Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martin

How can human population self-regulate?

Recommended Posts

In this forum there have been threads about self-regulation of plant population and getting NPK fertilizer out of the ocean---basically concern is how the human population can regulate itself

 

(short of war, famine, natural disaster, plague etc.)

 

people are looking for ideas that can give them hope that things will work out

 

the NPK thread was basically asking HOW WILL WE HAVE ENOUGH TO EAT WHEN THE OIL RUNS OUT? and the oceans are overfished and the human population is 9 billion (which it might stabilize at) and more of the soil is exhausted etc.

 

So what ideas do you have?

 

Let's say that with voluntary birthcontrol the current projection of world pop stabilizing at 9 billion is what we expect.

 

And lets say we don't like that. what measures short of warfare are available to get population down radically, like reduce it by half from 9 billion to 4.5 billion?

 

In china they have had this "one child" law. If there is some UN population agency or (if not UN then) other international pop control agency with legal power, then in principle it could enforce a similar law worldwide.

 

But would you like that? It is hard to imagine a world agency like that with real legal teeth, or a system of treaties that national and regional governments that abide by. But EVEN IF THERE WERE an effective international agency or system of treaties putting it in force, would you like a "one child" law?

 

How about a law that ONLY REGULATES THE NUMBER OF FEMALE CHILDREN? Like say the technology to choose the sex of your offspring is widely available, but there is a bunch of PAPERWORK that you have to go thru to get a license to have a girl child.

 

and the number of girls born is limited by some bureaucratic policy. But the number of boys is unregulated. People would still regulate it for themselves---that is the basis for the demographic projections of world pop maybe stabilizing at 9 billion sometime this century. Substantial numbers of people WILL limit the size of their families voluntarily and even without a worldwide policy the exponential growth is over, maybe.

 

But this is in addition to that voluntary regulation, which is maybe not strong enough. This policy says go ahead each woman have as many kids as she was going to have, but change the sex ratio.

 

Obviously this is bad news for guys because girls will be hard to get and at a premium. You have to dress better, work harder, be nicer etc. to get one. Whatever appeals (we dont really know).

 

BUT IS IT WORSE THAN WAR? I really think that the world is heading into a cruel historical period when population reduction wars (like in Bosnia, Kosovo, like in Sudan, like in Uganda) and primitive tribal-like hostility is going to get out of hand and become increasingly common, and waves of refugees etc etc.

 

Basically I guess I am imagining something analogous to the old chinese custom of exposing girl babies. Poor rural families would kill their girl babies. Horrifying as it was, it meant fewer mouths to feed and also changed the sex ratio in the adult population. and incidentally limited population growth.

 

the difference is that instead of having a custom where a number of families expose their girl babies, medical technology allows everybody to simply have FEWER GIRLS BORN THAN BOYS.

 

so as a result a bunch of teenage boys are miserable, maybe there is some polyandry or serial polyandry, who knows, somehow humans adapt, maybe there are more gays, humans are very adaptible, but whatever happens at least there is not so much population pressure (on the environment, on the food supply, on other species, on ourselves) and maybe less war over natural resources and demographic-motivated war.

 

Any other ideas? Any thoughts about this idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the best methods of population control is to increase the standard of living. The wealthy and middle class have substantially less children than the poor so if you can increase the standard of living in areas where people are poor, then you can create a very humane way to control population. The additional value of increasing the standard of living in the world is that you increase productivity, which means the world is able to sustain a larger population.

 

Even with a higher standard of living with its increased productivity you will still have to enforce strict reproduction laws or face the consequences of famine, war, and epidemics. I think creating unequal ratios of females to males is a bad idea; it will only lead to more violence. A world full of men with only a few women will result in men slaughtering each other to get the woman. I think at some point reproduction can no longer be considered a right and only people who earn some sort of distinction or win some sort of lottery should be allowed to reproduce. It's harsh, but it is preferable to famine and war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... I think creating unequal ratios of females to males is a bad idea; it will only lead to more violence. A world full of men with only a few women will result in men slaughtering each other to get the woman...

