5 ms·

Those of you arguing for population control should think of the methods governments have used in the past to do so. Is this what you have in mind? Scary. Birth

Those of you arguing for population control should think of the methods governments have used in the past to do so. Is this what you have in mind? Scary. Birth rates will decline when a level of poverty in an area goes down to below replacement levels. This happens everywhere measured. Here's an unpopular idea: I like bring alive. I think most people do. I'm glad that there are many people on this planet living. I know that the environment suffers because of it but I'd rather have more people. We humans can meet the challenges of our population on earth though the world will be changed for it.

JaceLightning 7y ago
You can still have people: just have fewer kids later in life. Governments can encourage people not to have kids by reducing tax breaks for families with more kids.
- throwaway13337 7y ago
  China's one child policy did essentially that - financially encouraged people to have less children and the result was the murder of female babies. So many that there is an alarming amount of boys versus girls today: 118.06 boys to every 100 girls born (measured in 2010). Remember that high birth rates are only a problem in poverty.
  - hycaria 7y ago
    Because all cultures have sex discrepancies and a tolerance to infanticide so that would be the outcome everywhere on earth ? And how can it be a problem only in poverty ? Doesnt the average American consume like ten fold what the average Indian does ?
    - hk2001 7y ago
      > Because all cultures have sex discrepancies and a tolerance to infanticide so that would be the outcome everywhere on earth ? Most do. And is abortion infanticide? Because abortion is widely accepted across the first world, and can result in the same thing. > And how can it be a problem only in poverty ? Doesnt the average American consume like ten fold what the average Indian does ? Yes, which is the point. Those who say "population control" is the answer are essentially saying "make third world countries with less consumption but higher birthrates change, not first world countries with low birthrates and high consumption". The US actually have stable, ideal birth rate currently. And I doubt even the most delusional population control advocate thinks reducing the US birth rate by 10 fold (from somewhere a little above 2 to .2) is a good idea (though I could be wrong). And many first world countries are even lower to the US, to the point its actually creating major societal problems (like Japan and Sweden). What the above commenter is trying to say is that as poverty levels go down, birth rates drop to replacement level or below. So essentially to say "population control" is the ideal solution is to say make the areas of the world with high birth rates (largely developing nations, mostly in Africa) stop having children, rather than improving the consumption patterns and efficiency of those of us living in the first world. Seems problematic to say the least.
- hk2001 7y ago
  Most first world countries don't need nor even want to encourage people to not have kids. In fact, most want the opposite. Countries like Japan and Sweden are actively pursuing measures to encourage people to have more children, because their countries are looking at existential crises as the result of having too few young people, and a population that isn't replenishing itself. In fact, the US, which offers tax breaks for families with more children, is right around what is considered the ideal birth rate as it currently stands. Projections for increased global population are being driven almost entirely by developing nations, most of which are in Africa. And most of the reasons for the high birth rates are entwined in a very complex web of factors, including poverty, education, and general health outcomes, none of which can be solved by waving a magic wand. The good news is that these countries are projected to level out their population growth as they do develop. The reality is that it will take time. But this means that anyone who seriously considers "population control" as the means to dealing with climate change, world hunger, etc. completely misunderstand the realities surrounding both the growth of the global population and our ability to influence it. And that is without even considering the history of what "population control" has often meant, and the fact that it is a slippery slope that has been used to justify war, eugenics (if not in name then in function), and genocide, to say nothing of a whole host of societal issues like sexism. Population control is not "the solution". "The solution" will require finding ways to make our societies sustainable at the increased population levels.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    Population control can involve non violent policies. When women join the work force it becomes harder for them to have children.
UnpossibleJim 7y ago
It's not so much that the birth rates go down when the level of poverty goes down, but birth rates go down when the level of education go up and then the standard of living goes up. This seems like a semantic argument, I know but it isn't just birth rates that goes down that goes down but age of conception goes up as well, allowing for more independent and more qualified choices. Not to mention a more egalitarian society for the sexes. If we focus on education and not poverty, that would seem an easier problem to solve. Unfortunately, there are more societal and cultural boundaries to overcome to educating certain segments of specific populations (women in some societies, homosexuals in others, untouchables in some).
kaitai 7y ago
You can see all kinds of countries where birth rates go down as women gain the freedom to exercise family planning. Even women who love babies may need time to recover after a birth and prefer to space things out a bit more than might occur without available birth control. There is not a need to bring government control into this: women will make decisions about birth control in discussion with their partners and considering family finances, safety (are we in a civil war or not?), physical health, and needs of existing children.
manicdee 7y ago
Why do you think the only form of population control is mass murder?

