Are Humans overpopulating, and should prevenative policy be taken?

Question

Our planet can no longer seem to cope with the human race expanding everywhere. There is no other species so far spread from a single area as we have, and there is no other species environmentally unstable and unsustainable, as we grow, the natural world shrinks because we don't live with wildlife.

If there was a policy that every couple could only have one child, then in the space of about 2 generations, the human population would half. I don't agree with this idea, but if was implemented our level of pollution, consumption, and environmental impact would also approximately half.

And we'd take up so much less space, natural habitats could eventually re-emerge and we would have ample energy resources so that we wouldn't need more industrial development.

So should there be a new global policy, lets call it a license to reproduce. Or selective breeding (terrible but natural). Could such extreme measures be excused in such time of environmental chrisis? For future generations?

Please understand that this is not something I approve of, but something that would ultimately be very beneficial for the planet, and therefore future generations so the philanthropic argument works both ways.

As for China, China had a social inequality in which women couldn't work and few people had pensions and so naturally there was a strong preference for boys and an unfortunate neglect for girls.
So please refer from personal humanitarian attacks because I've worked with some of the poorest people in the world in some of the highest population areas. E.g Calcutta

Answer 1

There is one and only one guaranteed proven way to stop population growth. Wealth. Rich societies have smaller families and poor societies have larger ones. The United States has a SHRINKING native population, and is only growing due to immigration from poor, high growth rate Latin America. China's one child per family law has seen limited success in the poor countryside, but the newly rich city people simply do not want lots of children. The world fertility rate (number of children a woman will have in her life) is dropping dramatically almost everywhere and population is on track to stabilize in most of the world, except for some poor areas in Africa, within 100 years.

Answer 2

Listen up, deathkomes4ya, there is no way that this planet or the "the little green men" will allow our greedy, selfish, arrogant, cancerous species (generally speaking) continue with this nonsense much longer. Does anyone think that Earth can reasonably sustain a bunch of meat eating destructive ego-centric decay minded people with a world population that is predicted to increase by another 3 billion people by the year 2050? You are living in a fantasy world, if you think so. If something, as you suggest should happen, It will be because there are not enough natural resources to take care of the human species in a post modern industrialized consumptive, it's all about me, global economy. It's a simple equation involving cause and effect. If you are smart enough, you will understand that.

Answer 3

To do all that you are taking the poor and middle class off the face of the earth . Before dooming everyone that made it this far just to have the rich tell you that your obsolete and your jeans are no longer required on this earth is like telling someone to commit suicide.

Use your imagination a little bit before you go killing every one off that doesn't meet up to your standards . Don't you think it would be better for us to adapt you know like city's under the seas or on the moon or mars other planets .

The thing is now that we are getting so close to the things that where predicted years ago like over population we have to start thinking differently . We are still doing things our grand and great grandparents where doing way back in the day . You have to understand times have changed and we must change with them and the biggest thing we have to change is " greed " there is no one select better then the other how could you even determine that . We are all going to have to start working together to survive either that or we all die together and your riches aren't going to mean a thing

Answer 4

Permaculture Answer:

Preventative policy as you describe NO. Reasons, enforcement, skews in sexes, reality of abortions, aging populations in western world, labour barriers, poverty, tradition, etc etc the list is endless. No excuse whatsoever for your selective breeding solution.

I do like your thinking about smallest land use for mankind. It is Permaculture thinking. Use less space by creating a highly productive/high yield homestead/garden and being as self sufficient in food, fuel and dealing with wastes as possible. Permaculture dictates we then leave the rest of the wilderness alone. In Permaculture we advocate SELF LIMITING your own family size.

Good luck with this question; people find it hard to understand that it is the connection between the WAY in which we live/consume/deplete/pollute that is causing the environmental problems. We have overconsumption but finite resources. Overpopulation is a threat because of the finite resources. Each child is another demand on finite resources. We damage the ecosystem and cover it in concrete, we pollute the air, water, soil thus ensuring that the ecosystem can not work effectively. Our actions are destroying the very system that keeps us alive.

The more people there are, the more demand there is on those finite resources.

Answer 5

Through the 20th century the human population quadrupled, from 1.5 billion to 6.0 billion, roughly doubling every 50 years.
Since 2000 the population has grown by a further 800 million and is on target for 12.0 billion by 2050.

In the study of population dynamics there are three recognised density dependant factors that control populations.

1. starvation
2. disease
3. predation

For humans the equivalent of predation is war and crime. As more and more people compete for dwindling resources these three factors will operate with increasing force

If we don't find some equitable political solution to population control, nature will do it for us using the above factors.

Not a pretty picture

Answer 6

For the love of god yes, the human being is simply a monkey that happened to evolve with a neo cortex. No environment could sustain such an unbalanced growth by one species much less one that is disproportianately destructive to it's own environment. We need mandated birth control immediately, maybe even based on IQ and values tests.
It's sad that the stupid and the religously fanatic like POTUS their are proving to breed at the rate of almost 10/1. If thats not a parasite I don't know what is.

Answer 7

There is no "overpopulation problem." The rate of population growth is declining--and will reach zero within a few decades.

You keep seeing this "overpopulation" myth for two reasons. First, there are always people around who want to solve problems--whether global warming or anything else--by dictating how other people should lead their lives. So they invend some excuse (overpopulation, "national security," smoking or drinking, etc.) as an excuse to try to pass laws or whatever to control other peoples lives.

The other reason is that the overpopulation myth is simply one of the latest ploys by special interests--mainly the oil companies--to divert attention from the real issue--which is simply ending our use of fossil fuels and shifting to modern methods of producing energy instead of their 19th century fossil fuel technology. Do that--and the CO2 emissions drop to acceptable levels, and most other air pollution is eliminated as well. If we don't--population won't matter because the environment we live in cannot continue to stain our civilization if we keep burning all this coal and oil.

Answer 8

overpopulating as compared to what? how do you define overpopulation? and how does one determine exactly what part of enviromental degradation is due to population or just due to mismanagment or greedy corporations and governments?

how does growing food degrade the enviroment? or making clothes or making electricity? decreasing the population will do nothing to address the polluiton problem, as it is not all who pollute only irresposible corporations that do.

and occassionally people in general, throw their trash out their windows as they drive past my house and others too, reducing the population doesnt mean the reduced half is the one doing the trashing.

if you really care about the enviroments, get rid of teh greedy bankers and their political friends. that would be a start. put them in slave labor camps and use them to clean up the enviroment. make them work for nothing.

as for the population of the usa we only occupy about 5 percent of the land area including agriculture. it sounds like the population problem exists sole in the minds of those who want a slave/master class system. there are to many slaves. harder to control and contain if they decide to riot against their masters tyranny.

RRRRR

Answer 9

There are two simple answers for all those who think there are too many people on Earth: 1. voluntarily die 2. be sterilised.

With option 1. we'd be rid of your nonsense soon. With option 2. we'd be rid of your nonsense later. Both options would serve to solve the problem you are concerned about. You won't do it because you want to impose that on other people and exempt yourselves, you elitist tyrants.

There is no environmental crisis, except of your own invention. It is a political grasping for power over others. Your plan is to eliminate most of future generations "for their own good". They won't exist and that can't be good.

Answer 10

Are you serious, Yes & in some groups it looks like if they don't care, but the cost is high for the environment as well as financially, in my opinion it's time to cut population, no joke, probably future generations are going to be hit hard than we are. Let's not forget that overpopulation contributes to more pollution, and big waste of our natural resources, crime also goes up, & simply pretending everything is fine, it's not going to cut it.