Are Humans overpopulating, and should prevenative policy be taken?

Question

Our planet can no longer seem to cope with the human race expanding everywhere. There is no other species so far spread from a single area as we have, and there is no other species environmentally unstable and unsustainable, as we grow, the natural world shrinks because we don't live with wildlife.

If there was a policy that every couple could only have one child, then in the space of about 2 generations, the human population would half. I don't agree with this idea, but if was implemented our level of pollution, consumption, and environmental impact would also approximately half.

And we'd take up so much less space, natural habitats could eventually re-emerge and we would have ample energy resources so that we wouldn't need more industrial development.

So should there be a new global policy, lets call it a license to reproduce. Or selective breeding (terrible but natural). Could such extreme measures be excused in such time of environmental chrisis? For future generations?

Answer 1

It sure has a chain of effects which are all interrelated and heavily tax the system

People use and need land,so more and more is being changed to accommodate human growth and development

The necessary flora ,which permits life as we know it, is disappearing.

Eco-systems are being exchanged for desserts , concrete or roads.

World population has doubled in the last 50 years exceeding the growth of 4 million years (since we became homo Sapiens).

To satisfy the growing demand farmers are cultivating unstable lands , too steep or dry to be sustainable.

Mono cultures ,aided by chemicals Exhaust and pollutes the soil .

Adding to this the effects of overgrazing has resulted in large scale desertification.

Each year billions of tons of topsoil are blown or washed away by storms.

Over the last half century,

Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million

In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise.

--------------------------------------...

.

NATURES POINT OF VIEW

In Nature exists such a thing as the law of Harmony and Equilibrium

Animals have lots of young when there is plenty of food ,and have little or none when the conditions are bad

when there is a plague of rabbits ,many foxes are born,

when there is no game lions ,and other predators have few cubs.

plants do roughly the same

All follow the LAW OF NATURE OF EQUILIBRIUM

everybody is welcome ,but nobody in excess.

we must co-exist on this planet and limit our numbers to our resources

All of Nature obeys these LAWS,but Humans put themselves above the LAW,and have bred themselves into a plague

It is a miracle that Nature has allowed us to get this far.

Everything else is set upon by plagues ,disease or predators ,when they exceed their allotted quantity,or there are Natural disasters .

There are two moments in the existence of a specie when extinction is likely,

when there are two few

And when there are too many.

--------------------------------------...

PEOPLE

However population control has always been a very sensitive issue Because people get get very nervous when you go below the belt

Mans sexuality and very often how many kids hes got is proof of his masculinity and insurance for old age

with many possible incomes to assist him when he himself cannot work any more

the second point is HOW do we ethically control populations

poor areas with less education DEMONSTRATE THE HIGHEST NUMBERS OF TEEN AGE PREGNANCIES,

educated women have less children

But uneducated populations are more religious and more resistant to birth control.

to forcibly control populations is frowned upon to say the least

--------------------------------------...

Population control in the past and present

at a meeting in Kopenhagen in 1998 it was suggested to bring the world population down by 60%,one cannot help but wonder at how this would be archieved

War (past .present and future)

Natures way disease(today,past and future)

Manufactured disease(suspected today)

cures that kill(suspected today)

poisoned consumer goods (suspected today)

making children infertile or g*y,by raising the PH level in drinking water or even drinks (suspected today)

birth control,

Some Native peoples have always been aware of this

to limit the tribes number to as many as the tribe can afford to feed

in the past the Olmecs women ate yams to make them infertile,

Amazonian tribes have strict sexual rites that limit copulation in the conventional way.

And there were central Americans who sacrificed their excess children to the Gods

Today we have several methods but most reach only the educated ,i handed out condoms to an native Mazatecca comunity in Oaxaca ,and the church retrieved them all )

education on birth control(not enough,again the poor regions are excluded )

there are the strong methods such as in China with laws that limit childbirth per family.

Also a horrible concept.

.

--------------------------------------...

In the Netherlands after the war families were encouraged

to have few children because it is such a small country

not much bigger than Mexico city,

so it was physically impossible to fit a lot of people into the country ,There people can understand the concept of birth control,

But in larger countries many think of the family ,not the society as a whole

what happens if the country is full

wage war and kill everybody in another place to invade and settle there ,that would be the natural solution

In the past conquering countries encouraged the people to have many kids to be used as cannon fodder

or settling farmers needed many sons to provide labor,

one would have thought that we had progressed from that

But judging by many peoples reactions, many still cling to the old self centered or invasive philosophies

Answer 2

THEY have tried it in some countries but it doesn't work

Answer 3

no

Answer 4

Absolutely NOT.

Answer 5

I like the idea of limiting the number of children a family may have. I don't think any kind of law would be able to enforce such a ban, but maybe by taking away government tax credits, and other child benefits for more than say two children, would discourage people from having large families. The idea of having large families originated on the farm, so when the children were of working age, they laboured on the farm instead of hiring and paying another person to work.

As for the development of land, every bit we develop we hurt our chances at reversing the damage we have done to the environment, because we have taken out an element from nature's cycle. Remember this too when you want to have a big family. The less forest and undeveloped land we have, the higher commodity prices will rise, along with paper products, which are already hitting record highs. It doesn't help that we need to constantly zone more land for garbage disposal purposes. If everybody recycled, composted, and had a bit of self-restraint when purchasing goods, we wouldn't need to isolate that descolant piece of land to dispose of waste in. Also remember that when you burn garbage, it doesn't go away; it is just in very small and spread out particles, which you breathe in, and will cause severe damage to your lungs.

