Why is it that when an environmentalist talks about population control, and population reduction...?

Question

...alot of anti environmentalists accuse us of advocating genocide? The point of a planed population size is to keep an eye on the new people being made, not getting rid of those already here. Example: If every couple on earth only had one child (Hypothetical situation) aand lavished all of their attention and resources on said child, global population would be cut in half in one generation. All without "getting rid of" anyone.

I'm not saying that this would be a be-all end-all solution to every problem, or that everyone would go along with it, I'm just wondering why people assume the absolute worst about some of this stuff.

"For example if every couple has two children at the age of 50, you double your population much slower than if every couple has two children at the age of 25."

Mike, if every couple has two children, the population stays the same, it does not double. But I like your answer, don't get me wrong. I actually am loving all of these responses! It's going to be hard to pick a best answer.

Answer 1

I realize that you have never advocated genocide as a means to population control, but there are people on this site who have advocated genocide as a means of population control.

I have argued with some of them over that issue.

Another way to reduce the size of your population without formally restricting the number of children that a couple can have is to enourage people to have their children later in life which is actuakky what we are doing in the United States.

I think that it makes more sense for a couple to use their early years to finish their educations and develop their careers working long hours when necessary and postponing children until later..

When you are well along in your career and financially secure that is the time to start having children and taking time off from work to care for your children.

When you are the boss it is much easier to get time off to take care of your kids.

If you have done your job correctly you will have many eager underlings that want the opportunity to get more experience and fill in for you to get more experience developing their skills while you are taking care of your kids.

That is one reason why we are seeing so many people having children in their forties and fifties and even their sixties.

I realize that in the popular media many of these people are criticised as being too old.

However I see them as heroes. By postponing their child rearing to later in life they give their children the benefit of their experience in life, they are much more financially secure, and they are often in positions of authority so they can give younger workers the opportunity to develop their skills while they take time off to raise their children.

Also by having children later in life you stretch out the generation time. For example if every couple has two children at the age of 50, you double your population much slower than if every couple has two children at the age of 25.

I realize that is oversimplified but I think that most of you will get the idea..

I think the best way to limit the size of your population and develop a highly productive population is to encourage people to wait until after they have developed their careers before they have children.

In most cases, that will usually be after the age of 40.

Answer 2

Because each of us doesnt live long enough to actually do something productive to curtail rampant pop growth since it may take 50 years to be convinced this is the only environmental problem that matters for the human race to harmonize as the last civilization it already has become. The complexity of what to do is enormous but is simplified if we as couples seek with grace to only raise two children, on average, in any place, anytime, and anyone by themselves does not have stake but through incidental conception which is a competing traditional value we must allow as much for love of a new messiah.

Answer 3

I never thought anyone was advocating genocide, but there IS a very big problem with population control as you describe. That problem comes when we have a disproportionate population of elderly. This is especially a problem in modernized countries like the US, because people live very long lives. Now we are already looking at a future without social security and if we have a huge population of elderly and a smaller population of working aged citizens, who will take care of all the elderly?

Where we need to look at population control is in developing countries like some of the African nations, where it will be a great challenge.

One solution, of course, would be for people from third-world countries to immigrate to the US and other modernized countries and fill the gaps of menial labor, leaving our citizens with their educations to work better jobs and we still have a good balance in the work force and our elderly are able to retire while we still pull in enough tax dollars to help support them. But, you know how people feel about immigration right now.

Answer 4

I think the reason why I get scared when this idea is brought up is because the only way you could do it would be government control. I am not ready to see the governments of this world have that kind of control over the people. I have never thought of this idea as genocide. In fact, I have seen some couples decide not to have a large family when they were given all the facts. It is a good idea.

Answer 5

Since the begining of recorded history, people have been worrying about population explotion.

The greeks, the romans, worried about it.

Thomas Malthus worried about it 200 years ago.

In the 1970's predictions were made of famines in the United States. (Around the same time people were worrying about the coming Ice Age, not global warming)

And and some people worry about it now. And when the population stabalizes at 10 billion in 2050 (According to UN), people will keep worrying about it.

