countries in the world. We talk about trains being cattle trucks, soon it'll be the whole country! Take the M25 for example - is that an enjoyable experience being stuck for upto 2 hours in a traffic jam.

We are actually only 53rd, behind countries like Belgium, South Korea, Lebanon and the Netherlands.

 

[Class172]

We are actually only 53rd, behind countries like Belgium, South Korea, Lebanon and the Netherlands.

I thought that was for the UK as a whole, not just England. :?

Bear in mind though, half those countries in the top 50 are tiny, generally island atolls or principalities such as Palau or Monaco. If you only count countries with populations of over 10million, then I'll think we would be much higher.

 

[GB]

Well the global population is set to reach 9 million shortly after 2050

If only that were the case!

 

[thefab444]

9 million, that means a 0.15% chance of survival.

Not sure that MEDCs need to really worry much about population control in terms of births as the vast majority of them have fertility rates below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) meaning over time the population would slowly decrease (if you ignore migration that is). In Japan for example the birth rate is actually lower than the death rate! So I'm not sure MEDCs really need to worry about population control but instead the issue there is what do you do with regards to immigration.

In the LEDCs however there could be something to be said for your idea of linking aid with birth rate but at the same time how would they go about it!

Yes, I suppose you have a point there. The problem with non-EU migration could be dealt with by improving the standards of living in the countries the migrants come from.

I don't know enough about it to determine how a balance between aid and birth rate would be achieved. However, it seems to me somewhat pointless to pour aid into countries where the birth rate is so high, all that means is next time the problem will be considerably worse and require even more aid.

 

[SS4]

I wonder if it's a coincidence that most of the countries with a low birth rate have a secular judiciary system?

 

[talltim]

I thought that was for the UK as a whole, not just England. :?

Bear in mind though, half those countries in the top 50 are tiny, generally island atolls or principalities such as Palau or Monaco. If you only count countries with populations of over 10million, then I'll think we would be much higher.

Well, if you want to be selective, GB has the highest population density of countries with a population of 62,041,708 on January 1, 2010.
England has a population density at around the 40th in the world mark, or 20th in large countries with over 10 million.

High birth rate tends to be linked to a high infant mortality rate, poor education and a subsistance economy (more workers required to farm). All of these things can be improved with aid and a fairer world view.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

From my reckoing, England is the tenth most-densely populated country with over 1,000,000 inhabitants (though that lists includes 'Palestinian Territories' etc above them).

 

[43021HST]

I'm all for population control in this country, Every advert for a baby product should be replaced by a condom ad.

couples with more than two kids should be taxed heavily.
Couples with no kids at all should be rewarded and not treated as outcasts.

 

[SS4]

I'm all for population control in this country, Every advert for a baby product should be replaced by a condom ad.

couples with more than two kids should be taxed heavily.
Couples with no kids at all should be rewarded and not treated as outcasts.

What do you do about an ageing population though? Immigration is possible but then you're going to be changing the identity of this country often for the worse. It would be better to curb the birth rate aboard and maintain it at about 2.1 children per couple at home.

 

[Greenback]

There is little logic in keeping the birth rate high in order to counter the problems posed by an ageing population if there are not going to be enough jobs, food, water or other resources to go around. One day we will get to that point.

 

[LE Greys]

I'm all for population control in this country, Every advert for a baby product should be replaced by a condom ad.

couples with more than two kids should be taxed heavily.
Couples with no kids at all should be rewarded and not treated as outcasts.

That's slightly extreme, but wind that down a little and we could have flat-rate child benefit (you get the same for one child as you do ten) and possibly a requirement to send third or fourth children to fee-paying schools. Multiple-births would cause a problem, it's not fair if people go over the limit from something they cannot help. Importantly, IVF should be banned.

The alternative would be to have the centres of British cities transform into something resembling metropolitan Tokyo. Can we really imagine London as crowded as that?

 

[talltim]

To maintain a stable population the birthdate needs to be higher that 2 per couple. There will always be those that choose not to or can't have children.
I think we should only accept immigrants from Switzerland, that way we might end up with a well run railway!

 

[ainsworth74]

Importantly, IVF should be banned.

But I like being alive, if it weren't for IVF I wouldn't have been born.

 

[Greenback]

But I like being alive, if it weren't for IVF I wouldn't have been born.

There has been no suggestion that any ban on IVF should be retrospective!

 

[ainsworth74]

There has been no suggestion that any ban on IVF should be retrospective!