 

sounds like a pretty reasonable viewpoint

although I believe in Chinese society it was the traditional practice for centuries

(they may have only changed the ratio a modest amount)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The human population does not need to self-regulate. The evolution of rational thought has given humans a competitive advantage that makes us extremely adaptable to our environment. This adaptability has made it much easier for our species to accumulate resources, which in turn has allowed room for the human population to increase. The human population will continue to increase until resources begin to run low. Once this happens, the mortality rate will be much higher than it is now, and people will compete for resources in a "survival of the fittest" fashion. There is no need to worry about regulating the growth of the human population because natural competition will do that for us. Natural selection will continue until the next big step in evolution, causing the whole process to start all over again. China's one-child rule failed because they could not enforce it. There is no known effective means of enforcing any such population control. The best you can hope for is to postpone the inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... until resources begin to run low. Once this happens, the mortality rate will be much higher than it is now, and people will compete for resources in a "survival of the fittest" fashion. There is no need to worry about regulating the growth of the human population because natural competition will do that for us...

 

typically by the agency of warfare. that was what I meant by

 

BUT IS IT WORSE THAN WAR? I really think that the world is heading into a cruel historical period when population reduction wars (like in Bosnia, Kosovo, like in Sudan, like in Uganda) and primitive tribal-like hostility is going to get out of hand and become increasingly common, and waves of refugees etc etc.

 

I think that shifting the sex ratio (to something less than 50 percent females) would be more resource-efficient than reducing population by warfare

 

I have a further consideration, or motive, in mind. that is the evolutionary business of spreading life outside the solar system.

I think staying on this planet, with tribes focussed on trying to increase each one's share of control, or fighting fighting genetic dominance or whatever you mean when you say "survival of the fittest" and "natural competition"----I think this is potentially wasteful of resources that could be devoted to colonizing. I'd like there still to be plenty of resources when we reach that technical level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
typically by the agency of warfare. that was what I meant by

Actually, warfare is not the "typical" evolutionary way of stabilizing a population. Remember, "resources" includes modern agricultural methods and medicine. Eliminate modern medicine and the availability of large amounts of food thru mechanical agriculture and you lose a lot of people 1) to disease, including simple infections of minor wounds and childbirth and 2) lifespan decreases due to inadequate nutrition and plain old starvation.

 

You will probably get an initial period of warfare as civilization collapses, but then H. sapiens, like all other species, will have a stable population based upon the resources, without warfare.

 

I think that shifting the sex ratio (to something less than 50 percent females) would be more resource-efficient than reducing population by warfare

China is going to be facing the unintended side effects of this, because their "one-child" rule worked well enough to really skew the sex ratios for this generation. Women are very valuable property.

 

However, considering the number of children a woman can bear, you would really have to reduce the number to minimal values to reduce population. My great grandmother had 13 children. That's 12 men (+ one for the woman) for replacement of current numbers. A 12:1 ratio of men to women would end up with all the problems you want to avoid. First, women would revert to the role of property, to be bought and sold for their ability to bear a child. Second, imagine the possible warfare over access to women? And this would be ALL THE TIME.

 

No, I think LucidDreamer has the best idea: raise the standard of living. Data does show that, even in the absence of reliable birth control, the number of children drop as wealth increases. It's simple, the cost of each kid rises dramatically, so people can afford less of them. But, with better medical care, one kid is all you need to pass down your possessions to.

 

So, 2 couples each have one child. You've halved the population right there for the next generation: 4 to 2. Then those 2 get married and have 1 child. Population drops 75% in two generations. And, of course, the smaller the population, the more resources per person. Wealth increases, which argues for individuals choosing to keep the birth rate low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A world full of men with only a few women will result in men slaughtering each other to get the woman. I think at some point reproduction can no longer be considered a right and only people who earn some sort of distinction or win some sort of lottery should be allowed to reproduce. It's harsh, but it is preferable to famine and war.

