Population Control

[Dimentio]

Okay, lets discuss a controversial subject now. As you may know, the population growth in the third world threatens to create vast migration movements or heavy suffering for the affected regions in question. The poverty which overpopulation imposes on a given population strengthens the demographic development and is therefore to be seen as a hard-to-control curse.

1. Under which conditions should population control (if it even was an alternative) be imposed?

2. How should population control be imposed?

3. What organ should enforce population control and with what authority?

There is a similar thread on NET;s forum.

[YKTMX]

The poverty which overpopulation imposes on a given population strengthens the demographic development

What does this mean? The problems of the "third world" are the products of capitalism, imperialism, colonialism and its assorted institutions, states and ideologies.

It is not the problem of the "population". Since the industrial revolution, population is no longer a good indicator of poverty levels, since we know that explosions in population can see related growth in per-capita income.


1. Under which conditions should population control (if it even was an alternative) be imposed?

None. Malthus was wrong.


2. How should population control be imposed?


It shouldn't. Any such measures should be opposed.


3. What organ should enforce population control and with what authority?

See above.

[Dimentio]

You cannot just blame everything on capitalism. A lot of third world countries are not even a part of international capitalism (Nepal for example). It is proved that illiteracy and poverty leads to the rational conclusion of creating an own social security by procreating, leading to massive overpopulation (which is inhibited from migrating) which in it's turn prolong poverty and leads to a stranglehold on wage increases, dooming hundreds of millions of people to procreating even more.

You cannot expect to grow forever in a limited world. At least until we got space exploration, we must at least adress these problems for what they are.

It is simplistic to blame capitalism for everything, even though it has it's share of the blame.

Actually, capitalism is an almost necessary stage on the global economic development, because it is developing the infrastructure of developing nations (in for example East Asia and Latin America) from a level of scarcity into a level of abundance.

[blackstone]

Population control?Why stop there, let's just exterminate all the black, asian and latin american people because that's what really meant by third world.

[Pawn Power]

The most appropriate form of population control would be sex education and free access to abortion.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 09, 2007 10:28 pm
The most appropriate form of population control would be sex education and free access to abortion.

Free access to contraception - and to abortions if that fails.

A good welfare system is also needed.

If you aren't going to get a reasonable pension whence you retired, you are going to make a lot of children, in order to have someone to look for you when you get really old.

Luís Henrique

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 10, 2007 12:28 am
The most appropriate form of population control would be sex education and free access to abortion.
The most appropriate form of population control is education (including sex ed.), free access to contraceptives (including abortion) and a decent standard of living.

With a decent standard of living, you remove the need for a large population that is required for farming, or for manual labour. You remove the need for lots of children who look after their parents when the parents are old. Etc.


1. Under which conditions should population control (if it even was an alternative) be imposed?
None.

2. How should population control be imposed?
It shouldn't.

3. What organ should enforce population control and with what authority?
None.



There is no doubt (in my mind at least), that there are more people around then is needed, indeed, more people then the Earth can reasonably and sustainably look after. However, you cannot force people to not have children (or have children) without a massive state apparatus, and massive impositions on the autonomy of the individual. Fuck that.

Not all (indeed few) environmentalists (even deep/dark greens or bio-centrics) are eco-fascists. Threads like these make it seem as if eco-fascism is a lot more wide spread then what it is. I would suggest that eco-anarchists (and other autonomoust environmentalists) far out number any sort of authoritarian environmentalist.

[BobKKKindle$]

As you may know, the population growth in the third world threatens to create vast migration movements or heavy suffering for the affected regions in question.

Relative to other parts of the world such as the major cities of western Europe, most impoverished regions have a low population density and are under-populated - the population level is far below what these areas could potentially support given their carrying capacity. The Nile valley is in fact the only area on the African continent that comes close to the high-density urban environments found in the developed world.

It has thus far been assumed the population growth is a bad thing. However, a large population means that more resources are available for economic development, provided a basic level of education is available. Boserup (a former employee of the United nations and noted demographer) argued that a larger population yields more innovators who can overcome the problems poses by the arithmetic growth of resources.

