Why are govts unwilling to curb population growth globally?

Question

Surely if population growth is curtailed, then economies don't need to grow, but can also be maintained at 0% growth?

Would this not be the best long term solution to save the planet?

Answer 1

That's a really good question. 'Population Control', even 'controlled growth' have become taboo subjects, tantamount to political suicide. Even the slight mention of which insures a candidate cannot get elected/reelected. So who is to blame for that, the government? No, I'm afraid that in a democracy the voters (and non-voters, too!) have only themselves to blame. If we do not work to change the situation at a grass roots level, it won't change. People assume that 'the government' should do something without thinking that the government is in fact, US. We need to do something. We need to make it clear to our elected officials that this is a subject needing action. We need to elect candidates who believe this. Worried about global warming, degradation of the environment, crowded freeways, noisy neighborhoods, long lines everywhere? The fundamental root cause of all of this is uncontrolled population growth. We are outstripping our resources. Eventually it will all collapse on us. If we don't act, who will? Don't blame the government, get involved yourself! That's the only way change can happen.

Answer 2

Government policies are largely powerless when it comes to population growth. The best remedy against population growth is economic growth, complete with modern institutions. In a poor society, children are assets; parents make them work or sell them into apprenticeship; when parents get old, children take care of them. In a rich society, children are liabilities; they have to be fed, clothed, and schooled for extended periods of time; additionally, people do not depend on children for support in old age, as there are public old-age pensions and private retirement plans.

Many governments around the world, however, are not in the business of enriching their people; they are in the business of enriching themselves and their friends. So many countries remain poor and maintain high population growth...

As to your assertion that "if population growth is curtailed, then economies don't need to grow", it is false. Economic growth is only partially due to population growth; the primary contribution to economic growth comes from increasing productivity.

Answer 3

Because interferring with natural population growth causes unnatural imbalances. It has taken thousands of years for nature to `balance` all things, including the human population...and we need a comtinual supply of young to support the old. An unpopular idea is you happen to be young, but a fact of life...and we all get old anyway, eventually.
Re China`s attempt to control their population:


It is also an unworkable idea as China's birth control laws have shown. Actually in the cities of China the method seems to work. Growth has stopped. Unfortunately, since primogeniture is valued in their culture (boys are favored), as it is in many cultures, the press of forced constraints has skewed birthing rates. For various reasons, an unnatural ratio of boys born to girls born (110 boys for every 100 girls) has emerged. Even though China's efforts have been successful in the city, China's entire population continues to grow. Why? It is because their constraint laws are impossible to enforce in the countryside and borderlands (Kii). Here the population grows and by the effects of migration the cities also grow (Hardin 269).

Answer 4

How would you suggest we stop people having children? Do you think any government has a right to tell people how many children they can have?

Or maybe we stop treating all illnesses and let nature take it's course? Would you be willing to stop treatment for an illness you have and to possibly die a nasty death?

How about killing people off once they reach a certain age? I don't think I could take someone's life, could you?

I'm not sure if this would even be considered by many, if any, government. I agree that more people on the planet mean fewer resourses to go round but I don't think anyone would dare think about population control.

Answer 5

Surely, exploding fertility goes hand to hand with extreme poverty...

Since resources are finite, less people means more per person.

If you look at data, you'll see that all rich countries have around 2 per woman at best, and many have much less...

global fertility will go down.

Why not? It's tough to change some cultures, religion... educate people, give them shelter, opportunities etc. and it drops. Also, contraception still doesn't exist in many countries.

If population decreases, each person is actually richer, there is less pressure on infrastructure etc.

Answer 6

They are politicians and love the idea of the masses financing their lifestyle! Forget the planet - governments only use this when it suits their purpose. If there were to be less population, what would happen to their nice cushy number?

Answer 7

Do you think political leaders are concerned with saving the planet?

They are worried about their own pocket, and more population means a bigger national product.

Answer 8

How would you react if the government forcibly sterilized you after the birth of your second child? I'm guessing it's that reaction that they're trying to avoid.

Answer 9

It would be nice. Every nation should adopt China's one child policy. Of course, it will never happen. Too many people will cry about their rights to have as many little b@st@rds as they want.
The same ones that think it is their biblical right to breed like insects.

Answer 10

Your idea sounds like a superb one. This was what Sanjay Gandhi did.