 

Have them all kill eachother off. That way, you can have the stronger males (or the smarter ones, depending on how wars will be fought in the future) will get the women. Then we have a stronger human race. Sounds like eugenics, yes, but at least it isn't state regulated or mandatory. And we can keep the lottery idea so that we have the occaisional oddball getting a woman, so there's variation in the genepool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let you all know, the One-Child Policy in China is a so-called.

 

Families in China could have more than one child. But the state would not fund the benefits for the second child. IIRC, there was an update, the state will fund the benefits for the second child if it was given birth 8 years from the first female child.

 

Family in rural China are very likely to ignore the so-called One-Child Policy. Family in the country side need the labour to help out and can afford to feed the mouths. IIRC, that's 2/3 families that do not follow the Policy. Chinese ethnic minorities are not affected by the One-Child Policy.

 

These forced abortion stories that is so tightly glued on people's mind is not enforced by the state/government at all. In fact, it is punishable to a very high degree. Using ultrasound to detect the gender and let the family know is also illegal in China. Doctors caught taking money under the table from families would lose their license, and be punished. Same goes for husbands pressuring/forcing their wives to get one.

 

Looks like it is very popular to single out (mainland) China when it comes to births. Here are some interesting facts:

 

Neighbouring regions that do not have One-Child Policy like Taiwan and South Korea and still have a higher gender ratio.

 

Taiwan: 1.10 male/1.00 female

S. Korea: 1.10 male/1.00 female

Mailand China: 1.09 male/1.00 female

 

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_sex_rat_at_bir

 

Out of the whole list in the source above, only 3/223 countries have an even ratio. The others have males outnumber females.

 

***

 

Someone mentioned standard of living as a way of solving the problem. This is not always the case. In most of Asia, it is culture. Centuries, even millenia, of culture have deep-rooted their minds into thinking more children is better. And many favouring males over females.

 

Males by far are more valuable than females in terms of culture. In places like China, Vietnam, Korea, etc. The males acts as a social security, when parents gets old, it is the son that takes care of them. When the daughter marries, she leaves her family and lives with the husband's family. The family with the only a daughter is left with "no" social security.

 

The reason I put "no" in quotations is because there is social security provided by the (Socialist) state. But they are just too deeply rooted in culture.

 

And there is the clan name. Their surname represents a clan. To ensure the clan "survives," families tends to have more children. As silly as it may sound since there is tens of millions of Huang (Wong), Li (Lee), Nguyen, Kim, etc. out there. This plays an important role especially in the rural areas. A family is more likely to question their child's partner's surname/clan name than wanting to know their given name. The child born follows the father's clan name.

 

***

 

So my opinion is, standard of living does play an important role. But I think better education on social securities as well as increase of it, and promotion of female equality is a better solution. As well as encouraging want-to-wed couples to marry later like in their late 20s or early 30s. Some regions in the world prefer to wed as young as possible.

 

Sorry for long post, just a little more. :)

 

So, 2 couples each have one child. You've halved the population right there for the next generation: 4 to 2. Then those 2 get married and have 1 child. Population drops 75% in two generations. And, of course, the smaller the population, the more resources per person. Wealth increases, which argues for individuals choosing to keep the birth rate low.

You factored out the elders. The population will drop that way if elders passed away for each child born. But it doesn't work like that. Elders would probably live to 60 more or less.

 

Assuming that a family gives birth to a child in their 20s or 30s. For every elder that passes away, 2 or 3 child is born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to let you all know' date=' the One-Child Policy in China is a so-called.

 

Families in China could have more than one child. But the state would not fund the benefits for the second child. IIRC, there was an update, the state will fund the benefits for the second child if it was given birth 8 years from the first female child.

...[/quote']

 

Thanks for the clarification, ramdisc.

 

It seems to me that China has an effective and practical policy! What do you think?

