Human population: Is it a problem? If so, what are the solutions?

brianlux

For quite some time, I've been tempted to ask these questions but hesitate to do so with the concern that doing so may be taken wrong.  So let me state from the outset:  I do not hate children.  Though I have never had children, I have been a teacher, I have help raise some of my nephews, I have godchildren and great godchildren, nieces and nephews and grandnieces and grandnephews and children of good friends and I love them all. But I am concerned with what I consider to be overpopulation of the human species. 

What promoted me to ask these questions is this article...

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/children-carbon-footprint-climate-change-damage-having-kids-research-a7837961.html

...which implies in its premise that having fewer children is one of the best things one can do for the planet that sustains us.

I agree with that premise and I believe it is useful to consider ways in which we might humanely curb human population.  But that's the tricky part.  How can this be achieved? 

Do we just ignore the problem and take the fatalistic viewpoint that like any species that exceeds carrying capacity, it will right itself through natural means? 

Do we encourage others to not reproduce?

We banned CFCs because they were causing holes to form in the ozone layer and we knew that was bad for our environment.  So if we believe overpopulation is also bad for the planet, do we place into effect laws that state who can have children and who cannot or how many we are allowed to have?  (That's a question, not an opinion.)

What I'm hoping for here are some reasonable suggestions to what I and many others see as a problem.  I have no problem discussing with others here who disagree with the idea that human population is a problem but I won't engage in or respond to any post that even suggest that for me this is about hating children.  Its' not.  Please, don't even go there.  Thanks.

cincybearcat

My opinion - having > 1 kid per adult/parent is irresponsible.  You don;t need laws to limit this, you just need people to not be self-centered.  But of course that won't happen, and neither will laws.

KC138045

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

tbergs

It's a major problem, but we will never address it directly. There needs to be population control and limits on reproduction, but good luck ever making that happen. Picture a future where it's a crime to have a child because you didn't get a birth permit. They then take you and force an abortion or euthanize your child that was born illegally. It's a horrible scenario, but It's going to come to that if there isn't a mass extinction due to disease, war or environmental changes. We either take care of it on our own or the world we live in will. It won't happen in my lifetime, but I could see it coming to the tipping point within the turn of the next century.

Go Beavers

I’ve probably posted this in here before, but eventually global population will start to decline. Some predictions are around 40 to 80 years from now. This will be due to increased quality of life globally which makes having kids an economic burden due to the consumption. The challenge will be how the earth will fare getting over this hump just before the decline in numbers and whether it’s systems can balance. What will help the planet will be less reliance on fossil fuels. People will also need to eat less meat. Production will gradually get closer to home since the cheap labor advantages will be less. There will also be more virtual existence and consumption rather than physical, which should lessen the drag on resources.

Or maybe I’m just talking out my wazoo, but looking at it this way makes me less wound up about current population growth. 

brianlux

KC138045 said:

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

I think that may be so and that's good but one thing that I read that was eye opening is that couple having only two children is, of course, better than more than two but even at just two, the population does not decrease because most often, the two children grow up and reproduce before the first set of parents die i.e. grand parents and great grand parents).  The population increases anyway, though more slowly.

Also, just FYI, "fewer children" is correct, not "less children". 

The usage rule states: "Fewer is only to be used when discussing countable things, while less is used for singular mass nouns. For example, you can have fewer ingredients, dollars, people, or puppies, but less salt, money, honesty, or love [or children]. If you can count it, go for fewer.

I don't mean to be the grammar police saying this!  I did not learn this well myself until my wife started pointing it out to me years ago.  I still have to catch and correct on it myself now and then!

brianlux

KC138045 said:

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

I think that may be so and that's good but one thing that I read that was eye opening is that couple having only two children is, of course, better than more than two but even at just two, the population does not decrease because most often, the two children grow up and reproduce before the first set of parents die i.e. grand parents and great grand parents).  The population increases anyway, though more slowly.

Also, just FYI, "fewer children" is correct, not "less children". 

