Can we talk about world population?

Of all the things that frighten me in the news....over population has me shaking in my briefs. The world population has pretty much doubled since the Lamborghini Miura came out and it's set to triple what the population was back when WW2 was going on. That's really not that long ago!! A lot of problems of today are directly related to the rising population yet I'm the only one freaking out about this.

Why aren't we dialing back the child tax credit, why aren't we talking about better ways for family planning, why are we not even discussing this?

I'm going to be pissed if once retirement comes around all I get to do is fight famine and chaos.

What do you think, valid concern or take the tin foil hat off?

A little of both. It's not so much the physical numbers. The real issue is that it's third world population that's exploding (both domestically and worldwide). I'm no eugenicist, but there is a staggering growth in people who will have great difficulty acquiring the knowledge, skills, and training they will need to be self supporting.

Valid concern.

It seems like a very valid concern. Unfortunately we keep electing leadership that seems to laugh at these issues. Oh well.

we need social security to become an international program, it would solve all of it's issues

The population growth in the US is currently very low (.7% as of 2013). I hear the only reason it is going up at all is because of immigration. So there really is not a lot of reason to try and control the population in the US. The rest of the world, well...

People like this though, are still selfish dicks who are essentially mild child abusers and a huge drag on society:

Very valid concern but everyone will just look the other way, because nobody wants any governments telling them how many kids they should have, only habitable planet in sight be damned.

The easy target seems to be getting contraceptives into 3rd-world countries, especially ones women can use without men knowing about it. Many don't want to have more kids but their husbands disagree and in those places, that's the end of the conversation.

Also wealthier and better-educated people know that having a whole lot of kids isn't a great idea, and reproduce less...something to think about.

To do my part I promise to have no more than 2 kids

I watched a cool Ted Talks about population related to prosperity.

Consider that there are now twice as many people and half as many (non-human) animals as in 1970:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf

GameboyRMH wrote: ..The easy target seems to be getting contraceptives into 3rd-world countries...

There are some really interesting statistics out there relating children per female directly to the education/prosperity of those folks. If you take a look at most of the developed first world you'll see staggering declines in the rates child birth per capita. Some countries are on the full attack to combat this like the Nordic states where couples are given significant incentives like 5 years of paid maternity and significant tax advantages. These countries negative growth rates are troubling to their long term stability.
It's worth noting that capitalism is a driver here as well. GDP growth can generally not be achieved or maintained without a significant population growth. I have strongly positive views on the need for the US to continue to be a home for the worlds talented and driven immigrants for this reason among others. Nevermind the fact that most of of are a direct result of these immigration waves over the last few generations.

It is a valid concern and it directly links to an even bigger issue, water shortages. The only way out of this is governments to put enough money into real science to come up with clean energy and efficient ways to desalinate water. The major religions need to pull their collective heads out of their asses and promote contraception and birth control. Child tax credit should stay the same for one or two, be flat for a third and become very very punitive for the fourth and above. It's morally reprehensible to have large families these days. We live in a very very different world from 20 years ago, let alone 30-40 years ago and almost unrecognizable form 50+ years ago.

For all we bitch about China, the Chinese government is putting a E36 M3 load of money into solar and wind energy production and they will eat our lunch on making solar panels and wind turbines in short order because we believe government investment is bad.

Enyar wrote: Why aren't we dialing back the child tax credit, why aren't we talking about better ways for family planning, why are we not even discussing this?

There are only two ways to increase your country's GDP. Increase the average efficiency of workers (HARD) or, get more workers (EASY).

If you are running a country, which button do you press?

An extremely valid concern, for sure. But you can't really do anything about it--China has, and while it is somewhat well supported in that country, pretty much everyone else thinks it is a bad policy.

I personally want 3-4 kids, SWMBO wants 2. I think we're having 2, but maybe we can get triplets on the first shot. Interestingly, I'm also 100% ok with adopting, where she isn't if we're both able. Don't know why.

84FSP wrote: I have strongly positive views on the need for the US to continue to be a home for the worlds talented and driven immigrants for this reason among others.