 

I think, from what you say, that the Government want to control population growth and that they have put in place a "soft" One-Child Policy which encourages some people to have fewer children. So it is somewhat successful.

 

But, from what you say, it is not a "hard" One-Child Policy. It does not sound like a family must go to jail or pay a penalty if they have more children.

 

The main "teeth" in the law seems to be that the Government denies benefits after the first child-----with the 8-year exception: if the first child is female then the family can wait 8 years and have a second child and also get benefits for the second child.

============================

 

Again thank you for giving some detailed practical information.

 

Please explain something, ramdisc: why do you think that in Taiwan and South Korea, for example, the sex-ratio of babies born is 1.1 to 1.0

 

I know that culturally male babies are favored, that is true in many cultures.

 

what I wonder is HOW DO THEY DO IT? Do they use ultrasound? Do they use "amniocentesis" and then perform abortion? Or do they have some other method?

 

In the old days the method was to have the baby and then if it was a girl, or defective in some way, in many cases to expose the baby----in effect to kill by leaving outdoors. I understand this is still practiced to some extent in rural India---perhaps elsewhere as well.

This was once common in many countries, not only in Asia, but also in Europe as well.

 

But now there must be some modern method to influence the sex-ratio---which people in Taiwan are probably using. I would like to know what you think is probable.

 

==============

Here is a link to info from the March of Dimes about the proceedure called "amniocentesis"

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1164.asp

 

Amniocentesis is often performed at about week #15 of the pregnancy. It means to draw out a small sample of the fluid (amniotic fluid) in the womb. This fluid has cells from the fetus floating in it. These cells can be cultured and their chromosomes can be examined, giving genetic information about the fetus. For example the doctor can learn if there is some abnormality with the chromosomes that is associated with genetic defect---also the doctor will see the sex of the fetus: whether it has XX or XY chromosome.

 

In this proceedure, ultrasound is used for safety, to allow guiding the hollow needle by which amniotic fluid is sampled.

 

Maybe the doctor also sees the sex of the fetus immediately from the ultrasound image----I don't know about that. All I know is the amniocentesis part of the story.

 

=====================

here are some links on sex-selection technology, also discussing different views people have about the ethical issues involved:

 

http://www.fertility-docs.com/fertility_gender.phtml

 

http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn198.pdf

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/16837/

 

http://reason.com/rb/rb100301.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that China has an effective and practical policy! What do you think?

Well, for starters, from the popularity point of view, the Policy is very unpopular. Since it only "limits" Chinese population to have "only one" child. Perhaps this is just a misunderstanding since not many people outside of China knows the full details of the Policy. And think of it as a evil plan to control the population.

 

Then again, what we want and what we can afford are two differnt things. How many scientists can say Earth can afford 10 billion people!? Or even more as the centuries goes on?

 

There are malnourishment and starvation happening now. And we cannot even solve it, or solve it fast enough. Just how are we going to support a much larger population in the future?

 

I think it is time we start doing something for the future. The first step is always hardest. China maybe receiving a lot of criticism now. But probably decades or centuries from now, scientists might be praising China for doing the world population a favour.

 

I personally think it is scientific. Probably 50 years from now, other countries with a large population might face the same crisis over their numbers. They might regret on not doing something about it earlier.

 

India is believe to surpass China's population in 30-50 years. Everyone here will probably live long enough to see how will India handle it without a "One-Child Policy." Just how is India suppose to support that kind of number? India cannot feed all its mouth at the moment. Then there is the US, 340 million. The US cannot even given enough jobs to the people now. How will it in the future? Indonesia 200 million, expected to surpass the US in probably 50 years.

 

Nature has its way of controlling population by means of balancing the population with food and space. But humans live outside of that law. We cannot just allow people to die because there is not enough food.

 

Virtually, everyone is just thinking how wrong it is to control the population. But they are not aware there is such a thing as "carrying capacity." From the looks of it, Earth probably has already surpassed this capacity. And not many is caring to do something about it.