The usage rule states: "Fewer is only to be used when discussing countable things, while less is used for singular mass nouns. For example, you can have fewer ingredients, dollars, people, or puppies, but less salt, money, honesty, or love [or children]. If you can count it, go for fewer.

I don't mean to be the grammar police saying this!  I did not learn this well myself until my wife started pointing it out to me years ago.  I still have to catch and correct on it myself now and then!

KC138045

brianlux said:

KC138045 said:

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

I think that may be so and that's good but one thing that I read that was eye opening is that couple having only two children is, of course, better than more than two but even at just two, the population does not decrease because most often, the two children grow up and reproduce before the first set of parents die i.e. grand parents and great grand parents).  The population increases anyway, though more slowly.

Also, just FYI, "fewer children" is correct, not "less children". 

The usage rule states: "Fewer is only to be used when discussing countable things, while less is used for singular mass nouns. For example, you can have fewer ingredients, dollars, people, or puppies, but less salt, money, honesty, or love [or children]. If you can count it, go for fewer.

I don't mean to be the grammar police saying this!  I did not learn this well myself until my wife started pointing it out to me years ago.  I still have to catch and correct on it myself now and then!

Haha no worries.  I appreciate the correction and the explanation.

brianlux

Go Beavers said:

I’ve probably posted this in here before, but eventually global population will start to decline. Some predictions are around 40 to 80 years from now. This will be due to increased quality of life globally which makes having kids an economic burden due to the consumption. The challenge will be how the earth will fare getting over this hump just before the decline in numbers and whether it’s systems can balance. What will help the planet will be less reliance on fossil fuels. People will also need to eat less meat. Production will gradually get closer to home since the cheap labor advantages will be less. There will also be more virtual existence and consumption rather than physical, which should lessen the drag on resources.

Or maybe I’m just talking out my wazoo, but looking at it this way makes me less wound up about current population growth. 

Good points, GB.  This: "The challenge will be how the earth will fare getting over this hump just before the decline in numbers and whether it’s systems can balance", especially.  Humans are already using up what resources the earth provides for us each each by early August (a date sometimes referred to as "Earth Overshoot Day").  That day comes earlier each year.  The clock is ticking and the imbalance is great.  Will we find a way out of this conundrum in time? I think we would do well to act sooner than later by reproducing even less often and consuming fewer resources.

Go Beavers

brianlux said:

KC138045 said:

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

I think that may be so and that's good but one thing that I read that was eye opening is that couple having only two children is, of course, better than more than two but even at just two, the population does not decrease because most often, the two children grow up and reproduce before the first set of parents die i.e. grand parents and great grand parents).  The population increases anyway, though more slowly.

Also, just FYI, "fewer children" is correct, not "less children". 

The usage rule states: "Fewer is only to be used when discussing countable things, while less is used for singular mass nouns. For example, you can have fewer ingredients, dollars, people, or puppies, but less salt, money, honesty, or love [or children]. If you can count it, go for fewer.

I don't mean to be the grammar police saying this!  I did not learn this well myself until my wife started pointing it out to me years ago.  I still have to catch and correct on it myself now and then!

I correct people in my head on this one all the time!

brianlux

Go Beavers said:

brianlux said:

KC138045 said:

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

I think that may be so and that's good but one thing that I read that was eye opening is that couple having only two children is, of course, better than more than two but even at just two, the population does not decrease because most often, the two children grow up and reproduce before the first set of parents die i.e. grand parents and great grand parents).  The population increases anyway, though more slowly.

Also, just FYI, "fewer children" is correct, not "less children". 

The usage rule states: "Fewer is only to be used when discussing countable things, while less is used for singular mass nouns. For example, you can have fewer ingredients, dollars, people, or puppies, but less salt, money, honesty, or love [or children]. If you can count it, go for fewer.

I don't mean to be the grammar police saying this!  I did not learn this well myself until my wife started pointing it out to me years ago.  I still have to catch and correct on it myself now and then!

I correct people in my head on this one all the time!

