Overpopulation

[KC]

This is a problem that I have thought about a lot lately and I can't figure out how to solve it.

When people are happy and comfortable, they tend to have more children than when they are unhappy and/or uncomfortable. If communism offers a perfect/near-perfect society, then people will be happy and comfortable and will procreate more. The growing population will have to be fed with more food, which will mean putting more room aside for completing such a task. The new generation will be in the same position as their parents and will procreate more. This will repeat itself until there is overpopulation.

How do we solve this problem?

[coda]

all solved with good solid communist education, then.... people will have sex more, but will procreate less.

[Xvall]

People won't "procreate more" if we sterilize a good deal of the population. That seems to be a effective way of ensuring that the population stays low.

[KC]

People won't "procreate more" if we sterilize a good deal of the population. That seems to be a effective way of ensuring that the population stays low.

I hope you're joking.


all solved with good solid communist education, then.... people will have sex more, but will procreate less.

I never even thought of that. Good idea.

[Xvall]

I hope you're joking.

I wasn't. Although I understand that mass sterilization wouldn't be something that a society as a whole would willingly do - I would, if it were within my power.

[KC]

Then the suggestion isn't really relevant.

[Xvall]

I'm just saying: It's a solution, though not a very desireable one by most people's standards.

[MysticArcher]

When people are happy and comfortable, they tend to have more children than when they are unhappy and/or uncomfortable.

Actually, as the level of technology improves birth rates go down, way down. Mostly it's the improvement in contraceptives, but it's also economic; having more kids makes sense when you're a poor farmer who needs the labor power they'd provide, or if you're an 19th century factory worker who'd need the extra money sending your kid to a factory would make.

But we don't have such situations. In fact population is declining in the US enough that we have fewer people taking care of the increasingly larger population of old people (the so called "graying of America" and it's associated problems).

As said before mostly it'll just be better sex ed, more easily available contraceptives and whatever other advances medecine makes will keep a balanced population.

[JustinG]

Hah. You cant just sterilize people. That would be awefully totalitarian...

If overpopulation becomes a mounting problem after a revolution is acheived, than hopefully the people will decide what they'de like to do about it.

If they decide to sterilize, then alright. I doubt such would happen, however.

[Dante]

I do not think that overpopulation will be too much of a problem under socailism. Lazars original post is based on an incorrect judgement IMHO, that people have kids because they 'are happy or more content'. In reality, as previous posters pointed out people have a lot of kids because of bad education (religion telling you to have a big family) and poverty. More educated and middle class famalies tend to have fewer children because they can make that informed choice. Capitalism denies that choice to most of the planet.

But birth rates are falling in the west. I know in the UK we have a ticking time bomb of an aging population and not enough young people to take care of them (i.e. capitalism needs young women to take care of the elderly within the family for free, so it can cut back on state provision of care). The UN says we will have to import over 1 million workers by 2020 in order to make up for the short fall!

[redstar2000]

It's been noticed by the people that study this sort of thing that the more education that women acquire, the fewer children they have.

This inverse relationship between female education and fecundity appears to hold in all countries at all levels of development.

That is, even in countries where the growth rate is very high, a literate female will nevertheless have fewer children than her illiterate counterpart.

The only reason that population continues to grow in the "western" countries is immigration -- legal and illegal. I expect that to continue for a very long time to come.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Xvall]

Hah. You cant just sterilize people. That would be awefully totalitarian...

It would really be more along the lines of rogue terrorism. Something akin to drugging people without their consent. Non-fatal, but undesirable by the victims.

[novemba]

I like my sperm the way they are thank you.

PS, overpopulation is a joke. We're probably taking up 1/25 of the earths space, if that...

[Michael De Panama]

Did You Know?

The whole world's population could fit in the state of Texas...Amazing as it may seem, the entire population of the world can be housed in the U.S. state of Texas — and very comfortably indeed, with each person enjoying a living far in excess of that now available to all but the most wealthy.

Consider these facts: The land area of Texas is some 262,000 square miles* and current UN estimates of the world's population (for 12 October 1999) are about 6 billion.** By converting square miles to square feet — remember to multiply by 5,280 feet per mile twice — and dividing by the world's population, one readily finds that there are more than 1,217 square feet per capita.

