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

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 2

I think eventually there will be some kind of crisis. Years ago people had large families, as the mortality rate was so high. Nowadays, more babies survive through medical intervention. Im not sure if restricting people to one child is the answer, but measures will be taken if the world continues in this way. It will be out of our hands at that point. I have seen on TV that there are families who cant afford to work, because some have as many as 17 children. The benefits system and poorly paid jobs make this possible. Maybe if the benefits system were to have a cut off point as to how many children they will provide for would be a good idea. I know some people wouldn't agree with that. If it took two to make two, it would be far more sustainable, and we could devlop a good economic system, without overloading.
As for food, all we have to do is watch the news to see that many nations are teetering on the edge of starvation and many more are at critical point. I often used to wonder what we could do to help, but it's like peeing in the ocean. The money gets swallowed up by politics.

Answer 3

The world is not over-populated. There is enough food to feed everyone in the world and still have some left over. If the entire earth's population moved to Texas, each person could build a house. The reason why the cities are over-crowded is because that is where the money is.
It appalls me to listen to ways to reduce the world's population. On a scary note, if you wait you will see some of these suggestions put into practice...

Answer 4

Good question! I believe it would be near impossible to implement a policy on population control. You would need an organization dedicated just to this cause to enforce the rules and regulations and uphold them. Where will the funding come from? Would you really expect people to fund an organization that restricts them from procreating? Our society is democratic- everyone gets a say. If we were communists, the idea might work. Population control has been a characteristic of many dystopian/utopian writings. You might want to check out The Wanting Seed by Anthony Burgess (same guy who wrote clockwork orange). In that society they install rules regarding sexual relations and promote homosexuality to control the numbers. Also check out Thomas Moores Utopia, Plato's Republic, George Orwells 1984 and Animal Farm.

But perhaps the problem isn't that we continue to procreate, but that our society is discovering and improving ways to prolong and save lives. War, sickness, and accidents used to be the old way of controling the numbers. Now we have better weapons and machinery, numerous advances in medicine, and foolproof products and safety measures. It used to be, you were shot in the chest and you died; thanks to technological advancements, you are given a chance to live.

Answer 5

I would argue both points that no, because no matter how many people there are you can never get enough people down a london street!
And yes, because in my town it's too full and the harbour is always jam-packed with people.. like jam..
lol
NOT HAM.. jam
So anyway. I would say IMHO i think that.....
YES, the human race is too over-populated, one person gives birth to maybe at the most/average of about 2/3 kids a lifetime? it's increasing a lot this population of ours =S

Answer 6

There already is an overpopulation policy. It is call disease. With so many people now living in large cities it is only a matter of time when the next pandemic kills enough humans to reduce the strain on the earth.

Answer 7

As our world population has increased, in general, our standard of living has also increased. Even in heavily populated areas of the world such as south asia, a dramatic increase in population has resulted in dramatic increases in standard of living.

It can be assumed that certain beneficial personailty traits or types are fairly random in population. (These traits could be good leaders, brilliant scientists, or extremely hard working capitolists that strive to better our civilization.) Since they are random, then the more people you have in the world, the more likely you are to have these talented people to raise all of us up.

As our population increases it also allows us all to do the things that we do best and help those around us. For example, since there are so many people in the world, we all dont have to farm, fish, hunt, and participate in the military, every single day of our lives. Our population allows us to specialize.

Imagine the opposite case. Imagine the entire world population was limited to 100 people or less, living in a small Somerset village. What would happen if there was a crop failure? What would happen if tools started to break down? Who would be willing to work 24-7 as the local internal medicine specialist when everyone has to work their personal farm to prevent starvation? Who would be willing to repair farm equipment for other people when you have to chop entire cords of wood daily in order to prepare for the winter?

How long would the local forests last if we didnt have enough people to draw on petroleum/coal and had to cut down trees instead? Remember, the Salisbury Plain used to be the Salisbury Forest! Even prehistoric people depleted resources in the local area with tiny populations. Large populations allow us to become even more efficient, since we all can spend more time on specific tasks.

Finally, this population question is just a rehash of the Thomas Malthus crisis. The crisis that never occured! Instead of a complete collapse of society as predicted by Malthus we live longer and healthier lives than ever. We travel the world and visit other worlds. And we can talk to people around the planet simply by typing away at a 1lb piece of plastic.

We as human beings are smart and we adapt. History has shown time and time again that we grow and become stronger with more population, not less.

IMO, our history has shown that if our population depletes, we are doomed. Everything must be done to continue our population growth. Doing otherwise turns a blind eye to the failures of previous civilizations and invites complete failure of western society as a whole.

Answer 8

Something I heard, but never looked up: when the (general) education level of the women in a given population goes up, the birthrate goes down.
It was not referring to birth control information, but just whether or not the women finished high school or college.
Maybe you could find something along those lines.

Answer 9

this will be unpopular but how about compulsory euthanasia for people over 70,we could all have 5 years enjoyable retirement and then drift off to sleep(i know its harsh)but it would ease the strain on the nhs,housing,enviroment(we wouldn't need to build as many new homes),NI contributions(or part of) could be used for something other than pensions,fuel reserves (oil,gas)would last longer due to being less people needing them.

again i know its not nice but it was a question so i answered it

Answer 10

And end up like China with babies left to die on the streets or like Romania where they're dumped i orphanages you wouldn't let a dog in. No I don't think its time, I believe in the old adage nature will find a way.