I had to learn that one as an adult as well as the difference between "good" and "well" as in "I'm doing well, thank you" rather than "I'm doing good, thank you".  My folks were both very bright people but they taught me some poor language habits!

tempo_n_groove

Watch "infinity War" and see what Thanos proposes as far as population control.  It's a pretty radical idea but he firmly believes in it!

tempo_n_groove

brianlux said:

KC138045 said:

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

I think that may be so and that's good but one thing that I read that was eye opening is that couple having only two children is, of course, better than more than two but even at just two, the population does not decrease because most often, the two children grow up and reproduce before the first set of parents die i.e. grand parents and great grand parents).  The population increases anyway, though more slowly.

Also, just FYI, "fewer children" is correct, not "less children". 

The usage rule states: "Fewer is only to be used when discussing countable things, while less is used for singular mass nouns. For example, you can have fewer ingredients, dollars, people, or puppies, but less salt, money, honesty, or love [or children]. If you can count it, go for fewer.

I don't mean to be the grammar police saying this!  I did not learn this well myself until my wife started pointing it out to me years ago.  I still have to catch and correct on it myself now and then!

Can't you count money?!?

oftenreading

Go Beavers said:

brianlux said:

KC138045 said:

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

I think that may be so and that's good but one thing that I read that was eye opening is that couple having only two children is, of course, better than more than two but even at just two, the population does not decrease because most often, the two children grow up and reproduce before the first set of parents die i.e. grand parents and great grand parents).  The population increases anyway, though more slowly.

Also, just FYI, "fewer children" is correct, not "less children". 

The usage rule states: "Fewer is only to be used when discussing countable things, while less is used for singular mass nouns. For example, you can have fewer ingredients, dollars, people, or puppies, but less salt, money, honesty, or love [or children]. If you can count it, go for fewer.

I don't mean to be the grammar police saying this!  I did not learn this well myself until my wife started pointing it out to me years ago.  I still have to catch and correct on it myself now and then!

I correct people in my head on this one all the time!

Ha ha! I have to grit my teeth over less and fewer. 

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

KC138045 said:

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

I think that may be so and that's good but one thing that I read that was eye opening is that couple having only two children is, of course, better than more than two but even at just two, the population does not decrease because most often, the two children grow up and reproduce before the first set of parents die i.e. grand parents and great grand parents).  The population increases anyway, though more slowly.

Also, just FYI, "fewer children" is correct, not "less children". 

The usage rule states: "Fewer is only to be used when discussing countable things, while less is used for singular mass nouns. For example, you can have fewer ingredients, dollars, people, or puppies, but less salt, money, honesty, or love [or children]. If you can count it, go for fewer.

I don't mean to be the grammar police saying this!  I did not learn this well myself until my wife started pointing it out to me years ago.  I still have to catch and correct on it myself now and then!

Can't you count money?!?

Fewer dollars, less money. 

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

KC138045 said:

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

I think that may be so and that's good but one thing that I read that was eye opening is that couple having only two children is, of course, better than more than two but even at just two, the population does not decrease because most often, the two children grow up and reproduce before the first set of parents die i.e. grand parents and great grand parents).  The population increases anyway, though more slowly.

Also, just FYI, "fewer children" is correct, not "less children". 

The usage rule states: "Fewer is only to be used when discussing countable things, while less is used for singular mass nouns. For example, you can have fewer ingredients, dollars, people, or puppies, but less salt, money, honesty, or love [or children]. If you can count it, go for fewer.

I don't mean to be the grammar police saying this!  I did not learn this well myself until my wife started pointing it out to me years ago.  I still have to catch and correct on it myself now and then!

Can't you count money?!?

Nope . 

You can count coins or banknotes but you can’t count “money”. 

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

Watch "infinity War" and see what Thanos proposes as far as population control.  It's a pretty radical idea but he firmly believes in it!

Not a modern animated film fan.  Can you summarize his population control idea?

