Overpopulation

[Verix]

So i just saw a television show about the people who lived on easter island around 700 years, when they first arrived the entire island was covered in trees and resources and after about 500 over of abusing the the island and having kids like crazy every tree on island was gone and too make a long story short it all fell into chaos people began starving etc etc, it made me think what if the same things happing with earth? im not trying to sound all liberal but the population of the earth increases by 74 million people per year, how long can it last before the world becomes like easter island? and how can we advert it? there could be something like chinas "one child" policy world wide but the religious would ignore and rebel against it and it would be decryed as "immoral". even if we could learn to colonize space would that end in us commiting full genocide against the natives like the europeons did when they found north america? what are your thoughts?

[Bright Banana Beard]

The people in Easter Island did not have proper technology like we do right now. They were stuck in that island.

[gorillafuck]

Educate people to use protection, provide contraceptives/pills freely, and have abortion free and legal.

Edit: Looking back, this was a really stupid post.

[piet11111]

Educate people to use protection, provide contraceptives/pills freely, and have abortion free and legal.

there is definitely an overpopulation of Malthusians going on.
maybe they should be given the option of voluntary castration that ought to fix some problems ;)

[Technocrat]

The people in Easter Island did not have proper technology like we do right now. They were stuck in that island.

That is not the problem. They knew what they were doing was unsustainable and continued doing it even though they didn't have to, suggesting that psychology and tradition are the biggest hurdles to overcome in transitioning to a sustainable society, not lack of technology. More technology isn't going to help a society that refuses to give up its unsustainable practices. Let's say the Easter Islanders had electric buzz-saws for cutting down trees. All that's going to do is speed up the process by which the island is deforested, without a major shift in social values and traditions.

Education and birth control would work fine if you didn't have religion getting in the way and telling people that they are going to burn in hell for practicing birth control. Raising living standards is a good way to reduce the number of births, since wealthier people tend to have fewer children.

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

No such thing as overpopulation.You can never have enough people.Better than having under population

[Jimmie Higgins]

That is not the problem. They knew what they were doing was unsustainable and continued doing it even though they didn't have to, suggesting that psychology and tradition are the biggest hurdles to overcome in transitioning to a sustainable society, not lack of technology. More technology isn't going to help a society that refuses to give up its unsustainable practices. Let's say the Easter Islanders had electric buzz-saws for cutting down trees. All that's going to do is speed up the process by which the island is deforested, without a major shift in social values and traditions.

Education and birth control would work fine if you didn't have religion getting in the way and telling people that they are going to burn in hell for practicing birth control. Raising living standards is a good way to reduce the number of births, since wealthier people tend to have fewer children.

All class societies are unsustainable in some ways to varying degrees. The things that the elite use to rest their power on (land, slaves, means of production) eventually become a burdon to other modes of production. Slave-societies, for example, don't need labor-saving technology because they can steal all the labor they need.

A socialist society where politics and resources are delt with democratically, people would not be able to make short-sighted decisions that benifit themselves in the short-term while huring other groups in the population. So it's logical under capitalism to fish a lake until the fish are gone and move your means of fishing production over to the next lake and let other people deal with the destruction; then rinse and repeat at the next lake. But if resources and the means of production are collective, then we would want to make them last and be sustainable.

There will probably still be problems like will people make short-term decisions that benifit everyone at the present but cause problems in the future. But I a democratic decision will undoubtedly be better for all than the capitalists being able to carve up the world and use resources as fast as possible.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As for "overpopulation": well just think what we could do if development wasn't simply for the sake of profit and creating a strong nation (also to ensure profits). One of my favorite post-revolution fantasies is based on something I read in Scientific American or a similar magazine.

The article was about large skyscrapers where crops are grown inside - it recycles water to feed the crops and in the process also purifies the water that can then be pumped out for drinking water. The structures would also clean the air in urban areas and decrease pollution since crops could be produces in population centers and cut down on shipping and trucking. Agricultural workers would be spared some of the worst aspects of field work (sun, dangerous pesticides, bending over to harvest crops and so on) and become more like factory workers. A lot of land now used for agriculture could be used of other things or left to be reclaimed by nature and restore some ecosystems that have been distorted by monoculture crops.

The buildings would be about as big as a city block and it would take about a decade for the crops to pay-off the costs of the structure and crop production - because of this, no private company would ever invest in such a thing even though the technology exists right now. If people got to decide collectively what was a good long-term investment, I think many people would see this as a better use of resources than a battleship or nukes or prisons or a slick ad campaign.

Similarly, we could redesign urban panning to give people more space while not taking up as much land as cheaply produced suburban tracts. This is just me thinking - imagine if everyone was thinking about these things and we could use all of human imagination and innovation to make things better for all of us.

[Sentinel]

Overpopulation is directly caused by neocolonialism, which is why it's primarily a problem in the third world. Once capitalist imperialism is defeated by a socialist workers revolution either in the west or in the neo-colonies, living standards and technological level in the third world are likely to rise -- which demonstrably lowers the increase of population.

See this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/breathing-earth-t58879/index.html). As you can see, the population of countries with welfare states (socialist or social democrat) having created high living standards for broad layers of the population, the birth rate is stagnant -- precisely the same amount of people are born and die. Compare Sweden or Cuba to their neighbors on the map for instance.

