Are we overpopulated?

[nightshade]

We hit Earth Overshoot Day earlier this month, the day in the year that people use more resources than the earth can produce. Each year this day gets earlier in the year, so is there too many people on the planet?

There's now around 7 and half billion people on the planet, and yes there's lots of countries that have lots of open land that in theory can house people, but what about the earth's resources, the trees that produce the air that we need to breathe. All the fossil fuels too that produce the power that supplies the planet, yes we can and should go to renewables but many countries will not and have not done this, less people equals less resources needed and less pollution.

So should countries have a ban on having more than a certain amount of children? What would be the limit, would it be different for different countries or a worldwide limit? And for how long, until we only produce enough resources that the planet can provide, or do we continue with it until we have excess resources?

 

[AnthonyCordova]

I don't know about a ban on reproduction but we definitely don't need this many people. Runaway population increases will have severe consequences down the line at some point.

 

[Blaze]

Yes we most definitely are overpopulated. Sadly I only see our population increasing, and I don't think any rule is going to change that. Because of this, we are going to see some mass extinction and some massive changes to the planet.

 

[The Bronze]

Yes and I'm honestly baffled by anyone who doesn't think it's a problem. The planet is finite. Resources are finite. So it stands to reason that exponentially increasing the population and therefore need of resources is a stupid idea. No one in power even acknowledges it is a problem though so there's no chance of it being addressed.

 

[Athena]

Well I mean China had the one child rule for a long time and look what happened - an overwhelmingly elderly population with not enough children to look after their parents, so they relaxed the rule to two children, but in reality how do you police it? You say a couple can only have two children to avoid overpopulation. Do you force sterilisation so they can't have a third? Do you put third children up for adoption which will undoubtedly increase the burden on child services and you'll just end up with hundreds and thousands of children in homes? I've heard stories of Chinese women fleeing from state police in the night as they were pregnant with a second child and didn't want to have it taken away. I mean this is the stuff of dystopian fiction but it's also what was happening in China for many years.

Saying this though, something does need to be done. I don't have the answer to what, because either way the human race seems screwed. The more we use fossil fuels, and cut down trees and give birth to more and more babies, the bleaker the future will be for those babies. 🙁

 

[Ethan Reigns]

There has been a one-child policy in China for a while now and it is showing some strains:

1. The preference is for male children and many couples will abort until they get a male. There are 90 girls for every 100 boys in China. India is worse - there are 80 girls for every 100 boys there.
2. If you have one child, that child is responsible for supporting two parents in their old age. Whether this is done within individual families or in a socialist policy doesn't matter - a lot of children cannot afford to start their own lives when they are carrying their parents financially.
3. There is increased expectation for each child. Whereas a family would accept having children having different levels of accomplishment before, the "tiger moms" of China insist on children being extensively tutored and constrained to succeed because the child will have to make enough money for their future support. Suicide may be the only way out for some of them.

The result of overpopulation will be war for arable land as is happening in Africa now and for resources as has been happening for a long time. If Iraq's chief export was pomegranates, so you think we would be in a war of occupation there now?

Looks like Athena has beaten me to it.

 

[thrasherpix]

 

I've heard stories of Chinese women fleeing from state police in the night as they were pregnant with a second child and didn't want to have it taken away. I mean this is the stuff of dystopian fiction but it's also what was happening in China for many years.

I wonder if that's true? I've also heard how some Chinese families can have multiple kids, but each child beyond the prohibition severely cut into benefits, and that strikes me as making more sense than setting up orphanages which carry their own expenses and problems. Of course there could be a big difference on what district, or if it's rural (where children are of much more help to the farms, and thus the state) or urban. I've heard so many lies about Communism though (I'm basing this on speaking to people from foreign nations, and they didn't praise it, but did make me think our propaganda against them was greatly exaggerated--as was theirs against us). It could've also been different under say Mao than today.

I do recall hearing of a black market for women in China because so many kept sons alive (as sons are of greater use to aging parents) to where there's a huge surplus of males. We are a selfish species, and I have no illusions about mothers instinctively love their kiddies (many do, and many don't). If the laws against child labor were repealed with the same dangers as before, there'd be countless kids taken out of school and sent to the sweatshops so the parents could take the money, just as there was before.

Still, I'm not one to look to government for a solution. The same selfishness and shortsightedness that will make this a problem if it's not checked also affects governments (which are made up of people who, at best, are probably better at kissing butts of their superiors and/or pandering to the public than coming up with effective solutions, and many would be worse than that), and thus will also twist any hardcore government programs to target certain segments of society and just general incompetence (I don't think those who say putting the government--any government--in charge of the Sahara will result in a shortage of sand are too cynical). Just to be clear, I see people in general (including collectives, free markets, etc) as selfish and incompetent, which is why government is generally the same, not that I'm some libertarian or political anarchist believing government is the disease masquerading as its own cure. Seems this will just have to play out in its tragic glory, one way or another.