PJ_Soul

There is certainly enough space for a lot more people in this world ... it's just a matter of the damage people do to the environment obviously, as well as how the space is made habitable, depending on the region. If the world's societies adjust cultural and group behaviour, modernize in terms of pollutants, and stop raping the Earth for its resources without consideration of sustainability, then there would be no population problem. But do I have faith that humanity will actually manage to do these things around the world (and not just in first world nations)? Not really. Because for all these things to happen effectively, greed levels have to really really shrink. I don't believe that's possible.

oftenreading

 But on the topic, two of the most important things we can do to limit population growth are making reliable birth control methods easily available, and focusing on female education. Both of these need to occur world wide. Wherever girls and woman are better educated and have access to contraception, as a group they tend to make choices to limit their families and have fewer ( )but healthier children.

dankind

https://youtu.be/qXklLQJJVD4

brianlux

oftenreading said:

 But on the topic, two of the most important things we can do to limit population growth are making reliable birth control methods easily available, and focusing on female education. Both of these need to occur world wide. Wherever girls and woman are better educated and have access to contraception, as a group they tend to make choices to limit their families and have fewer ( )but healthier children.

Well said, often.

PJ_Soul

oftenreading said:

 But on the topic, two of the most important things we can do to limit population growth are making reliable birth control methods easily available, and focusing on female education. Both of these need to occur world wide. Wherever girls and woman are better educated and have access to contraception, as a group they tend to make choices to limit their families and have fewer ( )but healthier children.

Really what's needed, then, is female equality in places where men are still in control.

oftenreading

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

 But on the topic, two of the most important things we can do to limit population growth are making reliable birth control methods easily available, and focusing on female education. Both of these need to occur world wide. Wherever girls and woman are better educated and have access to contraception, as a group they tend to make choices to limit their families and have fewer ( )but healthier children.

Really what's needed, then, is female equality in places where men are still in control.

Ideally, yes, though the experiences of many aid groups throughout the world is that these interventions can occur and be helpful even in very patriarchal societies. Best never to lose hope. 

PJ_Soul

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

 But on the topic, two of the most important things we can do to limit population growth are making reliable birth control methods easily available, and focusing on female education. Both of these need to occur world wide. Wherever girls and woman are better educated and have access to contraception, as a group they tend to make choices to limit their families and have fewer ( )but healthier children.

Really what's needed, then, is female equality in places where men are still in control.

Ideally, yes, though the experiences of many aid groups throughout the world is that these interventions can occur and be helpful even in very patriarchal societies. Best never to lose hope. 

Yes, educating women is the first step in moving towards equality for them. I believe that is the whole point behind all the efforts being made to educate women... The issue is, obviously, that men won't let them get it in many part of the world, so that just stops the process in its tracks.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

 But on the topic, two of the most important things we can do to limit population growth are making reliable birth control methods easily available, and focusing on female education. Both of these need to occur world wide. Wherever girls and woman are better educated and have access to contraception, as a group they tend to make choices to limit their families and have fewer ( )but healthier children.

Really what's needed, then, is female equality in places where men are still in control.

Ideally, yes, though the experiences of many aid groups throughout the world is that these interventions can occur and be helpful even in very patriarchal societies. Best never to lose hope. 

Yes, educating women is the first step in moving towards equality for them. I believe that is the whole point behind all the efforts being made to educate women... The issue is, obviously, that men won't let them get it in many part of the world, so that just stops the process in its tracks.

That is so lame.  I'll never understand guys like that.  I suppose some will use "tradition" or "culture" as an excuse but in this day and age, in this world, that's just lame. 

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

 But on the topic, two of the most important things we can do to limit population growth are making reliable birth control methods easily available, and focusing on female education. Both of these need to occur world wide. Wherever girls and woman are better educated and have access to contraception, as a group they tend to make choices to limit their families and have fewer ( )but healthier children.

Really what's needed, then, is female equality in places where men are still in control.

Ideally, yes, though the experiences of many aid groups throughout the world is that these interventions can occur and be helpful even in very patriarchal societies. Best never to lose hope. 

Yes, educating women is the first step in moving towards equality for them. I believe that is the whole point behind all the efforts being made to educate women... The issue is, obviously, that men won't let them get it in many part of the world, so that just stops the process in its tracks.