Due to these reasons socialism and communism are the solution to the overpopulation question. A workers revolution will even out the right of control of the resources and create high living conditions for everyone globally, and that will slow down the uncontrolled growth of the global human population.

[Atrus]

I can't say I'm an expert on this, I know enough to understand that over population can be a serious problem, and be a real danger.
I've heard many people suggesting that with improving health care and people living older and older that this may be a large cause for over population, some people even suggesting putting a maximum age limit on life.
Just wondered if anyone knows any more about this and how real a threat and solution that is?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I can't say I'm an expert on this, I know enough to understand that over population can be a serious problem, and be a real danger.
I've heard many people suggesting that with improving health care and people living older and older that this may be a large cause for over population, some people even suggesting putting a maximum age limit on life.
Just wondered if anyone knows any more about this and how real a threat and solution that is?

Actually, the reverse is true. Long lifespans are a good indicator of a decent quality of life, which is negatively correlated with high birthrates.

[Vanguard1917]

As a previous poster said, there is no such thing as overpopulation; it's 100% myth. Problems like poverty today are caused not by there being too many people (as the world's billionaires will have you believe (http://www.revleft.com/vb/leading-us-billionaires-t109788/index.html?t=109788)), but by the social problems brought about by capitalism. With widespread economic development (which capitalism has utterly failed to provide), we could comfortaby support many more than the mere 6 or 7 billion people who today inhabit this highly sparsely-populated planet.

Here's an excellent article published last week talking about the overpopulation myth, its fallacious nature, and its highly reactionary implications for humanity.

-------------------------

Thursday 9 July 2009
Who’s afraid of billions of people?
In the run-up to the UN’s World Population Day, spiked argues against all attempts to cajole, coerce or convince people into having fewer kids.
Brendan O’Neill


It is UN World Population Day (http://www.unfpa.org/wpd/) on Saturday 11 July, when various United Nations bodies will try to convince us that population growth is the cause of much of the planet’s economic and environmental crises. Here, we publish an edited version of a speech given by spiked editor Brendan O’Neill in London on 3 July, in which he argued against all attempts to curb human numbers.

Today, I want to argue that there should be absolutely no limits on population growth and no attempt whatsoever to cajole, coerce or convince people into having fewer children. I hope that in my lifetime the human population on Earth will reach the tens of billions, and it will not be a problem if, in the future, it rises to hundreds of billions.

The reason I say this is because our attitudes to the population level fundamentally reflect our attitudes to human ingenuity. The population debate is frequently dressed up in demographic and scientific clothing, but really it is a political issue, reflecting different political attitudes. Where you stand on population today tells us a lot about where you stand on the idea of progress, of civilisation, and of humanity itself.

It’s worth asking what drives the population-control and population-reduction lobby. These people have been around for a few centuries and their arguments have changed over time. For one of the first population scaremongers, Thomas Malthus in the eighteenth century, the main problem was that if too many people were born then there wouldn’t be enough food to feed them. He vastly underestimated the ability of industrialised society to create more and more food.

In the early twentieth century there was a racial and eugenic streak to population-reduction arguments: some claimed that there were too many Africans and Asians, who might weaken the power of white European nations.

More recently, the population-control lobby has adopted environmentalist arguments. It now says that too many people are demanding too much of Mother Earth, using up all of her resources and destroying her biodiversity. Some greens even refer to humans as a ‘plague on the planet’ and a ‘pathogenic organism’. In other words, humanity is a disease making the planet Earth sick.

The fact that the presentational arguments of the population-reduction lobby can change so fundamentally over time, while the core belief in ‘too many people’ remains the same, really shows that this is a political outlook in search of a social or scientific justification. It is an already-existing prejudice, held by certain kinds of people, which looks around for the latest trendy or respectable ideas to clothe itself in.

It is time we questioned, if not demolished, some of the supposedly respectable ideas that today’s Malthusians surround themselves with. There are three areas in particular I want to look at: the question of resources, the question of space, and the idea that human numbers cause poverty and destitution.

First on resources: the argument frequently made by Malthusians is that there is a fixed, finite amount of resources on this ball of gas and water that we call Earth, and that if the human population reaches a certain number then those resources will be all used up.

This is a deeply disingenuous depiction of what a resource is. There is little fixed about resources. The question of what is a resource and what isn’t a resource changes over time, depending on the level of development reached by any particular human society.

Resources are not some numerically measurable thing; they have a history and a future. For example, for much of human history the oceans were considered a terrible obstacle. People looked at them as barriers, as the unpredictable destroyers of human communities; the most they dared to do was live on the coastlines of seas and oceans. But when humans reached a higher level of technological and social development, really from the sixteenth century onwards, the oceans came to be seen as a means of travel and a deep well of resources. Today we travel across the oceans and fish and mine within them for food and oil.

Similarly, coal was previously seen as the key resource for Western industrialised societies. Now it is seen as less important. However, it is still important for a developing society like China. The nature of that resource has changed. Likewise, for the vast majority of human history, uranium was not a serious resource. There was very little that people could do with it. Ancient human communities, going back 2,000 years, used uranium to make glass look more yellow. That was all! Today, in our potential nuclear age, uranium can be used to create vast amounts of light and energy and to power whole cities.