 

China consists of 18-20% of the world's population; that's 1/5 people on Earth lives in China. China is being scientific by doing something about it.

 

Supposely, China didn't do anything about its population and continue to populate like rabbits. What will happen? Mass refuge to neighbouring areas? Like where?

 

N. Korea? They can barely recover after the drought a few years back.

Mongolia? A big brownish yellow area from the satellite photos.

Russia? They are still dealing with what happened in 1991 today.

Central Asia? Same colour as Mongolia.

India? Already full.

Southeat Asia? Already full too.

 

How about overseas, Canada and Australia!? Plenty of space, and has food for export. Perhaps Canada and Australia is willing to accept a "few" tens of millions of Chinese and feed them. Really, how rational is that!?

 

The world closed its doors to the 6 (?) millions Hebrews after WW2. What makes the world want to accept the double million digit of Chinese who needs a new home?

 

If China is reaching or has reached its carrying capacity, what are China's choices?

 

1. Population control. 2. Mass refuge to bordering states. 3. Immigration overseas.

 

Who wants refugees at double million digits pouring over the borders!? Who wants double million digits immigrating to their country!? The only choice left is population control.

 

Sure, some say, China can solve all its problems if it just built more homes and research genetic modified food.

 

China happens to be one of the top 3 countries in genetic modification. And they are always threatened by a possible hunger crisis. Each flood that happens in China puts the devastated regions into panic and loss of mass crops.

 

Aside from fears of food shortage in China, there is a water shortage. Despite having 2 large rivers, the Yangtze and Yellow River, China has a water shortage in the northern areas. China happens to be one of the countries in the world who are most in need of more water. For crying out loud, even their capitol, Beijing, barely has enough water. That is how desperate China is for water.

 

But having not enough water is not the only problem too. The water they have now is populated by the mass industrialisation and rapid growth. If they put a stop to the mass industrialisation and rapid growth, the livelihood of peole will drop dramtically. And mass deaths will be behind it.

 

Controlling the population growth is a must in a country that hold one-fifth of the world's people.

 

What China is going through now to support its people isn't easy. The policies they make are not popular in or outside of China, but they still have to make one.

 

No other country in the world is going through the same problems as China now. It is much easier to criticise when its not their problem. Some of these countries that criticise now might face the same problem in the coming decades. And will feel awkward if they should seek China's help on the same problem in the future.

 

So, unless China could find a very safe formula to genetic modify crops to yield a radical number of food, and make Mother Nature rain in its northern areas. And their massive hinterlands becomes more livable. I think what China is doing now is quiet effective and practical.

 

Oh, don't mean to get off topic, but here some interesting read:

 

http://www.water-technology.net/projects/south_north/

 

China is planning a south-to-north water diversion project to ease their water shortage in the northern areas. Each river that branches off will cost tens of billions of dollars. More water, more farmland, more food. Looks like China is spending a lot to help its people.

 

By then, the population policies will probably relax much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry again for the long post; didn't realise it was at such extent.

 

why do you think that in Taiwan and South Korea, for example, the sex-ratio of babies born is 1.1 to 1.0

And

what I wonder is HOW DO THEY DO IT? Do they use ultrasound? Do they use "amniocentesis" and then perform abortion? Or do they have some other method?

And

But now there must be some modern method to influence the sex-ratio---which people in Taiwan are probably using. I would like to know what you think is probable.

Since ultrasound is banned for gender detection in many parts of the world. My best guess is: In places like Taiwan or S. Korea, when a family has a girl, they will try again in a few months later. As opposed to China, they will wait 8 years later, then try again. Assuming they want the benefits.

 

I feel sorry for the mothers that are treated like a birth machine for boys... :(

 

In the old days the method was to have the baby and then if it was a girl, or defective in some way, in many cases to expose the baby----in effect to kill by leaving outdoors. I understand this is still practiced to some extent in rural India---perhaps elsewhere as well.

