Why don't world leaders control the population?

Question

The overcrowding of people on this earth is the root cause of all the pollution, the endangerment of species, global warming, etc... Correct me if I'm wrong but, the more people in the world or i.e. in the U.S., the more demand there is for several products, internet, tv, cell phones, food, fuel, homes, etc... I can see why the leaders don't control the population; it is because the health of the economy will go down but is it really more important than saving the planet?? I think about this everyday when I see new buildings up, more freeways, more chemical plants, more vehicles being made, more of everything. We're viruses consuming everything in our path regardless of what wildlife stands in our way or how much we pollute the earth. What can we do to stop the contamination of the planet? What will we do?

Answer 1

This is a really interesting question, which isn't easy to answer. The thing is, there are a lot of ethical issues involved. Firstly, the above answerers are write when they say that implementing birth restrictions would cause a huge public outrage. At the same time, however, most people accept, and even see it as necessary, to cull varying numbers of individuals from other species. Its complicated as, speciesism is definitely a factor; culling humans would not be accepted, even though our overpopulation is the cause of all these problems. Culling occurs when a population exceeds the carrying capacity for its environment (or otherwise, when the species is seen to be a pest...). If humans were considered equal to other species, then certainly some culling should happen, as, looking at most ecological footprints, we would need about 5 or more planets on average to sustain our population.

...Economy is highly over rated, in my opinion (and also that of one of my lecturers, who is a well known environmental spokesperson). A major difference between the two is that the economy is 'artificial'; that is, humans made it, humans maintain and compete over it. And its the cause of a lot of dispute. Climate, on the other hand, is natural, an inextricable part of Earth, it influences all the natural components of the planet. It is balanced, however excessive inputs of some gases can imbalance it (hence the climate crisis). Climate supports humans. So yes, I'd say saving the environment is more important that the economy.

"We're viruses consuming everything in our path regardless of what wildlife stands in our way or how much we pollute the earth." Nicely put.

Stopping the contamination of the planet... *takes deep breath*... for a start, it would help if everyone was of the same belief, and could move in the same direction. It would also help if governments legitimately believed in saving the environment, and particularly global warming, rather than planning for the sake of popularity. (Sorry, that sounds harsh). The most important thing is to educate people and enable people to understand it all... changing attitudes is the thing that will do it.

Lets hope that happens soon, it is already happening a bit.

Answer 2

Most experts say that our world population will top out at 9 billion people. Then it will be a race to see if we can sustain 9 billion people on the earth. Of course we could go to 12 billion people, noone really knows. This is one of the reasons why I am so interested in sustainability, the development theory that says that the poor countries on the earth today do not have to develop their countries first by building dirty coal plants!!! Start producing power now with forms of power (wind, solar, geothermal) that are virtually inexhaustible or at the very least renewable, but in the end ALWAYS sustainable. In other words something that can be sustained for a very very very long period of time. As for the more developed countries, they definitely have their work cut out for them as well due to the fact that they are the ones who developed the coal plants in the first place. When you ask " what can we do to stop the contamination of the planet?" I would say that we can all become environmentalists and start respecting the earth for it's life giving qualities that we all take for granted. That's not going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future, though. Everybody has got to have their hummer, you know.

Answer 3

So how do you propose to control the population? By arresting pregnant women and aborting their children by force? Killing the extra people? Too extreme? Forced sterilization? Nobody is dragging me into an operating room against my will without a fight. If they try, I will get a gun to stop them. So will billions of other people in the world. Taxing people with too many children? 99% of the people with too many children are so poor you cannot imagine it. Like $100 a year income.

Before modern technology, birth rates were WAY higher than they are today, but people died like flies. We today cannot imagine it at all. 200 years ago, 30% of all women died in child birth. Infant mortality was so high that almost every family had at least one of their children die before the age of one, and many families lost several children. It was a rare family that had all the babies born to it live to adulthood. The average life span was much less than today. The only thing we did wrong was control disease and feed everybody. That is why the population has gone up so fast recently.

The lowest birth rates are all in the richest countries. The only PROVEN way to reduce the birth rate without killing people is to make people rich. That is happening now. China and India are on the fast track to wealth similar to Europe or the United States, where the birth rates are so low that some people worry about a DECLINING native population being swamped by immigrants. And their population growth rates are falling sharply as they improve their economies. So even though you may think riches are bad, riches are the only thing that will limit the population, other than the Malthusian limits of starvation and disease.