[Hit The North]

Boserup (a former employee of the United nations and noted demographer) argued that a larger population yields more innovators who can overcome the problems poses by the arithmetic growth of resources.

Hmmm, that sounds like an 'entrepreneurial' solution. But the fact is that innovation is a collective phenomenon which depends upon the right material conditions.

Nevertheless, I agree with others, who argue that the original question has it back to front: overpopulation isn't the cause of poverty - poverty and underdevelopment are the causes of overpopulation.

And the only way we can explain global poverty and underdevelopment is by reference to imperialism and global capital.


It is simplistic to blame capitalism for everything

Relying on Malthusian propositions is the real simplistic (and false) approach.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by apathy maybe
The most appropriate form of population control is education (including sex ed.), free access to contraceptives (including abortion) and a decent standard of living.
I agree, with one addition- women's freedom; education and empowerment.

[Spartakus1919]

As you may know, the population growth in the third world threatens to create vast migration movements or heavy suffering for the affected regions in question. The poverty which overpopulation imposes on a given population strengthens the demographic development

Good subject for a debate, however you are confusing the conesequences with the causes here.

It is poverty, and therefore capitalism, that causes this important rise in the Third World birth rates. There is a link between poor living conditions (specially for poor farmers) and the number of chilren they have.

It may sound contradictory but the poorer you are the more chances, from a statistical point of view, you have of getting more children (even if many of them would end up dying young). This is for example what happens in India.

If you look at the population growth rate in the past centuries, you will see that today's First World ahd the same growth rate of the Third World during the Industrial Revolution, in other words when these areas started becoming developped : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldPopulatoin.png.

The poor countries are not poor because they have too many children. Do you think that if we "killed" them all, they would become as rich as the rich countries? I imagine you do not think such a thing.

There is a structural problem in those countries independant of the birth rate. Most of those countries let the children die of hunger or curable disease so they are not an obstacle at all : they are ignored.


You cannot just blame everything on capitalism. A lot of third world countries are not even a part of international capitalism
Of course, the official medias pretend that the problem is not capitalism, or even poverty, the poors are guilty (as always).

But the fact is that capitalism exists all over the world (including the so-called communist countries) but its level of "maturity" is different. Nepal is capitalist just like America, but much behind. It has almost no developped industry and therefore poverty reigns over there...


As a conclusion, there should be no population control : it is criminal (like what has happened in Peru : the governement forced women living in the streets to abort, whereas Latin America is, compared to North America, has much lower poplation) and it will not bring "development" at all.
On the other hand, sex education, birth control... should be free and legal.
The only thing that will make this change is a fair world economy ran by the proleterians.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:32 pm
A lot of third world countries are not even a part of international capitalism (Nepal for example).
Nepal is certainly a capitalist country that is very much part of "international capitalism". What makes you think otherwise, and what do you believe Nepal is, if not capitalist?


Actually, capitalism is an almost necessary stage on the global economic development, because it is developing the infrastructure of developing nations (in for example East Asia and Latin America) from a level of scarcity into a level of abundance.

It is certainly not doing that in Latin America.

Luís Henrique

[Dimentio]

Nepal is less capitalist than for example South Africa, because a majority of the population are still feudal farmers toiling for their survival, and just vaguely connected to the world market.

I have not said that capitalism have not created these problems (together with the "green revolution"), but that overpopulation is self-perpeuating stands evidently clear. The problems of consumerism is not that related to overpopulation, but for the affected regions, it could lead to tremendous upheaval.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+November 10, 2007 02:20 pm--> (Mujer Libre @ November 10, 2007 02:20 pm)
apathy maybe
The most appropriate form of population control is education (including sex ed.), free access to contraceptives (including abortion) and a decent standard of living.
I agree, with one addition- women's freedom; education and empowerment. [/b]
I thought that went with out saying. But then again, I didn't think there was anything strange about Captain Jack Harkness being bi-sexual (until I read an article on the matter and realised how few bi-sexual characters there are on TV).