*Groan* Very funny Greenback

My point was more thinking about other couples like my parents who could only have a child with the use of IVF

 

[Greenback]

*Groan* Very funny Greenback

My point was more thinking about other couples like my parents who could only have a child with the use of IVF

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Whether IVF should be banned is probably irrelevant to the birth rate debate. I don't think it matters whether you have children by natural means or with the help of IVF. The only thing about the latter is that there is a greater chance of mulitplte births, allegedly.

The question is whether we should limit people to having a set number of offspring (excluding multiple births) or not? And if we do have a limit, how would it be enforced/encouraged?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Stop any form of benefit after the second pregnancy?

 

[SS4]

In this country the limit could not be enforced but it can be encouraged by financial incentives such as tax breaks for those who don't have kids or financial barriers to having more such as cutting child tax credits although it would only stop the poor having children so it's by no means perfect.

I think the issue is cultural too though, I mean the Catholic church does not believe in artificial contraception and in some religions polygamy is accepted.

 

[RyanB]

Control of global population is required, there is no way that this planet can safely support nearly 7 billion people, and that figure is set to rise 9 billion in the next 40 years. I'm not racist but I feel that aid should not be given to developing countries so freely, they aren't going to give us anything in return are they, aside from putting a burden on everyone else as resources start to become scarce and spread more thinl due to an ever increasing global population.

China used to be a problem but it's population has now begun to stabilise following the introduction of the one child policy, India is now the problem, as the population there now exceeds a billion and looks set to overtake China in terms of overall population very soon.

A major part of the problem is religion, the catholic church wasn't and still isn't a big fan of contraception, as a result on the African continent the population grows rapidly as people believe take the word of the pope and the church as the be all and the end all, this also had the side-effect of creating the HIV/AIDS epidemic but that's another useful part of nature's repetoire for population control.

 

[GB]

this also had the side-effect of creating the HIV/AIDS epidemic but that's another useful part of nature's repetoire for population control.

I seriously object to your use of the word "useful" in these contexts!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Well the global population is set to reach 9 million shortly after 2050; after that it will flatten out or even decrease due to the lack of vital resources such as food and water. Furthermore, a greater population contributes to more pollution and loss of habitats, thus contributing to climate change.

I'm guessing you mean 9 billion, not 9 million? Anyway, eventually the population will flatten out out decrease due to food and water shortages. However, with increased population I reckon humanity might be too good at using/developing technology for its own good, and coupled with climate change will perhaps bring us to the point where we have completly wiped out anything we can live on and thereby eventually bring about our own extinction. That's not 2050, maybe not even 2250. However, right now fish stocks are collapsing and climate change threatens to cause a mass extinction at some point in the future. The human race could try to rise higher than they ever have before by adopting a global one child policy now to try to save ourselves and everything else. Fail, and humanity will fall so much lower, and worse will bring the rest of life on Earth down with it.


The global population is too big already, with the population fixed at its current level we might be able to stop climate change but not I believe the collapse of fish stocks etc. There are simply too many mouths to feed.

Some have made good points, for example twins. Policy would have to be carefully planned to allow for that and other issues, but without compromising the overal aim of population reduction. Perhaps a one successful pregancy rather than a one child limit would work better.

With the population reducing, I'd suggest trying to keep the population of developed countries (like our own) relatively static (ie. a much smaller reduction than in Africa and India, but still a reduction) by moving pepole from the other areas. This has a few benifits, for example wildlife in the UK has largely been reduced to species that don't really come into conflict with humans as much as say tigers and livestock farmers in India. Another example is that sparsely populated areas do not work as well with public transport (which will always be more efficent than private cars, even if you power both by green electricity, I expect).

 

[Class172]

Solution to a overcrowded earth, send them to Mars!!

And yes Rhydgaled, I did mean 9 billion.

 

[Zoe]

Another example is that sparsely populated areas do not work as well with public transport (which will always be more efficent than private cars, even if you power both by green electricity, I expect).

There's nothing preventing public transport serving sparsely populated areas but I doubt a bus with one passenger is more effecient than a car. If in the future most people can't afford cars then public transport will have to serve these areas or people will be cut off.

 

[Hydro]

Solution to a overcrowded earth, send them to Mars!!

It's been tried unfortunately, and found wanting. A mining kingpin called Vilos Cohaagen basically took over the place, as he controlled all the resources on the planet. The people lived in squalid domes, charged for air and all sorts. A resistance movement formed but th....Ah.

That was Total Recall. Sorry.