 

[nightshade]

I think education is the way forward, getting children in it, and giving them a chance to become something other that just a mother, making them see that their worth isn't just because they can produce children. Also teaching women about their bodies, the more they know about how their bodies work the more aware they are of their fertility. If children are in school then they shouldn't be used as child labour, but adults having paid jobs instead to provide for those children.

 

[GwenRaiden]

It would be great if more people would adopt (says the babymaker). I've always liked the idea of adoption, it's still something I think about and would like to do.

 

[nightshade]

I think more would if countries made it easier to adopt, for some it can take years to get a child adopted, and thousands. Yet it's only 9 months and free to give birth (free in the UK anyway)

I've started sponsoring a child, it's not much but at least it'll mean that family get some help and education.

 

[Athena]

I'd love to adopt but the system in the UK very much favours the birth family, which is fine for the most part, but then you have cases like Victoria Climbie and Baby P where the child should have been removed from the birth family much earlier.

I know a few couples who've managed to successfully adopt but it took a long long time. Obviously the adoptive family must be right for the child(ren) involved but I think the timescales and bureaucracy put a lot of potential adoptive parents off. 🙁

 

[thrasherpix]

A lot of people are against adoption for some reason. Some would only adopt if they can't have children of their own, while others say outright they can never love a child that is not their own. It's not a problem for me, though.

Unfortunately, some people who adopt really shouldn't be allowed to.

 

[nightshade]

With adoption too a lot of people want babies, so children that get removed from parents later will stay in the system, moving from one place to another. There needs to be more foster carers too, and maybe a way of tracking down family members so that the child can possibly go to a relative before going to foster care. Just because the mother can't, doesn't mean a cousin or aunt wouldn't be able to raise that child.

I know that the majority of children in orphanages around the world do have relatives, and there are charities out there trying to put children back with families and supporting them, however you have to support them before they have the child so that they either don't get pregnant in the first place or if they do they are able to keep the child in the family.

 

[Taake]

Are we overpopulated - yes.
Eugenics is still a dirty word, adoption is like a band-aid on a gunshot wound, and people don't want to fundamentally change their lives. It's understandable, many of us live very comfortable lives compared to how one lived just a 100 or so years ago. But I mean we feed and water approximately 56billion animals a year in order to kill them and raise new ones, that's grains and water we could feed starving populations with, but we don't because bacon. It's a huge strain. There are obviously a lot of other systemic problems with how we live our lives but bottom line is that the resources of Earth aren't as infinite as the hubris of our species.

However, if nuclear war doesn't do it, then another plague or two will probably come along to thin the herd. As we live closer and closer to each other it will be hard to stop the spread and a good chunk will succumb.
Those who get out alive will most likely be the survivalists hiding in hovels in the woods at the moment, living off the land and recycling their urine or whatever, and people with significant amounts of capital. If you're none of those, it's probably tough cookies for you.

Basically, if we don't want to work towards significant change in how we do things we really should be teaching our kids that "the future is probably not for you, but we can still go to McDonalds. So yay."

Bleak? Yeah, perhaps, but it is what it is. *shrug*

 

[Bluebird]

I think if anyone answered no, then those delusions are severe. I mean, really, there are no other animals in the wild with our population size, other than insects. We are like a swarm of locusts that destroys everything in our path. The arrogance of the human species makes me wish for its demise. Seriously, there's nothing I wish more for than the complete eradication of our species. Then you'd really be saving the planet.

 

[Fenrir]

Various MEDC (More Economically Developed Countries) would have a declining population if it wasn't for immigration (such as the UK). Average birth rate in the EU per woman is 1.6. Japan's population is liable to start shrinking soon.

Assuming (being positive here!) that economic and social conditions improve in other areas of the world as time goes on it's possible that we'd end up regulating our own population without needing the government to legislate against having too many children.

Of course, that might take too long to come to fruition.

 

[November]

I've been looking at this from a new perspective lately. In a more hopeful way. My evidence is anecdotal - observed in this state - where we do have an abundance of room - but not a whole lot of facilities. No doubt there are too many humans on the planet - but as pointed out - in some of the caucasian nations - the birth rate is decreasing anyway, yet too slow.

I notice that women in this state have children as a safety net, I do not know if all realise that is what they are doing. THey get married and have the kids, then the by simply producing humans, they will be 'set for life' paid by the government until the children are at least 7 - 18 (depending on the situation). Any mother with children is near on guaranteed help and support in this community. I remember when a friends husband was dying of cancer, I was over washing her horse for her and a friend of hers dropped by, heard the news and blurted out "well it would be different if you had children, you would have had them to care for you when he's gone". I was gobsmacked, how insensitive! The lady had chosen not to have children as she is expected to have a short and hard lifespan herself with MS (this was not common knowledge).