Resources are not in any serious sense fixed; their discovery and usage depends on the nature of society itself. Who knows what we will consider to be a resource in the future? Who knows how much further we can push our use of uranium or when we will discover that other elements, too, might transform human existence?

On space, it is simply not true that the Earth is overcrowded, as you will frequently hear Malthusians argue. Humans inhabit only tiny parts of this planet.

Take Britain as an example. Lots of people, from environmentalists to the British National Party, describe Britain as overcrowded, with too many people, too many migrants, too many chavs, or whatever your prejudice is.

In fact, only about seven to eight per cent of Britain is ‘settled’ - that is, only about seven to eight per cent is built environment. Forty-six per cent of British land is used for agriculture (and much of this could be done far more intensively), 29 per cent of it is semi-natural, and 11 or 12 per cent of it is woodland. There is plenty more space in Britain for more people, if we were serious about building new cities across the country.

On a worldwide scale, one American writer has estimated that you could fit every human being on Earth into the Former Yugoslavia, where they could live quite comfortably. This planet is not remotely overcrowded. With the right vision and determination, and with a view of resources not as finite things that don’t really belong to us but as elements we should fully explore and exploit, we could comfortably multiply the current human population 100 times over.

Then there is the idea that human numbers cause poverty or destitution. Not only is this wrong, it is also one of the most poisonous arguments of the Malthusian lobby. Some of the most populous places in the world – for example California – are wealthy, healthy and happy, while some of the most sparsely populated places – to take a European example: Ireland – remain relatively poor and largely dependent on EU handouts. A very crowded place like Manhattan can thrive, while parts of Sudan with relatively small numbers of people experience poverty and hunger.

The nonsense of focusing on human numbers alone can be seen if you take an historical example like the Irish Potato Famine in the 1840s: one of the first human tragedies when it was widely argued that overpopulation was the problem. Many said that two million people starved to death because there were too many of them and not enough potatoes: simple maths. In fact, this ignores the powerful political and social factors that contributed to the famine: it was not Ireland’s population levels but its subservient role as a British colony that caused and intensified the famine.

Today, too, those who discuss famine and deaths from poverty as being caused by overpopulation are really – quite disgracefully – letting society itself off the hook and distracting attention away from the actions of governments that are incapable of coming up with serious solutions to social and developmental problems. They are effectively blaming people’s own breeding habits, their fecundity, for bringing on hunger and destitution. The habit of presenting fixable social problems as demographic disasters is one of the most backward trends in contemporary public debate. And this is the fatal distraction of Malthusianism: it diverts people’s attention away from arguments and visions for overhauling society and towards the supposed catch-all solution of reducing human numbers.

So if the resource and space arguments are nonsense, and the overpopulation-equals-poverty argument is a massive distraction, what really drives the population-control outlook? I would say that what is really finite is not resources, but the Malthusians’ faith in humanity. It is that which is running out and drying up.

For them, another human being is never anything more than ‘another mouth to feed’. ‘Each year in Africa brings another 10million mouths to feed’, they argue (1). Yet human beings are not simply the burping, biological users of resources; they are also the discoverers of resources, the creators of resources, the makers of communities, cities, history. A human being is not only a mouth that must be filled but a brain that can think and a pair of hands that can work. Today’s Malthusians have the temerity to present their own finite faith in people as something scientific, despite the fact that their ‘facts’ don’t add up: Malthus was wrong when he said people would starve to death as a result of population growth running ahead of food production; so were the 1970s population-controllers who said massive famines would sweep the populous Third World and wipe out millions.

If you want to know what really motivates Malthusians, behind all the science and the big numbers, then consider the words of one of the best-known contemporary population scaremongers, Paul Ehrlich, a professor of population studies in America and patron of the Optimum Population Trust. In the 1970s, he put forward various theories about population levels. And in 1971, during a visit to New Delhi, he wrote the following:

‘The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people. As we moved slowly through the mob, the dust, noise, heat and cooking fires gave the scene a hellish aspect. Would we ever get to our hotel…? Since that night I have known the feel of overpopulation.’ (2)

That is what really lies behind Malthusianism: not any science of overpopulation, but the feel of it, campaigners’ own warped sense that there are simply too many ‘people, people, people’, especially over there in the hot dusty Third World. Anyone who thinks people are a good thing rather than a menace, and who believes humans can find solutions to our problems if we put our minds to it, should reject the population-control argument and make the case for full freedom of choice on reproductive matters.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked. This is an edited version of a speech he gave at the Debating Matters (http://www.debatingmatters.com/) final in London on 3 July, in a debate with Adrian Stott of the Optimum Population Trust (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/). For more on this debate, and on the issue of overpopulation, visit the WORLDbytes (http://www.worldbytes.org/) TV channel.


(1) Blood of innocent on his hands (http://www.newstatesman.com/200504110002), Michela Wrong, New Statesman, 11 April 2005
(2) Quoted in Ignore this missive from our downbeat doctors (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5521/), by Frank Furedi

reprinted from: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7136/

[Technocrat]

The part about "plenty of land" is false.

London for example requires an area of arable land equal to the entire United Kingdom. And that is just for London.