That is so lame.  I'll never understand guys like that.  I suppose some will use "tradition" or "culture" as an excuse but in this day and age, in this world, that's just lame. 

Well the men right here in North America are only very grudgingly giving it up over time too (and violence against women remains a crisis). Same with white people. Doesn't matter what culture it is. Those in power never want to relinquish it.

oftenreading

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

 But on the topic, two of the most important things we can do to limit population growth are making reliable birth control methods easily available, and focusing on female education. Both of these need to occur world wide. Wherever girls and woman are better educated and have access to contraception, as a group they tend to make choices to limit their families and have fewer ( )but healthier children.

Really what's needed, then, is female equality in places where men are still in control.

Ideally, yes, though the experiences of many aid groups throughout the world is that these interventions can occur and be helpful even in very patriarchal societies. Best never to lose hope. 

Yes, educating women is the first step in moving towards equality for them. I believe that is the whole point behind all the efforts being made to educate women... The issue is, obviously, that men won't let them get it in many part of the world, so that just stops the process in its tracks.

I’m using the word broadly. Education can be as simple as health education provided by a community nurse. Small nuggets of information that can help improve the health of existing children and delay or space out pregnancies. It doesn’t need to be attendance at school for it to be helpful, and the men are less likely (though not always) to prevent this. 
 

PJ_Soul

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:

 But on the topic, two of the most important things we can do to limit population growth are making reliable birth control methods easily available, and focusing on female education. Both of these need to occur world wide. Wherever girls and woman are better educated and have access to contraception, as a group they tend to make choices to limit their families and have fewer ( )but healthier children.

Really what's needed, then, is female equality in places where men are still in control.

Ideally, yes, though the experiences of many aid groups throughout the world is that these interventions can occur and be helpful even in very patriarchal societies. Best never to lose hope. 

Yes, educating women is the first step in moving towards equality for them. I believe that is the whole point behind all the efforts being made to educate women... The issue is, obviously, that men won't let them get it in many part of the world, so that just stops the process in its tracks.

I’m using the word broadly. Education can be as simple as health education provided by a community nurse. Small nuggets of information that can help improve the health of existing children and delay or space out pregnancies. It doesn’t need to be attendance at school for it to be helpful, and the men are less likely (though not always) to prevent this. 
 

Yes, I'm on your page often. That is the kind of education I was talking about too. I didn't mean just traditional school. But men certainly fight that kind of education too in some places, or simply make it impossible because they won't allow "their women" to leave the house unescorted by a male family member. Men in societies like these are quite cognizant of what any programs like that can lead to - they deliberately want to prevent it all and keep the patriarchy by any means possible. Hell, having loads of children is a great way to keep women out of larger society. If they have 8 kids they don't have time to join in society.

tempo_n_groove

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

KC138045 said:

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

I think that may be so and that's good but one thing that I read that was eye opening is that couple having only two children is, of course, better than more than two but even at just two, the population does not decrease because most often, the two children grow up and reproduce before the first set of parents die i.e. grand parents and great grand parents).  The population increases anyway, though more slowly.

Also, just FYI, "fewer children" is correct, not "less children". 

The usage rule states: "Fewer is only to be used when discussing countable things, while less is used for singular mass nouns. For example, you can have fewer ingredients, dollars, people, or puppies, but less salt, money, honesty, or love [or children]. If you can count it, go for fewer.

I don't mean to be the grammar police saying this!  I did not learn this well myself until my wife started pointing it out to me years ago.  I still have to catch and correct on it myself now and then!

Can't you count money?!?

Fewer dollars, less money. 

So I can count 100 dollars and 25 cents but not the money in my pocket?

Go Beavers

Funny timing. Just announced today that in 2017 there were the fewest number of births in the US in the last 30 years, and that the fertility rate in the US is below replacement level

PJ_Soul

Developed western nations are definitely not the problem, although how they impact the environment is... but those that are irresponsible in that context would harm the environment even if practically the entire population vanished, as long as it makes money.