Anyway back to the point - if a woman here has kids - they are first in line for support services. They are given faster services and aid when they use the kids to get the help - it works. Then there are contraception choices - and huge rates of failure and side effects. SO if a lady forgets her pill one day, goes out for a fun night (or meets the man of her dream for that night) has a 'happy' accident - it is expensive and stressful to abort, there was quite literally a "BABY BONUS" of $3000-$5000 paid to new mothes here within the last decade. So it makes sense for her to keep the child when there are not a whole lot of other options in this state when it comes to living a full life alone, having a paid career or owning a home. The more thought I put into it - the more it is all connected. I think @Bluebird mentioned marketing here before. I get extremely frustrated with social media marketing, perhaps because I still have a in iphone4S (and still dont know how to work it) I browse media on safari rather than their aps - and am bombarded with advertising. Advertising that my biological clock is ticking, advertising weddings, advertising personalised babies onsies that they would barely fit in for a day, basically advertising and promoting a wasteful society. It drives me mad. And no one in the state seems to notice - its almost subliminal. When I ask close friends why they want kids - truly why, its because their friends/family are having kids and they dont want to be left behind in the social world. The children are only young a short time - and the flow on effect is seeing women turning to medication if the children leave home (or alcohol which in turn leads to hospital and medication). Then there are mothers who will keep the adult children at home - enable them to stay in a very very easy life until the mid 30's - I have seen with parents of disabled children really starting to struggle now in their 70's with their disabled children living at home - they had not set the grown children up with the skills to live in when the parents are gone.

I hope I can get my rant to the point - perhaps if we can provide long term and safe housing for women - then, in this state, we may change the way society looks at women - we are more than pretty babymakers. There are government grants available for women to start businesses and so on - but the community support all over this HUGE state, is lacking. If we were to introduce a basic income for all citizens - without the red tape, a set amount for all - and if you want or need more to support the family, then work for it. Take away family benefits and spread the wealth to those who do not breed. Make the family unit one you need to work for - rather than be paid for - this will likely change the dynamic here on how children are viewed. They are a luxury, not a priority.

I also wonder (and am running out of steam to stand at the laptop so I hope someone will understand what I mean) if promoting pets is the way to go. In WA it is very very hard to find a rental home that will allow pets. The "responsible" owners will not have pets until they own a home - but why should the poor miss out on pets - when they are proven to aid in disability and mental health. Again - changing the way we look at pets - instead of promoting dogs and cats (which take high energy to look after) maybe we should be thinking along the line of chickens, and sheep. Of course I would promote bunnies - they are HILARIOUS - in my housing for the homeless plan, I have eco habitats for bunnies everywhere! I also know people who have lost children - some in this state take on orphan joeys (baby kangaroos) to care for to help grief. I can see other animals playing a similar important role in the lives of trauma victims. And while this may seem callous - some women wont need a child to look after if they have enough baby animals (crazy cat ladies for example 😉 )

 

[thrasherpix]

I get extremely frustrated with social media marketing, perhaps because I still have a in iphone4S (and still dont know how to work it) I browse media on safari rather than their aps - and am bombarded with advertising. Advertising that my biological clock is ticking, advertising weddings, advertising personalised babies onsies that they would barely fit in for a day, basically advertising and promoting a wasteful society.

There are some terrible (legal, corporate) scams like "freezing eggs" for women to have babies later when a woman at age 40 is more likely to have more viable eggs than that which was frozen (so much legal scam and questionable claims by corporations) which must be terrible for victims. Ah, here's more about that specific legal scam (the egg freezing):

The Sobering Facts About Egg Freezing That Nobody's Talking About

It's not the only one. It's really sad that these scams are legal...and that society pressures women (and sometimes even men) to make sure they have babies if they don't want their gender or value as a human being questioned somehow which makes such unethical corporate business both viable and tempting.

 

[November]

I saw an Adam ruins Everything on freezing eggs recently. I have a friend tentatively looking into IVF now - she is in her early 30's the scare mongering of 'have babies now or miss out!' Is a huge driving force for some woman in Australia. The medical world is marketing now. Its hard to know what is health - because the medical system falls for the marketing too (benefit of the doubt - I am sure there are those rubbing their hands with glee while lining their pockets). GP's get the funding to refer woman on for invasive scans and hormones to "help" people get pregnant - when in reality if we slowed down the fast pace of womans lives - then pregnancy and babies wouldn't have to have that job. How many working women now look at maternity leave as a break from their real jobs?

Its similar with avoiding pregnancy - contraceptives - girls are not taught about their bodies (many women know so little - I think it has only been lost in the last 100 years or so), girls go to doctors for contraception, because thats what we are told to do - girls get sick and are told its got nothing to do with hormones - synthetic or otherwise... its a confusing time for women in this world. Hormones play a HUGE part in being a woman - and the medical/patriarchal system tells us its wrong to feel the effect of these hormones - its "spiritual" practice to acknowledge the driving forces behind what makes our cycles what they are. The more we learn about how our bodies work on a natural level - the less need there is for the medical model of childbearing.
 
I think what i am trying to say in simplistic language is - woman are looking for security in this world - children give them that. If we can provide women with security then perhaps some would not feel the need so strongly to reproduce. Or they would not seek men and family for this security. Come to think of it - this might be a dangerous idea - women WILL take over the world if we didnt have so much other crap to do.