Couldn't agree more. Take down the walls, make everyone a citizen. More people means more chances the good ideas happen here.

mtn wrote: I personally want 3-4 kids, SWMBO wants 2.

Our pastor always jokes that he wanted 9 kids and his wife wanted 2, so they compromised, and had 2 kids.

Very valid. Learn to love the Soylent Green.

In reply to mtn:

I will continue to tax credit for those who adopt beyond 3. That is the only morally sound reason for having more kids.

Make it easier and cheaper to adopt. My wife and I would seriously considering adopting if it wasn't so damned expensive. It's amazing that I can knock her up and if I've got health insurance I can practically have a kid for free, and then I raise that kid on the burden of tax payers.

However, if I want to adopt kid who's parents gave it up, I've to prove that I've got $20k in reserve and spend thousands on forms, background checks, jump through some flaming hoops and end up getting stuck with a 5 year old demon child who has been neglected by the foster care system?

pres589 wrote: It seems like a very valid concern. Unfortunately we keep electing leadership that seems to laugh at these issues. Oh well.

It's such a strange system! No one is every happy with the candidates. At least in the good ol days you got to pick from the lesser of the two evils. Now they both are equally evil.

We should be revolting in the streets, going haywire and changing things. Let's fight back and get this ship back on course! Who's with me!

Oh...it's lunch time. Never mind....maybe reconvene 4 years from now?

Yes, it is a valid concern.

But, there is also an opposite theory.

It's a huge problem if you view the Earth's resources as finite, and people as a burden on those resources.

But it's different if you view people as a knowledge source that provides creative solutions, and resources as more malleable.

So, for example...Water. We could say the Earth has a finite quantity, and more people means we are all going to die. Or, we could recognize that less than 1% of the Earth's water resources are potable and accessible, and that the brain trust of many more people (with a greater and greater need) is exactly what it will take to solve the desalination issue.

Or...Oil. We could say that oil will run out and we will all have to walk, or perhaps die from the emissions. Or, we could see that more people all facing a crisis together is exactly the type of scenario which will encourage more creative ideas to come forth and allow science the opportunity to advance alternative energy solutions.

We don't have to use oil at all. But we do need a compelling reason to solve a problem which doesn't really exist yet.

Every world problem that is stressed by more people can also be better addressed by more people and their creative solutions.

I also think its interesting when you look at the cultural and social backgrounds of groups still having lots of children there seems to be a correlation between religion and having lots of kids.

Isn't interesting how a really good Catholic will become celibate, but a "normal" Catholic will have tons of kids? How does that work? Is the thought there "well, if you're gonna spread that seed you might as well spread far and wide and plant as many trees as possible!"

Adrian_Thompson wrote: In reply to mtn: I will continue to tax credit for those who adopt beyond 3. That is the only morally sound reason for having more kids.

You know, I have no problem with taking away the tax credit all together. I can afford, or will be able to afford, the amount of kids that we have. There should be no financial incentive for me to have more kids. I don't like the idea of any penalty for having more kids though.

PHeller wrote: I also think its interesting when you look at the cultural and social backgrounds of groups still having lots of children there seems to be a correlation between religion and having lots of kids. Isn't interesting how a really good Catholic will become celibate, but a "normal" Catholic will have tons of kids? How does that work? Is the thought there "well, if you're gonna spread that seed you might as well spread far and wide and plant as many trees as possible!"

Well, you clearly haven't met me or my family. Being an "n" (my last name) is truly a gift unto the world

rcutclif wrote: There are only two ways to increase your country's GDP. Increase the average efficiency of workers (HARD) or, get more workers (EASY). If you are running a country, which button do you press?

This is basically the crux of the dilemma. Society is based around continuous growth. Without larger populations, growth goes kaput. Japan is frightening for this exact reason, it foreshadows society as a whole.

Overpopulation itself is a joke though. Food literally rots in warehouses waiting for "prices" to be high enough. Water will eventually be had by using solar to power desalination plants.

And the final part is when we go to other planets. There really isn't a lot stopping us from living on Mars except money. Might not be great, but it would be an adventure if nothing else.

There are much more pressing concerns out there, the earth can easily support 14 billion people.