Answer 6

i am a mother of natural identical twins how would your idea on mothers only having one child work with me if we had this rule in force.

would i be forced to kill one of the twins?

but on the other hand i do agree with you i think the benifit in the long term would reduce the impact we have on our environment.

in britain we no longer have big familys like we did some years ago in our history. the difference now is that parents are getting much younger and having children not buy choice but by unprotected s*x.

if we educated children a bit more responsably they may only ever have the one child in there adulthood.

steps and measurements could work.

it would take a miracle but not impossible.

Answer 7

You are quite wrong, there is plenty of land and even more will be available due to global warming in the next few hundred years in the vast and formerly too cold expanses of Canada and Russia

Answer 8

Man will always take a penetrative policy, it's in our nature.

Answer 9

Selective breeding global policy can be a better idea.  All of us were born accidentally i.e., the end product of a sexual act between a man and a woman due mainly to lust fulfilment. In nature, there are good plants and useless plants. Similarly, in humans also everybody is not useful. Such less useful humans are producing more use-less humans. Such identified class of humans should be stopped from the process of reproduction for a period of time so that the world can be filled with more useful humans produced by existing intelligent beings.  Let us have more useful plants that serve

Answer 10

Question...Who's going to enforce it?

Who are you going to force this kind of draconian policy on?

This will never work, as there is never a global consensus on anything. The countries that do what you propose will be taken over by the countries that don't.

Answer 11

Permaculture Answer:

Preventative policy as you describe NO. Reasons, enforcement, skews in sexes, reality of abortions, aging populations in western world, labour barriers, poverty, tradition, etc etc  the list is endless. No excuse whatsoever for your selective breeding solution.

I do like your thinking about smallest land use for mankind. It is Permaculture thinking. Use less space by creating a highly productive/high yield homestead/garden and being as self sufficient in food, fuel and dealing with wastes as possible. Permaculture dictates we then leave the rest of the wilderness alone. In Permaculture we advocate SELF LIMITING your own family size.

Good luck with this question; people find it hard to understand that it is the connection between the WAY in which we live/consume/deplete/pollute that is causing the environmental problems. We have overconsumption but finite resources. Overpopulation is a threat because of the finite resources. Each child is another demand on finite resources. We damage the ecosystem and cover it in concrete, we pollute the air, water, soil thus ensuring that the ecosystem can not work effectively.  Our actions are destroying the very system that keeps us alive. The more people there are, the more demand there is on those finite resources.

Limit your consumption of everything and self limit the size of your own family.

Answer 12

We have been down this road. Who what when and were. Who is going to over see it and police it. What would the punishment be. How would this affect the kids. Don't be a dreamer all your days. Think of what your asking. By the way i like the idea. People are selfish and always will be.

Answer 13

china?

Answer 14

Let me tell you something:

First, Japan already has a selective breeding program, where they can only have two kids each.

Second, China advertises and rewards people for having children.  (Or this could be the opposite, meer speculation).

Third, according to statistics China and India have the highest percentage of births each year.

With, China having 2 Billion births.

And, India having 1Billion births.

Now, I don't postulate a family having a few kids because of the environment or the economy.  This is not healthy.  But, statistics show that countries like Sweden, with fewer children per capita- have a higher life expectancy rate- so this can't be as bias as we think.

This country has problems with employment, pensions, health insurance, and government.  But, this doesn't look as unhealthy as we think.  In a generation or so, we should be getting migrants from other countries to help repopulate our nation, (as the baby-boomers die).  The bad part of this will be less births per capita between nationalized citizens and second-generation citizens.  

They say population criteria is what destroyed Rome.  But who knows??  Marc Antony fled Rome to Egypt anyways, taking legions of mercantile slaves and soldiers with him; to repopulate Egypt.

The nexus of things is simple:  we need to find a way to repopulate this country without killing our people as we speak.

We need:

1)  Better taxations

2)  Better health agendas

3)  Fewer mortgages

4)  No Utility taxes

5)  We need to make our own gasoline

6)  We need to re-educate our masses

With this I say adieu:

And I say:

"To all future tyrants, step in the black-hole of your dais!"

Answer 15

As a theory it's ideologically sound, but effectively unenforceable.  I share your realisation that overpopulation is the root of the vast majority of humanity's current and future problems, but mandated breeding is not the answer - how would you enforce it?  Will you kill babies?  Will you impose your own beliefs on those who consider gestation to be the commencement of life?  Similar to what you suggest is currently in place in China, and early indications are that the results are deplorable.  Girl children are killed for their lessened odds of future productivity.

The thinking persons idealism of licensed reproduction is on the surface a great idea, but completely unusable in real life under any paradigm I have yet encountered.

Answer 16

this is a very malthosian idea.. in a way i agree, maybe doing someting like the one child policy of china would help becuas as we over populate we will need o grow more food have more cars houses and in doing that burn more fuels which is going to contribute to global warming

Answer 17

The population is expanding because the previous means of limitation have diminished.

There are fewer diseases that kill thousands at a time.

There are less natural disasters that control the population.

There are fewer international conflicts with massive loss of life.

Has anyone stopped to think about why places weren't settled until the last few hundred years.

Australia has a water shortage problem and that makes it less friendly to live away from the coastal areas.

USA has major tornado belts.

These are just minor examples of habitat being taken over by an expanding population. If we make these places more habitable it only encourages more growth.

Answer 18

why are you repeating yourself?????????????????

Answer 19

In some places, it's not realistic to have only one kid, because if you live on a farm or somewhere remote, you need people to take care of everything.  And if your society doesn't have pensions, someone has to look after you when you get old and feeble.

I think that instead of a law mandating how many children you can have, we need to educate the people and children we DO have, about the dangers of over-population, types of birth control, advantages to having less kids, etc.  Education is the first step to anything; making laws doesn't change people's minds and certainly won't stop them from reproducing, either on purpose or accidentally, but education can help them make better informed decisions, not only about family planning, but caring for the Earth and all people.