[Lynx]

Another Spiked bombast directed towards their favourite villains. Most observers agree that reducing poverty is a necessary first step towards reducing population growth. Do the one and you will have the other.

[yuon]

Technocrat and NoXion have pretty much summed up the case. Over population is a potential problem, however, the way to fix it is not to forcibly reduce the population, or set age limits (what a fascistic/distopion idea...), or make people only have to have one child or any other such idea. The way to fix it is to increase living standards. The reduction in population will off-set the increase use of resources, and, when things even out, everything will be fine.

I'm not sure that everyone will be able to have three cars, a dish-washer, and a new computer every year, but it will still be a reasonable standard of living.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Ha, we don't have a car or a dishwasher and I've only ever had one computer. Nobody needs a massive amount of material things so that they can have a good standard of living.

I disagree with the one child policy as well. I understand that there are some reasonable principles behind it, but I don't believe in controlling people in that way. It's like living in 1984 (the novel, not the year).

My grandparents always used to go on about poverty in Africa: 'It's because they have too many children'. Rubbish! Standards of living need to increase first and there needs to be an improvement in the availability of contraception. Only then will the birth-rate decrease.

Oh, and in the world's poorest countries the infant mortality rate is a great deal higher than in developed countries; if parents had one child they couldn't be sure that it would live beyond the age of 1.

[Technocrat]

Ha, we don't have a car or a dishwasher and I've only ever had one computer. Nobody needs a massive amount of material things so that they can have a good standard of living.

Ah, but we could have a standard of living that would make today look like the Dark Ages by comparison, and we could do it with less than 1/3rd of the energy we are now consuming. All we have to do is simply eliminate all of the wasteful practices we are now engaged in and get rid of the Price System.

[Dean]

Oh boy! This again!

Population level and density in realated to the accessbility of available consumables. Capitalism is the problem when supply doesn't match demand, but there are situations wherein there simply is not enough resource for a given population.

[Blake's Baby]

It's true that resources can give out. You just can't get as much Dodo as you used to. Luckily, we're clever enough to eat pigeons.

resources aren't the major problem. Resource allocation is the problem. Farm river valleys, build settlements on less productive land. That would help. Don't chuck billions of tone of food away. That would help. Don't feed cows on grain, plant soy beans instead. That would help. Und so weiter, und so weiter...

We could, at present levels of technology (but with different organisation) support several billion more people on this planet. By the time they arrive, I'm sure we could have improved production even further. That's not to say the Earth can never be 'full', because 'full' only means 'with the maximum population given current production methods', but the problem is not technological so much as organisational. We don't optimise outputs for economic reasons.

Or, guess what, capitalism isn't set up to cater for human needs, it's for producing a profit. And that's the problem.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Or, guess what, capitalism isn't set up to cater for human needs, it's for producing a profit. And that's the problem.

Exactly. The needs of the population doesn't even come into it.

[revolution inaction]

The part about "plenty of land" is false.

London for example requires an area of arable land equal to the entire United Kingdom. And that is just for London.

Thats not true, a quick look on google says that 60% of food consumed in the UK was produced in the uk in 2008 with the lowest ever level proportion being 1/3 in 1939 and the highest > 80% in the early 80s

From here (http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDCFoodSecurityPositionPaper.pdf) and here (http://www.ukagriculture.com/food/self_sufficiency_and_crops.cfm)

London doesn't make up 60% of the uk population and the amount of the uk land area used for food production is 46% according to the post above so it is not possible that london requires and area of land equal to the entire uk

[TC]

overpopulation might not create the problem of a low standard of living but it clearly makes the problem *worse*.

[Technocrat]

Thats not true, a quick look on google says that 60% of food consumed in the UK was produced in the uk in 2008 with the lowest ever level proportion being 1/3 in 1939 and the highest > 80% in the early 80s

From here (http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDCFoodSecurityPositionPaper.pdf) and here (http://www.ukagriculture.com/food/self_sufficiency_and_crops.cfm)

London doesn't make up 60% of the uk population and the amount of the uk land area used for food production is 46% according to the post above so it is not possible that london requires and area of land equal to the entire uk

If you look carefully, you'll see that nowhere in my initial post was I referring to food production. Of course, food production is just one of many activities that require land to support them.

"Ecofootprints are a tool that will enable us to gauge more clearly the effects we have on our environment, and a tool that will allow us to make more prudent and sustainable decisions regarding its future.

Other such projects have been carried out around the world and there have been several in this country. London produced the City Limits Report (2002) that revealed each Londoner has an ecofootprint of 6.63 global hectares (gha). That is, each person in London would require an area roughly equivalent to eight football pitches to provide for their current levels of consumption and to absorb their wastes. Put another way, London requires an area the size of Spain in global hectares to meet all its needs."

(Source: http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/ecofootprint.pdf)

Spain is more than twice the size of the UK.

[Revy]

I would say that poverty caused by capitalism is a larger problem. The population growth will eventually plateau, I think. I would imagine it is harder in third world countries to find condoms, birth control, abortion, and that there is more intolerance to it. Also, the cost of raising children is lower than the benefits (extra labor to support the family).

[revolution inaction]

If you look carefully, you'll see that nowhere in my initial post was I referring to food production. Of course, food production is just one of many activities that require land to support them.