A family of 5 would thus occupy more than 6,085 square feet of living space. Even in Texas, that's a mansion.

The concept of overpopulation is a great method of attaining control over people.

Although, for other reasons, I feel that it would be an extraordinarily positive thing if a good 2/3 of mankind was killed off.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 03:57 AM
But birth rates are falling in the west.
And everywhere else. Rates of population growth are slowing from Mexico to India, due to urbanization, proletarianization, and rising education levels.

[Xvall]

I like my sperm the way they are thank you.

I don't.


PS, overpopulation is a joke. We're probably taking up 1/25 of the earths space, if that...

Overpopulation is not about space and it never was. Overpopulation is about our carrying capacity. The problem is not that another 5 billion people won't fit on our planet, the problem is that human societies, which are at this point, completely dependent on technology for it's vital resources, will be incapable of feeding them.

[Dante]

Sorry Drake, I think your arguments are terribly reactionary! Overpopulation is a right wing myth. It is used against people in Africa and India because they are 'too poor' and 'irresponsible' to have so many children. As Michael De Panamas post showed, the planet can afford to fit loads more people on, but it is a question of distribution of people and resources so that our productive capacity can best feed, clothe and educate everyone on the planet.

Any talk of 'sterilisation' or wiping out 2/3rds of the human life on this planet is frankly, idiotic and disgusting. Considering the Nazis exterminated millions of people for ideological reasons I think any posters on this boards that argue a similar thing should be careful they do not stray over the line.

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 12:56 AM
PS, overpopulation is a joke. We're probably taking up 1/25 of the earths space, if that...
That has nothing to do with overpopulation.
Overpopulation is a state in which the population is too large to make the best use of the available resources meaning that quality of life is lower than what it could be.

[Dante]

There is enough food produced globally to fee 4X our current population. Under a planned economy not ruled by market madness we could feed clothe, educate and house every person on the planet adequatly + many more.

[KC]

Any talk of 'sterilisation' or wiping out 2/3rds of the human life on this planet is frankly, idiotic and disgusting. Considering the Nazis exterminated millions of people for ideological reasons I think any posters on this boards that argue a similar thing should be careful they do not stray over the line.


I think he was just throwing it out there as a possible, but improbable solution.

[Colombia]

Overpopulation is not an issue at the moment, but overpopulation of one region while another stays underpopulated is. Just take a look at India. It holds a ton of people there, but because of this, the country fails to provide an adequate means of living for everyone and everything is not distributed equally. So what must be done is to relocate these people to other regions. The problem here is though, that people will become hostile to relocation from their homeland and resistance may come about. Even so, this must be done so that an adequate standard of living can be obtained by all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_p...n_evolution.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_population_evolution.png)

This graph shows the unequal distribution of humanity in one region over the other. Because of this, standards of living decline.


Unless action is taken at the moment, overpopulation will become an issue in the near future.

http://atm.geo.nsf.gov/unidata/staff/blynd...obtraj/fig2.gif (http://atm.geo.nsf.gov/unidata/staff/blynds/globtraj/fig2.gif)

Take a look at this chart. Since the 1900s, humankind has grown at an alarming rate and is showing no signs of decline. If this is to continue, shortages of food will be an issue in the current world as the industrialized powers seize the food for themselves. As it already is anyway.

[Xvall]

Sorry Drake, I think your arguments are terribly reactionary!

I get that a lot.


Overpopulation is a right wing myth.

...What? No, actually - you're right. Overpopulation does not exist and never can. Any historical text or scientific document that states that some species, creature, or civilization has at somepoint overpopulated and suffered because of it it completely wrong.


It is used against people in Africa and India because they are 'too poor' and 'irresponsible' to have so many children.

No, it's quite a real conscern and it is a problem everywhere.


As Michael De Panamas post showed, the planet can afford to fit loads more people on, but it is a question of distribution of people and resources so that our productive capacity can best feed, clothe and educate everyone on the planet.

Exactly, which is why I specifically pointed out that overpopulation was about the feeding capacity for our species, and not the amount of space we have. (You might not want to refrence him for your arguments, by the way - a lot of people around here do not like Mike.)