JaceLightning 7y ago

You can still have people: just have fewer kids later in life. Governments can encourage people not to have kids by reducing tax breaks for families with more kids.

throwaway13337 7y ago
China's one child policy did essentially that - financially encouraged people to have less children and the result was the murder of female babies. So many that there is an alarming amount of boys versus girls today: 118.06 boys to every 100 girls born (measured in 2010). Remember that high birth rates are only a problem in poverty.
- hycaria 7y ago
  Because all cultures have sex discrepancies and a tolerance to infanticide so that would be the outcome everywhere on earth ? And how can it be a problem only in poverty ? Doesnt the average American consume like ten fold what the average Indian does ?
  - hk2001 7y ago
    > Because all cultures have sex discrepancies and a tolerance to infanticide so that would be the outcome everywhere on earth ? Most do. And is abortion infanticide? Because abortion is widely accepted across the first world, and can result in the same thing. > And how can it be a problem only in poverty ? Doesnt the average American consume like ten fold what the average Indian does ? Yes, which is the point. Those who say "population control" is the answer are essentially saying "make third world countries with less consumption but higher birthrates change, not first world countries with low birthrates and high consumption". The US actually have stable, ideal birth rate currently. And I doubt even the most delusional population control advocate thinks reducing the US birth rate by 10 fold (from somewhere a little above 2 to .2) is a good idea (though I could be wrong). And many first world countries are even lower to the US, to the point its actually creating major societal problems (like Japan and Sweden). What the above commenter is trying to say is that as poverty levels go down, birth rates drop to replacement level or below. So essentially to say "population control" is the ideal solution is to say make the areas of the world with high birth rates (largely developing nations, mostly in Africa) stop having children, rather than improving the consumption patterns and efficiency of those of us living in the first world. Seems problematic to say the least.
hk2001 7y ago
Most first world countries don't need nor even want to encourage people to not have kids. In fact, most want the opposite. Countries like Japan and Sweden are actively pursuing measures to encourage people to have more children, because their countries are looking at existential crises as the result of having too few young people, and a population that isn't replenishing itself. In fact, the US, which offers tax breaks for families with more children, is right around what is considered the ideal birth rate as it currently stands. Projections for increased global population are being driven almost entirely by developing nations, most of which are in Africa. And most of the reasons for the high birth rates are entwined in a very complex web of factors, including poverty, education, and general health outcomes, none of which can be solved by waving a magic wand. The good news is that these countries are projected to level out their population growth as they do develop. The reality is that it will take time. But this means that anyone who seriously considers "population control" as the means to dealing with climate change, world hunger, etc. completely misunderstand the realities surrounding both the growth of the global population and our ability to influence it. And that is without even considering the history of what "population control" has often meant, and the fact that it is a slippery slope that has been used to justify war, eugenics (if not in name then in function), and genocide, to say nothing of a whole host of societal issues like sexism. Population control is not "the solution". "The solution" will require finding ways to make our societies sustainable at the increased population levels.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Population control can involve non violent policies. When women join the work force it becomes harder for them to have children.

UnpossibleJim 7y ago

It's not so much that the birth rates go down when the level of poverty goes down, but birth rates go down when the level of education go up and then the standard of living goes up. This seems like a semantic argument, I know but it isn't just birth rates that goes down that goes down but age of conception goes up as well, allowing for more independent and more qualified choices. Not to mention a more egalitarian society for the sexes. If we focus on education and not poverty, that would seem an easier problem to solve. Unfortunately, there are more societal and cultural boundaries to overcome to educating certain segments of specific populations (women in some societies, homosexuals in others, untouchables in some).

kaitai 7y ago

You can see all kinds of countries where birth rates go down as women gain the freedom to exercise family planning. Even women who love babies may need time to recover after a birth and prefer to space things out a bit more than might occur without available birth control. There is not a need to bring government control into this: women will make decisions about birth control in discussion with their partners and considering family finances, safety (are we in a civil war or not?), physical health, and needs of existing children.

manicdee 7y ago

Why do you think the only form of population control is mass murder?