"Ecofootprints are a tool that will enable us to gauge more clearly the effects we have on our environment, and a tool that will allow us to make more prudent and sustainable decisions regarding its future.

Other such projects have been carried out around the world and there have been several in this country. London produced the City Limits Report (2002) that revealed each Londoner has an ecofootprint of 6.63 global hectares (gha). That is, each person in London would require an area roughly equivalent to eight football pitches to provide for their current levels of consumption and to absorb their wastes. Put another way, London requires an area the size of Spain in global hectares to meet all its needs."

(Source: http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/ecofootprint.pdf)

Spain is more than twice the size of the UK.

Ecofootprints are the same crap as when people start going on about how "if everyone had the same lifestyle as a american we would need 5 earths" aren't they? You cant convert everything into land area.
I'm not going to deny that western europe uses a disproportionately large share of the earths resources, but I fail to see how that has any thing to do with "overpopulation" or how it means that there is not enough land.

[Technocrat]

Ecofootprints are the same crap as when people start going on about how "if everyone had the same lifestyle as a american we would need 5 earths" aren't they? You cant convert everything into land area.
I'm not going to deny that western europe uses a disproportionately large share of the earths resources, but I fail to see how that has any thing to do with "overpopulation" or how it means that there is not enough land.

Sources, please. Or are we to take your word for it?

If you had even an elementary understanding of how averages work, you wouldn't be making such an ignorant statement.

[revolution inaction]

Sources, please. Or are we to take your word for it?

If you had even an elementary understanding of how averages work, you wouldn't be making such an ignorant statement.

sources for what?

i know how averages work and i'm not bad at maths and science in general, what is it you think i am being ignorant about?

[Vanguard1917]

overpopulation might not create the problem of a low standard of living but it clearly makes the problem *worse*.

The Malthusian assumption that population growth makes poverty worse... What do you base that on?

It certainly can't be based on facts, which reveal that, contrary to your assumption, average living standards worldwide have significantly increased over the past hundred years as world population numbers have soared.

[Technocrat]

sources for what?

i know how averages work and i'm not bad at maths and science in general, what is it you think i am being ignorant about?

radicalgraffiti wrote:

Ecofootprints are the same crap as when people start going on about how "if everyone had the same lifestyle as a american we would need 5 earths" aren't they? You cant convert everything into land area.Why do you say this? If you know how averages work, then why do you think that ecological footprint is invalid?

[Technocrat]

To all who say that population growth is not a problem:

What would it take to prove you wrong? If you can't answer this, your claims are not scientific (unverifiable).

The burden of proof lies with you, since you are essentially saying that the word "overpopulation" should be removed from the language, since according to you there is no such thing as overpopulation. If you are not suggesting we eliminate the word, what is an appropriate context in which it can be used?

http://dieoff.org/page57.htm. Check the sources.

[Lynx]

It's an argument contingent upon future improvements forestalling a catastrophic die off event.
Criticism of Malthusian predictions are basically an expression of "Cry Wolf Syndrome".

The Malthusian assumption that population growth makes poverty worse... What do you base that on?

It certainly can't be based on facts, which reveal that, contrary to your assumption, average living standards worldwide have significantly increased over the past hundred years as world population numbers have soared.
Lifespan and the number of children that survive past the age of 5 are two factors that determine population growth. The size of the reproductive age group can effect a leveling off of the growth curve.
Living standards do not correlate to population growth in the modern era. Countries with high standards of living tend to have low birthrates that counter the effect of increased lifespan. Hence, wealthy nations are experiencing aging demographics. Their populations are literally growing old.

[Vanguard1917]

It's an argument contingent upon future improvements forestalling a catastrophic die off event.
Criticism of Malthusian predictions are basically an expression of "Cry Wolf Syndrome".

Lifespan and the number of children that survive past the age of 5 are two factors that determine population growth. The size of the reproductive age group can effect a leveling off of the growth curve.
Living standards do not correlate to population growth in the modern era. Countries with high standards of living tend to have low birthrates that counter the effect of increased lifespan. Hence, wealthy nations are experiencing aging demographics. Their populations are literally growing old.

That shows that rich countries tend to have lower fertility rates. It does not show that population growth gives way to increased poverty -- the key Malthusian assumption -- which has been proven by actual events to be completely false. In reality, poverty rates have on the whole dropped as population growth has increased.

[Vanguard1917]

Couple of graphs (from wikipedia) showing data for population size and those living under the 'poverty line' in India (if a mod or admin knows how to make the second graph a little smaller, i would appreciate it). We see that, completely contrary to the Malthusian assumption, population rises were accompanied by decreases in poverty levels.

Population of India - 1961-2003


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/India-demography.png


Percentage of the Indian population living below the poverty line - 1973-200


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/BPL_Data_GOI.png

[Lynx]

That shows that rich countries tend to have lower fertility rates. It does not show that population growth gives way to increased poverty -- the key Malthusian assumption -- which has been proven by actual events to be completely false. In reality, poverty rates have on the whole dropped as population growth has increased.
You are accepting the Malthusian assumption that population growth affects poverty. With regard to causality, you are on their side. I'm arguing that poverty affects population growth.