Any talk of 'sterilisation' or wiping out 2/3rds of the human life on this planet is frankly, idiotic and disgusting. Considering the Nazis exterminated millions of people for ideological reasons I think any posters on this boards that argue a similar thing should be careful they do not stray over the line.

It's hardly similar. Sterilization kills absolutely no one. There are no lines.


There is enough food produced globally to fee 4X our current population. Under a planned economy not ruled by market madness we could feed clothe, educate and house every person on the planet adequatly + many more.

But we do not live under a planned economy that isn't ruled my market madness.

[Xvall]

Columbia is correct.

[Led Zeppelin]

Overpopulation is a good thing. When the means of production are not capable of feeding all the people social changes occur, this has happened to feudalism, and will surely happen to capitalism.

[DarthVader]

... maybe we should go out and colonize the moon or other planets, and put excess population there.

[Vallegrande]

Let the diseases take care of the problem.

[Vallegrande]

I not saying that we allow diseases, they are just inevitable, they mutate as well. Even when we find cures, there will always be new problems to take care of.

I believe that diseases are the number one solution of overpopulation, naturally.

[redstar2000]

You may have noticed that this thread just got a lot shorter.

I moved four pages of Drake's mindless spam to Chit-Chat...where that sort of crap belongs (if we must tolerate it at all).

This forum is supposed to be for serious theoretical discussion.

Let's try and keep it that way, shall we?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hegemonicretribution]

I think first of all, any sort of cull would be suicde. Overpopulation wouldn't kill everyone, the balance would be re-addressed. It is natural for population to grow when there is excess food, and little to no predators, and if either a predator (in our case likely a disease) or availability of food changes dramatically, then so will the population.

I think though that as we have the means (onceeffectivelydistributed) to feed many more people than we currently have, we should not worry tomuch about overpopulation, and should maintainaswide a genepool as possible, should a new predator come about.

The real change that needs to be made is in the area of what a larger population woud consume. If the materials for energy and food are renewable, a larger population could be better sustained.

[Dante]

Sorry but over population is a myth. I can drive for ten minutes outside of my city (leeds 700,000 population) and be in open countryside. The rich live in mansions with acres of land. As another poster mentioned some areas of the planet are very densely populated (like the Gaza strip, Goa ets) whilst others are sparecly populated. Under a planned economy the democratic mechanism of society will allow people to live where they are requiered or where there is room.

And I do not think that people will have 10 kids each under socialism, more likely to have 1 or 2, tbh. Once we are free of all that reactionary religious crap about women being baby producing machines.

[h&s]

Land area has no effect on optimum population Dante - it is resources and their availabilty that does.

[Vallegrande]

What about overpopulation of insects or plants that have no predators? People have to take more time to prevent insects from eating all their crops now, because the insects have an easier chance to go anywhere they want via a boat or plane ride. I think that is more a problem than the population of people.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 01:06 PM
So what must be done is to relocate these people to other regions. The problem here is though, that people will become hostile to relocation from their homeland and resistance may come about. Even so, this must be done so that an adequate standard of living can be obtained by all.
Christ! Treating people like things is sure fashionable, huh?

That's always been the problem with the "Population Crisis" people, and it's an even bigger problem with that proposal.

[Colombia]

Then what would you do Severian?

[Seeker]

A culture could evolve where it becomes taboo to become pregnant without the consent of the broader community (after all, they would be the ones feeding and raising the child). Ideally all decisions would be made democratically, so each community could decide how many children to allow (or how many are needed) to maintain self-sufficiency.

[KC]

Seeker, that's a huge restriction on rights and that would be downright foolish. This has been answered already so this thread might as well be closed.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:56 AM
Then what would you do Severian?
Nothing. The problem is solving itself...see the population trends I and others have pointed out.

Well, promote education, industrialization, women's rights, access to birth control and other medical care, etc....but that should be done regardless.

[Don't Change Your Name]

1) Overpopulation is NOT about "not enough space"
2) Drake Dracoli, you're pathetic and give us all a bad reputation. You probably know that already though.