How can we control the human population from exponential increasing?

Question

Humanity is following a pattern that is awefully similar to a bacteria. http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~wfgale/usda_course/section2_images/section2_images_1/growth%20curve.gif
We are on the exponential point of the curve. Soon we will reach a plateau and then when the sources are polluted or depleted we will start a gradual demise and eventual extinction due to pollution and irreversible damage to the environment. How can we stop the human population from growing? Should the governments put punitive laws for couples who make more than two offsprings by either imprisoning them, hanging them, or even taking away their social security and benefits? Should we try explore other planets for the answer? Or maybe we want to close our eyes like we do now, till one day out of no choice we will fight each others like the inferior animals we are for the left over resources with military nations demolishing the weaker ones? What can we do to save humanity from itself? How can we stop mankind from sex?

Answer 1

People respond to incentives. In the past and in poor countries having many children was a benefit, as they provided more labor and income for their parents.

Today in rich countries, children are viewed as a major expense, and few people have more than 2 children and many chose to have none. In most "rich" nations the population is actually on the decline for this reason. This is true for most of Europe, and even becoming true for the USA, although our population still increases due to immigration. The reasons are multiple, most "rich" people choose to have children later and therefore fewer.

Outside of rich countries, enforced legislation can reduce the birthrate rapidly, and eventually the population growth. This has worked in China. Such actions would only really work in an athoritarian country, but in the rest of the world population growth rates are decreasing with the changes in wealth and survival of children.

It usually takes some time for the behavior to catch up to the incentives, and in most countries there was a population explosion when the tradition of having large families, necisitated by high mortality rates, does not go away as fast as the life expectancy increases. Fortunately with the exception of Africa and parts of the Middle East, most birthrates are falling rapidly.

In brief, the only three ways to stop the exponental growth of population are:
1. Starvation due to limits of the environment
2. Removal of incentives to have large families, by increased personal wealth.
3. Removal of the choice by an authoritarian government.

On a worldwide basis, #2 is the only real option. Fortunately it has worked in a lot of places.

Answer 2

A more pressing question might be "How can we *ethically* control the growth of human population"? While the problem of over-population is very real and very important, finding effective solutions to the problem without breaching basic cultural and ethical boundaries is a very sticky wicket.

Questions about who gets to reproduce (and who doesn't), and how much each couple can reproduce, involve a ton of ethical and extremely personal questions. Are the "right people" reproducing? If a family loses a child to an early death (by disease or by fatal accident), do they get to have another one? Given how genders are treated so differently in different countries and cultures, will government population policies be different should a family only have daughters? (Or sons, for that matter?) What would the (non-cruel and non-unusual) punishment be for those who decide they really want more children than a government-imposed limit allows? What do we do about institutions (ex. major religions) that encourage over-population?

Having children is an extremely personal decision, involving economics, heritage, religion, culture, ancestry and love itself. How any government can invade that realm without bloodshed is a real quandry (Don't tell me that people haven't been killed over the population policies of China.)

On the bright side, countries that have contraception readily available, along with good pre-natal and post-natal care that reduces the rate of infant mortality, tend to have lower birth rates. Bringing third world countries up to speed on contraception might make a difference.

Another bright side might be that, should government regulation of reproduction ever be established, people intending to have children might need to obtain licenses, and with that requirement could come child care training (much like drivers' training for drivers' licenses.) Improving general knowledge about child nutrition, medical treatment and parenting techniques might do wonders for a society as a whole. I grant you, such a benefit is not an adequate offset for the costs of a totalitarian reproduction regime, but I try to be fair. ;)

Answer 3

Governments can fund programs encouraging smaller families.
We can solve the issues in Africa and Latin America. Statistically speaking, the more poverty,the more offspring. that means alot of charitable aid, especially health care. It also means coordination with their governments. We cannot support governments like Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, etc whose leaders would not "share the wealth".
Look at Japan and Europe, they are losing populations. I believe it has to do with a high standard of living and low occurence of deadly situations (studies show a correlation with birth rate and instability).
To aid the earth is supporting the peak 8.9billion, we should further studies on increasing agriculutral production, without relying on genetic tampering.

Answer 4

HAHAHA! people making good choices on there own....oh you people know a good joke or two, ok if you want people to stop having sex don't tell them make them (Inconvenience! oh my tiny mind!) you cant go around telling 18 year olds not to have sex, but you can get them to have abortions(if I here I'mmoral im going on a killing spree, its necessary and another topic) China's got the idea, they always were smarter(like bowing instead of shaking some ones infected hand) Either make it Illegal for more than like three kids, tax people for every child after the second or die in a puddle of bacteria left behind by your 3rd kid you "needed" so much.

To Dave of the hill people: not quite what I ment but ok they still have the law....its the idea that counts?

Answer 5

the population should top off around 9 billion, then begin to decline...very few people have 10 kids anymore. meanwhile, the other issues are interrelated and require us to accept some responsibility for our actions and make an effort to save our planet...don't count on that until ol GW and his big oil buddies are out. and even then, it's hard to say if the new pres will start the ball rolling. your vote is your voice

Answer 6

We can only educate and hope that folks will make the right decision. I'm not planning on having any children, if that makes you feel better.
Creating laws won't work (this hasn't worked for centuries).
Exploring other planets won't work (c'mon, let's get real).

Governments exist only to keep themselves in existence; so, it is likely that global showdown will be the natural course of events.

Answer 7

College education, and careers, for women.
In some European countries, the population is decreasing.
In the USA, the population would be holding steady if it weren't for immigrants.

Answer 8

Here is the answer to that, Castration.

Answer 9

hmmm

sex education as kids......

importance of nature and its problems as kids......

social awareness as kids.......

its never too early for all that

and rest condoms and anal oral sex...... lol

Answer 10

more war
more saltpeter
let AIDS run its course
encourage more homosexuals