SO please, keep worrying about it. It's Human Nature. Population explosions, environmental apocalypse caused by the "evil corporations". WHen the world became less religous, environmentalism became the new religion complete with sin and the end of the world mythologies, saviors and the business of asking for donations and selling indulgences.

And yes people like Eldrige and Jaques Custou(sp?) have said things to the effect that the population should be kept at around a billion.

Answer 6

There are many reasons; here is one of the less well-known reasons.

Many groups benefit (in the short run) from population growth. For example, people who own land and other resources benefit when demand for those resources goes up. Also, various political groups that are based on a religion, or a national origin, or other characteristics want to increase their power by increasing their percentage of the population.

Since it is physically impossible for population to grow exponentially forever, there are no counter-arguments against the need to stabilize our population at some level. If you are a person who benefits from population growth, the best way to win a debate about population growth is to change the subject and put the environmentalist on the defensive. One of the best ways to do that is to accuse him or her of being racist. The environmentalist will then spend most of the rest of the debate defending him/herself against the charge of racism, and won't spend much time talking about population.

Answer 7

Population control is good especially in todays times when there are already lots of humans around doing nothing good.
Most often population control contradicts people religious beliefs of having more children. Actually in olden days people were encouraged to have more children because then humans were less in numbers.
Population control is a must else we have to find a new planet else there will be full fledged wars for basic things like food , water etc.

Answer 8

People get very nervous when you go below the belt

Primitive and ancient civilizations were much more on the ball about containing their numbers .
only in times of war ,and when invading did governments encourage large families or when pioneering as labor for settling farmers

Maybe those who object are gonna be pioneers again ,or could it be War????

But also

Mans sexuality and very often how many kids hes got is proof of his masculinity and insurance for old age,with many possible incomes to assist him when he himself cannot work any more

besides HOW do we ethically control populations

poor areas with less education DEMONSTRATE THE HIGHEST NUMBERS OF TEEN AGE PREGNANCIES,

educated women have less children
But uneducated populations are more religious and more resistant to birth control.
to forcibly control populations is frowned upon to say the least
So it is being done in sneaky ways
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhUVNuxJzmha5n14QVi4SRHsy6IX?qid=20070417091517AAuMVRo
In the Netherlands after the war families were encouraged
to have few children because it is such a small country
not much bigger than Mexico city,
so it was physically impossible to fit a lot of people into the country ,There people can understand the concept of birth control,

But in larger countries many think like rabbits and think only of the family ,not the society as a whole

what happens if the country is full
wage war and kill everybody in another place to invade and settle there ,that would be the natural solution

NATURES POINT OF VIEW

In Nature exists such a thing as the law of Harmony and Equilibrium
Some Native peoples have always been aware of this
to limit the tribes number to as many as the tribe can afford to feed
The Central Americans sacrificed the excess children,the earlier ones like the Olmec practiced birth control
Amazonian tribes have strict sexual rites that limit copulation in the conventional way.

Animals have lots of young when there is plenty of food ,and have little or none when the conditions are bad
when there is a plague of rabbits ,many foxes are born,
when there is no game lions ,and other predators have few cubs.

plants do roughly the same
All follow the LAW OF NATURE OF EQUILIBRIUM
everybody is welcome ,but nobody in excess.
we must co-exist on this planet and limit our numbers to our resources

All of Nature obeys these LAWS,but Humans put themselves above the LAW,and have bred themselves into a plague
It is a miracle that Nature has allowed us to get this far.

everything else is set upon by plagues ,disease or predators ,when they exceed their allotted quantity,or there are Natural disasters .

There are two moments in the existence of a specie when extinction is likely,
when there are two few
And when there are too many.

Maybe Gaia is trying to tell us something with Global Warming
Humanity should listen and beware
we are part of the same Eco systems
and subject to the same LAWS
whether we like it or believe it or not

Answer 9

One sees people like Algore talking about population control (before his global warming days) telling everyone they should limit their families to just 2 kids, while he of course has 4 kids.

It's no different than telling us we need to suffer to save the world while they live in opulence flying in private jets.

You should walk the walk first, then talk....

Answer 10

most all men want to have at least one son if not more to carry on the family name.