Couple of graphs (from wikipedia) showing data for population size and those living under the 'poverty line' in India (if a mod or admin knows how to make the second graph a little smaller, i would appreciate it). We see that, completely contrary to the Malthusian assumption, population rises were accompanied by decreases in poverty levels.
Yes and a graph from a wealthy nation would show a decreasing population accompanied by a decrease in the 'poverty line'. Hence, no correlation.

[Vanguard1917]

You are accepting the Malthusian assumption that population growth affects poverty. With regard to causality, you are on their side. I'm arguing that poverty affects population growth.

The Malthusian assumption is that a rise in population growth will give way to a rise in poverty. I'm showing that that's, on the whole, completely unfounded.

[Lynx]

The Malthusian assumption is that a rise in population growth will give way to a rise in poverty. I'm showing that that's, on the whole, completely unfounded.
It may be, but that is no basis for believing the opposite is true or that we should adopt interventionist policies that increase human numbers.
As large mammals there may be evolutionary reasons for wanting less children when times are good.

[Vanguard1917]

It may be, but that is no basis for believing the opposite is true


I didn't say that the 'opposite is true'*; i provided evidence to debunk the central assumption of the theory that you apparently support.



* My belief is that it's socio-economic development, and not the size of the population, which is decisive in making a society prosperous. Thus, a densely-populated area of the world like California can have one of the lowest levels of poverty in the world, while the world's most sparsely-populated country -- Mongolia -- has around a third of its population living below the 'poverty line'. On the other hand, a sparsely-populated country like Norway has a relatively well-off population, while a densely-populated country like Bangladesh has a high level of poverty.

So, contrary to the Malthusian logic, it's not the number of people which determines the wealth of a society, but its level of social and economic development.

[Lynx]

I didn't say that the 'opposite is true'*; i provided evidence to debunk the central assumption of the theory that you apparently support.
I believe we are all in agreement that poverty needs to be reduced. We also agree that support for progressive measures such as free access to contraception and abortion services are necessary.

* My belief is that it's socio-economic development, and not the size of the population, which is decisive in making a society prosperous. Thus, a densely-populated area of the world like California can have one of the lowest levels of poverty in the world, while the world's most sparsely-populated country -- Mongolia -- has around a third of its population living below the 'poverty line'. On the other hand, a sparsely-populated country like Norway has a relatively well-off population, while a densely-populated country like Bangladesh has a high level of poverty.

So, contrary to the Malthusian logic, it's not the number of people which determines the wealth of a society, but its level of social and economic development.
This makes more sense than the Spiked speech you posted.

[Vanguard1917]

I believe we are all in agreement that poverty needs to be reduced. We also agree that support for progressive measures such as free access to contraception and abortion services are necessary.

Supporting free access to contraception and abortion services is one thing; supporting reactionary Malthusian population control politics and propaganda is something altogether different.

And, as we have established, there's no factual evidence to back up the Malthusian assumption, which you previously seemed to support, that population growth has a negative effect on a society's level of prosperity. I'm glad that we have made some progress on that front at least.



This makes more sense than the Spiked speech you posted.


The article says pretty much the same thing.

[Lynx]

Supporting free access to contraception and abortion services is one thing; supporting reactionary Malthusian population control politics and propaganda is something altogether different.
It's been all talk, no action. Of course, what measures could reasonably be taken to reduce the population? Forced sterilization, extermination, etc. are unconscionable. China's one child policy would have a difficult time surviving a democratic vote if it were proposed in other countries. The only progressive measures are contraception and a reduction in poverty - and on those fronts, relatively little investment has been made.

And, as we have established, there's no factual evidence to back up the Malthusian assumption, which you previously seemed to support, that population growth has a negative effect on a society's level of prosperity. I'm glad that we have made some progress on that front at least.
If we support the same policies, what difference does it make?

The article says pretty much the same thing.
The article rails against a non-existent threat to the status quo and offers no alternative to the status quo. This serves no purpose.

[Vanguard1917]

It's been all talk, no action. Of course, what measures could reasonably be taken to reduce the population? Forced sterilization, extermination, etc. are unconscionable. China's one child policy would have a difficult time surviving a democratic vote if it were proposed in other countries. The only progressive measures are contraception and a reduction in poverty - and on those fronts, relatively little investment has been made.


I support free contraception and abortion on demand because i think that such freedoms are important for women; i don't support them because i want reductions in the human population. I also support affordable childcare services for women with young kids, maternity/paternity leave on full pay, and other forms of financial help for those who want to have children. Women should be free to have as many or as few kids as they want, which is why i support all the aforementioned.

Malthusian organisations, on the other hand, are not interested in greater freedom for women as an end in itself -- what they want is reductions in population numbers. As such, they support which ever policies they think will help achieve that end. The British Malthusian organisation Optimum Population Trust, for example, calls for the government to reward with money women who don't have kids -- i.e. bribery -- along with a range of other initiatives, e.g. tougher immigration laws.

The intent behind proposals makes a world of difference when evaluating their progressive or reactionary nature.

Lenin, for example, made this point very well. '[W]e are unconditionally the enemies of neomalthusianism', he said, 'but this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc... Freedom for medical propaganda and the protection of the elementary democratic rights of citizens, men and women, are one thing. The social theory of neomalthusianism is quite another. Class-conscious workers will always conduct the most ruthless struggle against attempts to impose that reactionary and cowardly theory on the most progressive and strongest class in modern society, the class that is the best prepared for great changes.' (link (https://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/29.htm))



If we support the same policies, what difference does it make?