Indeed, though, equality is essential.


(edit, got the name of the Captain wrong...)

[Vanguard1917]

Relative to other parts of the world such as the major cities of western Europe, most impoverished regions have a low population density and are under-populated

Well pointed out. In fact, even the countries with the highest populations - e.g. India and China - are below various rich European countries when it comes to population density.

For example, UK, Germany and Italy all have larger population densities than China, and India has a smaller population density than Belgium and the Netherlands.

YKTMX is 100% right. The problems in the developing world are not related to 'overpopulation' but to social, political and economic causes. Malthusian reactionaries, like environmentalists, like to shift the blame for human problems away from their socio-economic causes, and towards the number of people.

In other words, Malthusians shift the blame onto the masses themselves. This has highly reactionary consequences because it excuses the system from attack.

If world capitalism cannot provide the goods for the billions of people who live under it, then that's the fault of capitalism, not the people. We need an economic system which can provide the goods to all - i.e. a better, more efficient and more advanced system subject to conscious human planning.

Western Malthusianism is also highly imperialistic in practice. Almost every imperialist organisation today - such as the United Nations - has a policy of encouraging population controls in the developing world. This amounts to Westerners telling people abroad to breed less.

In short, the re-emergence of Malthusian thinking in recent decades should be seen as extremely concerning for those of us who call ourselves progressives.

[apathy maybe]

Well pointed out. In fact, even the countries with the highest populations - e.g. India and China - are below various rich European countries when it comes to population density.

For example, UK, Germany and Italy all have larger population densities than China, and India has a smaller population density than Belgium and the Netherlands.I don't disbelieve you, but I am interested in seeing a reference for this claim. It would be something good to know.



On topic more...

The problems in the developing world are not related to 'overpopulation' but to social, political and economic causes. Malthusian reactionaries, like environmentalists, like to shift the blame for human problems away from their socio-economic causes, and towards the number of people.
Some problems in the developing world are not related to overpopulation. But many are.
And it has nothing to do with shifting blame.

It is a fact that greater population uses greater resources. Where you have a fixed amount of resource, you have less to go around as the population increases.

Oh, and a big fuck you for lumping all environmentalists in with "Malthusian reactionaries" and claiming that all environmentalists blame people instead of (for example) capitalism.

Personally I am an environmentalist. And I blame capitalism (among other things) for most of the current environmental problems. Not the majority of people.

So, get your head out of your arse, look around and stop generalising.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 13, 2007 11:06 am

Well pointed out. In fact, even the countries with the highest populations - e.g. India and China - are below various rich European countries when it comes to population density.

For example, UK, Germany and Italy all have larger population densities than China, and India has a smaller population density than Belgium and the Netherlands.I don't disbelieve you, but I am interested in seeing a reference for this claim. It would be something good to know.
I'm going by data on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ulation_density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density)


On topic more...

The problems in the developing world are not related to 'overpopulation' but to social, political and economic causes. Malthusian reactionaries, like environmentalists, like to shift the blame for human problems away from their socio-economic causes, and towards the number of people.
Some problems in the developing world are not related to overpopulation. But many are.
And it has nothing to do with shifting blame.

What kind of problems? Give me an example of a problem in the developing world which is being caused by there being too many people there.


It is a fact that greater population uses greater resources. Where you have a fixed amount of resource, you have less to go around as the population increases.

It is flawed to talk of resources as fixed, pre-given entities outside of human beings. As i've argued elsewhere, resources acquire meaning through human society.

More people does not necessarily mean a greater drain on resources because people aren't only consumers, but also producers. More people on earth means a greater number of potential problem-solvers.


Personally I am an environmentalist. And I blame capitalism (among other things) for most of the current environmental problems. Not the majority of people.

Yes, you blame capitalism because it's too progressive for you (it gives way to too much economic development, population growth, etc.).