Answer 4

The much derided Communist Governments of China have done just that, with their one child per family policy. It has helped a little, but the Chinese population is still enormous.

It's a plain fact that governments don't have the power you think, they can be ignored and voted out and they have to please the rich and powerful also. I believe that the role of government is to lead, but actually they spend too much energy in trying to keep in power by pleasing their voters and hidden power brokers.

The churches and religious leaders have a lot to answer for; concerned about the next world, they are helping to ruin this one. Religions do change, about 600 years too late in the case of Galileo. I foresee a Catholic turnaround in the case of contraception similarly taking place in around 500 years time. The conservatism of orthodox religion is appalling.

The truth is that all species, grow rapidly when resources are available until they pollute their environment, eat everything and then in turn are preyed upon by disease and predators. We are different because our intelligence allows us to (temporarily) break the cycle. Never mind freeways, sanitation and washing hands are enough to ensure population growth.

The fact of the matter is that even now, it's not so much the number of humans, but the way we use resources. Some of us use amazing levels of material and energy and others have absolutely nothing and turn on their environment, destroying their long term livelihood in order to eat today. The key is restraint and fair distribution of resources coupled with efficient use of technology.

It's not all doom and gloom, heavily insulated houses are much better to live in. Travel by the best high speed trains in the world is much better than driving between cities. Composting and growing your own food is actually an activity that can bring you closer to nature and help your health. Not commuting would improve anybodies life.

The trouble is our economic, political and religious institutions are not up to the task. The myths of central planning or NeoCon free markets are both crude and result in weak immoral and wasteful societies. Democracy needs retuning, to be more accountable to informed opinion and less concerned with vested interest, power brokers and demagogues. Religious authority need to give up the corruption of absolute power, Encyclicals and Fatwas declaring divine authority from aged religious bureaucrats are not the way to attract or lead followers.

Vested interest seems to rule the world. Our future existence and comfort and that of many other species depends on our ability to work cooperatively and compassionately. With hard work and some luck we can avoid a ruined world and even do something to avoid the next extinction event be it self inflicted or by asteroid strike.

Answer 5

"Why don't world leaders control the poplulation?"---

Simple: no one likes Nazis who think they have the right to run peoples lives.

Andthat's all that kind of BS is--a cover for racism and would-be dictators.

Want to control the population? There's a real simple,proven method: change the laws in countries where the social system exploits women. Open the ecucational system and work place to them. Then you get a sharp drop in birthrates. Industrial nations with women's rights have either stable (zeoro-growth) or ery low rates of increase. Those that don't have those social features are either increasing rapidly in population, or they are basket cases like the Sudan. Or totalitarian dictatorships with no human rights like China.

The point: the way to limit population growth is simple: individual rights, opportunity and freedom. There is no need--or excuse--for "leaders" trying to turn people into slaves. Which--intenionally or not--is what you are advocating.

Answer 6

Actually the country with the most population, China, is trying to limit their population by mandating only 1 or 2 children per family. They are having problems with that. Also, a lot of other countries are somewhat limiting the population by allowing abortions. But, think how you would react if your government told you that you could only have one child.

Answer 7

The greatest gift to the future is to remain childless.
Adolph Hitler and the 3rd Reich attempted population control and it was a disaster
Many poor nations have no form of elder economic security other than their children.
Agricultural subsistance farmers need more children to work the land
Women in many countries have no say so in their reproductive choices.
Men want to prove their virility by having many children by many women
Religion
Mexico and the PRC have made great strides in stabilizing their population growth.
Germany has negative growth.
USA has the fastest growth of industrial or 1st world nations. via immigration

Answer 8

Because, the "leaders" can not (humanly) control something that the vast majority takes part in, there is not enough power under them. For instance, The Supreme Court of America interepets a law to say "No one may curse on Sunday." How on earth are they suppose to enforce that? Certain things can not be done my one person, it takes a majority to change something permanently. Our leader's come to power, because of majority, therefore, the people always decide in the end. If the leader sucks THAT MUCH they will just kill him anyways.

Answer 9

What can we do? Don't worry, when the human race goes extinct the earth will heal itself. In the meantime, why don't you find out how well China is doing with the whole "Control the Population" thing...

Answer 10

As much as I would like to see population control instigated by the government, it goes against our civil liberties. The government telling Americans that they can have only two kids would probably cause a total outrage. When the government exerts "control" people get upset and say that it goes against their "freedom."


LOL point proven above!