Which policies? And why are you indifferent to the fact that the central assumption of the theory you seemingly support is plain wrong?



The article rails against a non-existent threat to the status quo and offers no alternative to the status quo. This serves no purpose.


I'm not sure what you mean. The article exposes the backward and illogical nature of neo-Malthusian ideology -- an ideology which Marxists have always seen as fundamentally reactionary.

[Lynx]

I support free contraception and abortion on demand because i think that such freedoms are important for women; i don't support them because i want reductions in the human population.
You support it none-the-less. As do Malthusians, environmentalists and feminists. You're in good company.

I also support affordable childcare services for women with young kids, maternity/paternity leave on full pay, and other forms of financial help for those who want to have children. Women should be free to have as many or as few kids as they want, which is why i support all the aforementioned.
Do you support measures to increase the population, such as incentives for having more children?

Malthusian organisations, on the other hand, are not interested in greater freedom for women as an end in itself -- what they want is reductions in population numbers. As such, they support which ever policies they think will help achieve that end. The British Malthusian organisation Optimum Population Trust, for example, calls for the government to reward with money women who don't have kids -- i.e. bribery -- along with a range of other initiatives, e.g. tougher immigration laws.
Good luck convincing politicians to put taxpayer's money into that scheme.
Tougher immigration laws would not reduce world population growth, and would have a negative effect as the population in the UK continues to age.

The intent behind proposals makes a world of difference when evaluating their progressive or reactionary nature.

Lenin, for example, made this point very well. '[W]e are unconditionally the enemies of neomalthusianism', he said, 'but this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc... Freedom for medical propaganda and the protection of the elementary democratic rights of citizens, men and women, are one thing. The social theory of neomalthusianism is quite another. Class-conscious workers will always conduct the most ruthless struggle against attempts to impose that reactionary and cowardly theory on the most progressive and strongest class in modern society, the class that is the best prepared for great changes.' (link (https://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/29.htm))
What Marxists do in practice, in common with their enemies, makes any ideological disagreement immaterial.

Which policies? And why are you indifferent to the fact that the central assumption of the theory you seemingly support is plain wrong?
Believing or disbelieving Malthusian ideas does not alter my support for poverty reduction. Nor do I have the luxury of supporting unethical population reduction measures. So yes, I am indifferent to claims that do not affect what I advocate.

I'm not sure what you mean. The article exposes the backward and illogical nature of neo-Malthusian ideology -- an ideology which Marxists have always seen as fundamentally reactionary.
Malthusian ideology has not been put into practice. I submit that it cannot be put into practice in a democratic society. It's a dead horse.

[JimmyJazz]

So i just saw a television show about the people who lived on easter island around 700 years, when they first arrived the entire island was covered in trees and resources and after about 500 over of abusing the the island and having kids like crazy every tree on island was gone and too make a long story short it all fell into chaos people began starving etc etc, it made me think what if the same things happing with earth? im not trying to sound all liberal but the population of the earth increases by 74 million people per year, how long can it last before the world becomes like easter island? and how can we advert it? there could be something like chinas "one child" policy world wide but the religious would ignore and rebel against it and it would be decryed as "immoral". even if we could learn to colonize space would that end in us commiting full genocide against the natives like the europeons did when they found north america? what are your thoughts?

In today's world, the countries with the least "population problem" (like the United States, Japan, Europe) are the most environmentally destructive and unsustainable, while the countries with the highest birthrate are the least destructive/most sustainable:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/greendex/

The countries that supposedly have "too many people" are in fact living quite sustainably in comparison to the first world countries--and that's not even on a per capita basis, but on a total basis. The problem in the third world is not too many people but too much artificially imposed poverty.

A while back I wrote a blog post (http://therebelwaltz.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/overpopulation/) about supposed third world overpopulation, and even got some good discussion going after the main entry.

[Vanguard1917]

You support it none-the-less. As do Malthusians, environmentalists and feminists. You're in good company.

You're not really grasping what's being said, are you? Re-read my previous post. Malthusians don't advocate more contraception and abortion rights because they value women's rights in and of themselves. The reason they advocate them is because they want to reduce the human population, not because they support the right of women to have as many or as few children as they desire. This why they support various reactionary policies, from immigrations controls to blackmailing women who want kids. Progressives are therefore fundamentally opposed to Malthusians.



Do you support measures to increase the population, such as incentives for having more children?


No. Did you fail to understand the point i made? I said that i support people deciding for themselves how many children they have.



What Marxists do in practice, in common with their enemies, makes any ideological disagreement immaterial.



I'm not sure what you're saying here.



Believing or disbelieving Malthusian ideas does not alter my support for poverty reduction. Nor do I have the luxury of supporting unethical population reduction measures. So yes, I am indifferent to claims that do not affect what I advocate.



So you advocate population reduction and you're indifferent to the fact that that is based on wrong assumptions?



Malthusian ideology has not been put into practice.


Malthusian thinking has played a significant role in ruling class ideology for a long time. Read up on its history. Marxists believe in challenging the reactionary ideas of the ruling class.