Oh, and a big fuck you for lumping all environmentalists in with "Malthusian reactionaries"

All environmentalists are Malthusians. If there are any significant environmentalist organisations who don't call for population controls, i've never heard of them.

(And i see you're still debating like a teenage schoolgirl. Maybe it's time to start growing up...)

[Dimentio]

If all of the world's population would consume like Americans, we would need 15 earths.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:32 pm
If all of the world's population would consume like Americans, we would need 15 earths.
American lifestyles also happen to be the most ineffecient on the planet, and not necessarily the best - compare their stats for infant deaths to the rest of the developed world for example.

I don't think it would literally cost the earth to provide every human being a decent level of education, healthcare, housing, and a healthy and varied diet.

If we take VG1917's point about resources acquiring meaning in human society, and remember that American lifestyles are not the zenith of comfortable living, I reckon that everyone on this planet is capable of being healthy, emotionally fulfilled, well educated and long lived.

[Dimentio]

Yes, but there is always an upper limit. The post-revolutionary society should be sustainable.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:20 pm
Yes, but there is always an upper limit.
There is no limit to population growth of which we know. And, with our productive capabilities developing all the time, it is in fact ridiculous to argue that there is a limit. Even conservative organisations like the UN predict that, if our best current technology is applied worldwide, the world could sustain around 30 billion people.

Reminds me of what Frederick Engels said back in the 1840s:

'[I]t is absurd to talk of overpopulation so long as there is enough waste land in the valley of the Mississippi for the whole population of Europe to be transplanted there; so long as no more than onethird of the earth can be considered cultivated, and so long as the production of this third itself can be raised sixfold and more by the application of improvements already known.'

[Fawkes]

The problem is not overpopulation, it is underindustrialization. Though, I am speaking about a post-revolution society in which the research regarding things such as energy, food, and water purification are driven by human need, not by profit.

Industrialization in Europe and North America in the 19th century greatly improved the standard of living for working-class people by giving them access, though somewhat limited at times, to things such as modern medicine and healthcare and transportation.

Industrialization and population growth, if anything, should be encouraged in "third world nations" as long as the damage caused to the environment is not worth the benefits of industrializing that area. We, as humans, have no allegiance to the environment more than that which keeps us satisfied.

Also, Malthuisian methods of population control will not work in the favor of the poor and working-class by any means. The best methods are obviously the abolishment of capitalism, and with it the advent of free contraceptives and abortion, better sex education, the spreading of feminism, and industrialization.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:04 pm
What kind of problems? Give me an example of a problem in the developing world which is being caused by there being too many people there.


In combination with the economic system, lack of education and infrastructure, over-population causes the spread of disease, pollution (of varying sorts), deforestation as forests are cut down for fuel and grazing land, and desertification as grazing land is over grazed and ploughed (heard of a place called the Sahara? That's what happen, and is happening, there), mass species extinctions (from deforestation, hunting and other factors) and other issues.




It is a fact that greater population uses greater resources. Where you have a fixed amount of resource, you have less to go around as the population increases.

It is flawed to talk of resources as fixed, pre-given entities outside of human beings. As i've argued elsewhere, resources acquire meaning through human society.
The Earth is finite. Fact. We do not currently have the technology to mine the moon or asteroids. It is therefore not plausible to bring that into the discussion (which is about now).

It is a fact that a greater population will use a greater amount of resources (assuming the same usage patterns).

As we increase population, we can't increase resources (seeing as the Earth is finite), therefore, as population increases, there is less to go around per person.

You canni fight that logic.

More people does not necessarily mean a greater drain on resources because people aren't only consumers, but also producers. More people on earth means a greater number of potential problem-solvers.
OK, in the present system more potential problem-solvers does not actually mean more problem solvers. That is like the Beethoven argument in regards to abortion. You shouldn't abort that baby! It might be the next Beethoven! Both arguments are flawed.



Personally I am an environmentalist. And I blame capitalism (among other things) for most of the current environmental problems. Not the majority of people.