I also read there are wild plants in many parts of India that carries a poisonous sap. Families who has an undesireable child would use the plant's sap and make the child drink it.

 

I don't think it happens at a significant scale. Probably just stories magnified for media ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have them all kill eachother off. That way, you can have the stronger males (or the smarter ones, depending on how wars will be fought in the future) will get the women. Then we have a stronger human race. Sounds like eugenics, yes, but at least it isn't state regulated or mandatory. And we can keep the lottery idea so that we have the occaisional oddball getting a woman, so there's variation in the genepool.

In order t have the lottery, you have to have a stable society, which means a society strong enough to suppress the fighting over women that you propose. So your ideas are internally contradictory.

 

Also, the major flaw with eugenics is that WE know what is "fitter" in terms of natural selection. We don't. You think "stronger" or "smarter" is always a "good" thing. It's not. Sometimes little things like resistance to HIV is better than being strong or smart. If we impose what we think is a "good" character instead of leaving it up to natural selection, I guarantee we will end up with a weaker human species. Natural selection is SO much smarter than we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone mentioned standard of living as a way of solving the problem. This is not always the case. In most of Asia, it is culture. Centuries, even millenia, of culture have deep-rooted their minds into thinking more children is better. And many favouring males over females.

Yes, but the culture is rooted in economics. As you noted, in farming communities children help with the farm. Children also provide social security. The more children, the greater the likelihood that one or two of them will be wealthy enough to take care of the parents in their old age.

 

However, increase wealth and both these "cultural" factors go away. For farmers, increased wealth means mechanical aids to agriculture, meaning you don't need lots of kids to work the farm. And now, with your wealth, you are expected to provide each kid with his/her own room, better education, more toys, new clothes (as opposed to hand-me-downs), etc. Greater cost per kid.

 

In terms of social security, if the parents have money, then they don't have to rely on the kids for security in their old age; they pay for it themselves. And the kids will be expected to pay their own.

 

It won't happen overnight. It will take a couple of generations. Or maybe only 1. My great-grandparents on my father's side each had 12-13 kids. My grandparents only had 2. My parents only had 2. Quite a drop as the family moved into the middle class.

 

So my opinion is, standard of living does play an important role. But I think better education on social securities as well as increase of it, and promotion of female equality is a better solution. As well as encouraging want-to-wed couples to marry later like in their late 20s or early 30s. Some regions in the world prefer to wed as young as possible.

All this will happen as a result of increased standard of living. Once the female has money of her own, she gains equality. She also gains power within the marriage to say "no kids because pregnancy will interfere with my salary, and we need that salary to maintain our lifestyle". Also, with increased wealth comes the desire to spend that wealth and have fun while you are young. So marriage is postponed. Also, since increased wealth is often tied to increased education, marriage tends to get postponed until after education is over or, at least, much further along.

 

Now, the only political part I see in this would be ensuring opportunity for women to own property and work.

 

You factored out the elders. The population will drop that way if elders passed away for each child born. But it doesn't work like that. Elders would probably live to 60 more or less.

My apologies for not being clear. I was giving a simplified view of the decline in population per generation, not per year. Obiously it is going to take many years for the previous generation to die, and so the population will not drop like this in a few years. But in the second generation -- the grandkids -- that generation will have 1/4 the people in that generation than the generation of the grandparents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nature has its way of controlling population by means of balancing the population with food and space. But humans live outside of that law. We cannot just allow people to die because there is not enough food.

As you noted in your second sentence, we do not live outside nature's way of balancing the population. We have been avoiding it because we have been expanding resources faster than we have been expanding population. However, as you noted with China, India, the US, and Indonesia, that process cannot continue indefinitely. There is finite room and arable land on the planet. Eventually, our population MUST outstrip our resources. And then our population will be balanced with food and space by nature.

 

If it were otherwise, you would not be calling for some voluntary restriction on population.

 

So yes, at some point we will "allow" people to die for lack of food, simply because we cannot do anything else.