[Lynx]

You're not really grasping what's being said, are you? Re-read my previous post. Malthusians don't advocate more contraception and abortion rights because they value women's rights in and of themselves. The reason they advocate them is because they want to reduce the human population, not because they support the right of women to have as many or as few children as they desire. This why they support various reactionary policies, from immigrations controls to blackmailing women who want kids. Progressives are therefore fundamentally opposed to Malthusians.
They support policy X for reason A, you support policy X for reason B, I support policy X for reason A and B. The point is, everyone is supporting policy X.

No. Did you fail to understand the point i made? I said that i support people deciding for themselves how many children they have.
A positive incentive allows people to decide for themselves while encouraging a particular choice. In this example, it would encourage families to have more children.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.
I'm saying that a theoretical or ideological justification is immaterial when it results in support of the same policy as your enemies.

So you advocate population reduction and you're indifferent to the fact that that is based on wrong assumptions?
Yes. There's more than one reason to support a reduction in poverty and access to contraceptives. Regardless of the reason given, these initiatives have the same effect, including population reduction.

Malthusian thinking has played a significant role in ruling class ideology for a long time. Read up on its history. Marxists believe in challenging the reactionary ideas of the ruling class.
It may have played a self-serving philosophical role. No surprise there.

[Vanguard1917]

They support policy X for reason A, you support policy X for reason B, I support policy X for reason A and B. The point is, everyone is supporting policy X.



I'm saying that a theoretical or ideological justification is immaterial when it results in support of the same policy as your enemies.



It's very significant what lies beneath the policies which you advocate. The fact that Malthusians cynically exploit the politics of women's rights in order to achieve their reactionary aims shows me that they're worthy of our contempt, not our support.

Marxists support a whole range of policies which reactionaries may also give their support to. For example, we support the development of healthcare and medicine -- but not for the same reasons as the pharmaceutical or health insurance companies, who are only really interested in making money. We support industrial development, but not for the same reasons as those who want increased profits.

Political clarity is important.


A positive incentive allows people to decide for themselves while encouraging a particular choice. In this example, it would encourage families to have more children.


I'm not interested in incentives here. I'm interested in women being free to decide for themselves. Women who don't want kids should receive as much support as possible. Women who do want kids should get the same level of support. In other words, i believe in increased freedom for women to make their own minds up about what they do with their bodies, irrespective of their decisions. Unlike the Malthusians...



Yes. There's more than one reason to support a reduction in poverty


But we have established that population growth does not increase poverty. Why would you insist on supporting something with no foundation in facts?

[Lynx]

It's very significant what lies beneath the policies which you advocate. The fact that Malthusians cynically exploit the politics of women's rights in order to achieve their reactionary aims shows me that they're worthy of our contempt, not our support.
Bashing your opponent is self-serving. Bashing your opponent while supporting an identical measure is self-serving and meaningless. With all due respect, this is the kind of posturing and rhetoric that politicians are despised for.

Marxists support a whole range of policies which reactionaries may also give their support to. For example, we support the development of healthcare and medicine -- but not for the same reasons as the pharmaceutical or health insurance companies, who are only really interested in making money. We support industrial development, but not for the same reasons as those who want increased profits.

Political clarity is important.
It can be important when advocating measures that are different to those of your opponent. Even then, many people prefer to evaluate the actual proposal, rather than the reasoning behind it. On any given issue, what Marxists will do differently is what sets them apart.

I'm not interested in incentives here. I'm interested in women being free to decide for themselves. Women who don't want kids should receive as much support as possible. Women who do want kids should get the same level of support. In other words, i believe in increased freedom for women to make their own minds up about what they do with their bodies, irrespective of their decisions. Unlike the Malthusians...
A positive incentive remains voluntary, no matter who is offering one. Do you believe a majority of Malthusians are in favor of forcible measures?

But we have established that population growth does not increase poverty. Why would you insist on supporting something with no foundation in facts?
My position is that poverty increases population growth. Hence, my support for measures to reduce poverty. The Malthusian assumption does not allow for measures contrary to this.
Meanwhile, when you have a proposal that has multiple reasons for its support, it doesn't matter if all but one of those reasons are invalidated.

[Vanguard1917]

Bashing your opponent is self-serving. Bashing your opponent while supporting an identical measure is self-serving and meaningless. With all due respect, this is the kind of posturing and rhetoric that politicians are despised for.

But i don't support Malthusian measures as a whole. As i pointed out, Malthusians cynically exploit the politics of women's rights for their own ends. That needs to be exposed and criticised.



A positive incentive remains voluntary, no matter who is offering one. Do you believe a majority of Malthusians are in favor of forcible measures?


Yes, they're in favour of using coercive measures. Blackmailing women to have fewer kids is a form of coercion, for example. It's saying: if you don't do as we say, you will be made economically worse off.

[Lynx]

But i don't support Malthusian measures as a whole. As i pointed out, Malthusians cynically exploit the politics of women's rights for their own ends. That needs to be exposed and criticised.
They support the measure because they believe it will result in a decrease in the birth rate. Their support may be conditional, but it is legitimate.

Yes, they're in favour of using coercive measures. Blackmailing women to have fewer kids is a form of coercion, for example. It's saying: if you don't do as we say, you will be made economically worse off.
Blackmail is a decidedly negative incentive.