Yes, you blame capitalism because it's too progressive for you (it gives way to too much economic development, population growth, etc.).
So, what should I blame if not capitalism? I can't blame the population, I can't blame capitalism... Perhaps I should you personally for driving a hummer? (Oh wait, that would be population wouldn't it...). Capitalism is the economic system which causes the majority of the worlds environmental problems. Certainly the USSR had a shit load of environmental problems as well. Yet they aren't around any more.


Oh, and a big fuck you for lumping all environmentalists in with "Malthusian reactionaries"

All environmentalists are Malthusians. If there are any significant environmentalist organisations who don't call for population controls, i've never heard of them.
You know, Malthus was commenting on food production and population. I don't think he talked about other environmental problems.
But anyway, two things, there is nothing wrong (let alone reactionary) with calling for a (voluntary) reduction of population. Indeed, I challenge you to explain why a smaller population is harmful to human society (hint, you can't do it logically).
Secondly,


(And i see you're still debating like a teenage schoolgirl. Maybe it's time to start growing up...)
:) Nothing wrong with being a teenage schoolgirl. Mind you, that attitude might be why there are a lack of women on this site. Why not say teenage schoolboy? :huh:

Oh, and at least I don't drive a hummer or argue for environmental destruction...

[AGITprop]

Right now there are factors that keep the population from over-expandig but , consider a post-revolution situation. Imagine famine and disease virtually eliminated. There would be nothing killing of people in large numbers. I dont intend to ever enforce a frm of population and birth restriction BUT i think it is important that pople understand that having more than 2 children could be potentially hamrful. Ofcourse wemay need more people for more work one day. But as I see t now, having more than children is only hurtful to our envirnoment. I understand hat right now in poorer countries there is aneed to have more than 2 children because parents use this as insurance for when they get older, they have someone to take care of them, but in a industrialized, technologicaly advaNCED country, more than 2 children is only hurting us.
You may disagree. I understand ahvingas many children as you want is your human right and I don't argue this but we should educate people about overpopulation.

[Vanguard1917]

But as I see t now, having more than children is only hurtful to our envirnoment.


we should educate people about overpopulation.

These are not Marxist positions. If you're going to call yourself a Marxist, it's probably a good idea to learn about Marxism.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:06 pm

But as I see t now, having more than children is only hurtful to our envirnoment.


we should educate people about overpopulation.

These are not Marxist positions. If you're going to call yourself a Marxist, it's probably a good idea to learn about Marxism.
how about you shut the fuck up and wory about whether or not you are a marxist.
this is my opinion. I see no reason why it is not Marxist. There is nothing wrong with worrying about the environment. This is the world WE must live in. And if you actually care about societ. You will understand that overpopulation is a threat. When we canot feed every mouth, we have a problem. Unfortunately resources are limitd. We CAN poduce much more today then we could 300 years ago because of technolgy but there is a limit.

Secondy, I am involved with many maxists on an active day o day basis. These are people who who have an indepth, understanding bout marxism, in ts applications and theories. We all agree that overpopulation is a problem. And next ime dont just quote things i say that best suit your argument. I said people have the right to have as many chldren a they want BUT they should understand that even having more than 2 children has consequence.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:43 pm
These are people who who have an indepth, understanding bout marxism
No, they don't. Not if they accept the Malthusian nonsense that you seem to.

[RevSkeptic]

No, they don't. Not if they accept the Malthusian nonsense that you seem to.

How is it nonsense if supposing everybody have large families with 3 or 4 kids. Being a finite world these people will need to be fed enough to do useful work let alone provided with enough resources like education and healthcare to be really productive in increasing the output of means of production or even have the knowledge to maintain current infrastructure. Maybe you think some kids will be borned with engineering knowledge without the need to be taught by teachers.

[AGITprop]

this is not an argument about Marxism, this is an argment about protecting our planet. Malthus was wrong. we know that but n his theory there was some truth. what is keeping the population from over-expanding? famine, war, and disease. Just because marx never said it doesnt mean its not the truth. u should stop licking marx's ashole and use some comon sense.