 

Virtually, everyone is just thinking how wrong it is to control the population. But they are not aware there is such a thing as "carrying capacity." From the looks of it, Earth probably has already surpassed this capacity. And not many is caring to do something about it.

See? Again you confirm that humans are not outside the laws of nature.

 

However, "virtually everyone" is not an accurate statement. Look at the widespread disobedience of Catholics over the matter of birth control. Using artificial birth control is a means of controlling the population. What's the birth rate in the US now compared to 100 years ago? 50 years ago? What's the birth rate in Europe?

 

So yes, most people in the industrial world ARE doing something about population control -- as individuals. What you are saying is that not much is being done in the developing world. That's true. This is why I am saying that increased standard of living will do the job for you. Instead of trying to impose some unpopular and discriminatory political policy (backed by force), increased standard of living will cause individuals to decide to have fewer children and lower the birth rate.

 

China consists of 18-20% of the world's population; that's 1/5 people on Earth lives in China. China is being scientific by doing something about it.

As your post noted, China isn't doing anything scientific. It is doing something political. But all the exceptions demonstrate that science is not involved. Don't blame "science" for a political policy based on an ethical decision. Science has enough problems without that.

 

If China is reaching or has reached its carrying capacity, what are China's choices?

 

1. Population control. 2. Mass refuge to bordering states. 3. Immigration overseas.

You forgot some choices:

1. Conqueor the required space. Not practical given China's limited military power.

2. Let the people starve or

3. Let them panic and try to emigrate, whereupon the neighboring countries will seal their borders and force the people to stay in China and starve.

 

Who wants refugees at double million digits pouring over the borders!? Who wants double million digits immigrating to their country!? The only choice left is population control.

Actually, the first 2 are not China's problem, but a problem of her neighbors. I agree that the ethical choice for China is to limit her population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of our options could be Soylent Green.

 

No, seriously. But one thing we could do is put more of our budget into space programs and make a serious effort to make a colony on the moon, on a space station, or Mars (pfft, like that'll ever happen. Sure, it'll take a while, but it'll be worth it.

 

Or we can just raze down all those small houses and build apartment buildings instead. We might be horizontally limited in our building, but we can keep building bigger and bigger buildings vertically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this stage of the game, oil resources are going to limit the planets capacity much more than a lack of housing stock. And unfortunately for humanity this problem appears far beyond our technology right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At this stage of the game, oil resources are going to limit the planets capacity much more than a lack of housing stock. And unfortunately for humanity this problem appears far beyond our technology right now.

I don't think that the amount of oil resources affects population too much. In fact, its the very poor that use less oil and who often don't even have automobiles who are having more children and having the greatest effect on population.

 

I have an oddball suggestion for population control. Make laws that restrict the age that woman can have children. Restrict the age that a woman can give birth to over 40 for the first generation, 42 for the second generation, 44 for the third generation, and so on. That way you decrease the population while simultaneously increasing the lifespan and health of the population. Of course, you would have to start screening for Down Syndrome and other maternal-age-related disorders and some woman would be incapable of having children at so late an age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that the amount of oil resources affects population too much. In fact' date=' its the very poor that use less oil and who often don't even have automobiles who are having more children and having the greatest effect on population.

 

I have an oddball suggestion for population control. Make laws that restrict the age that woman can have children. Restrict the age that a woman can give birth to over 40 for the first generation, 42 for the second generation, 44 for the third generation, and so on. That way you decrease the population while simultaneously increasing the lifespan and health of the population. Of course, you would have to start screening for Down Syndrome and other maternal-age-related disorders and some woman would be incapable of having children at so late an age.[/quote'] People tend to break laws that they don't like. People don't like being told what to do. However, if they are being guided instead of told, they'll be more likely to pay attention. Family planning has had success in many countries to help populations down having families decide how many children to have. Many children are born by "accident" because of a lack of planning and lack of birth control availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.