Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Population control

  • 20-04-2012 5:40pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭✭ Cawk n bawllz


    Why is population control never ever addressed in politics?
    They all talk about improving agriculture and infrastructure to support a growing global population but global resources are not infinite!
    It's predicted that we'll have a population of 9 billion by 2040. We currently have 7 billion and life is already getting worse and worse for a lot of people.

    We should be doing what we can to stabilize the human population. One child per couple for a few generations would thin us out nicely for a happier, more plentiful future for everyone.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭✭ NITransport


    Why is population control never ever addressed in politics?
    They all talk about improving agriculture and infrastructure to support a growing global population but global resources are not infinite!
    It's predicted that we'll have a population of 9 billion by 2040. We currently have 7 billion and life is already getting worse and worse for a lot of people.

    We should be doing what we can to stabilize the human population. One child per couple for a few generations would thin us out nicely for a happier, more plentiful future for everyone.

    It's not developed western countries which have rocketing populations, its generally developing or third world countries which are experiencing population booms. According to projections the populations of countries such as Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium and some more will fall by 2060. Whilst India will overtake China as China's population falls. Whilst Ireland's will just be starting to fall again by then.

    Therefore, it is basically none of our business how lesser developed countries deal with their populations. I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate former colonial powers telling them what to do either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭✭ Cawk n bawllz


    Regardless of where it's happening, it needs to be addressed. Are they addressing it?
    You say population will fall by 2060 as if it's a positive thing. In 2060 we will already be in deep hot water. It certainly will fall by then due to starvation and suicide.

    But here in western society, even if our population is not growing as fast as developing nations, we're still consuming oil and resources much much faster than they are. So I think we should take some responsibility ourselves.
    Even here in Ireland we have more people than our economy can support. People are emigrating and, sadly, committing suicide and we're still in steep decline.
    Obviously I don't know all there is to know about this but I'm just telling it as I see it.
    The focus is always on what we can do to facilitate more and more people and a discussion about controlling population is just never brought to the table.


  • Registered Users Posts: 188 ✭✭ Packet


    You aren't seeing the big picture as measured over many decades and are overly concerned with short term difficulties.

    The rate of global population growth is declining. As populations become more educated they have less children. In the developed world we have the opposite problem of too few children being born as the trends that reduce the population rate keep on going after crossing the replacement level. This is a policy challenge that has not been solved yet.

    In the historically short term context of the next 50 years before world population starts to level out the world will just have to concentrate on greater efficiency and non-environmentally destructive energy sources. There are massive efficiency gains to be made in agriculture without compromising the environment. Renewable energy sources will largely replace fossil fuels over the next 50 years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭✭ Cawk n bawllz


    Do you really think the current recession in Ireland and globally is a short term difficulty? It's just the tip of the iceberg.
    Maybe the rate is declining but the population is still growing.
    The population explosion we've had in the last 200 years is thanks to fossil fuels. It supports the infrastructure which makes a human population of 7 billion possible. No renewable energy source will have the potency of fossil fuels to maintain things as they are.
    The entire global population as it is now will not survive the decline from fossil fuels to renewable energies.
    The capitalist model we live on depends on constant expansion, infinite expansion where as the resources we depend on are finite.


  • Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭✭ NITransport


    Do you really think the current recession in Ireland and globally is a short term difficulty? It's just the tip of the iceberg.
    Maybe the rate is declining but the population is still growing.
    The population explosion we've had in the last 200 years is thanks to fossil fuels. It supports the infrastructure which makes a human population of 7 billion possible. No renewable energy source will have the potency of fossil fuels to maintain things as they are.
    The entire global population as it is now will not survive the decline from fossil fuels to renewable energies.
    The capitalist model we live on depends on constant expansion, infinite expansion where as the resources we depend on are finite.

    You best start stocking up on 9 volt batteries and tinned food then.

    P.S. For the love of God, don't forget a tin opener. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭✭ Cawk n bawllz


    You best start stocking up on 9 volt batteries and tinned food then.

    P.S. For the love of God, don't forget a tin opener. ;)

    Yeah, very good.


  • Registered Users Posts: 188 ✭✭ Packet


    The population explosion we've had in the last 200 years is thanks to fossil fuels. It supports the infrastructure which makes a human population of 7 billion possible. No renewable energy source will have the potency of fossil fuels to maintain things as they are.

    It simply isn't true to say renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuels.

    Remember we're talking on the big scale here over many decades.

    As fossil fuel plants (and nuclear for that matter) come to the end of their life spans it will increasingly make economic sense to replace them with renewable investment. If you're looking at a 20 - 30 year investment and you see the cost of fossil fuels trending upward and renewable energy, storage and grid technology trending downward the renewables win and the case for them will only strengthen.

    The only real questions are how much biodiversity are we going to lose and how much climate change will be locked in before the world completes the shift to sustainable practices.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭✭✭ singathim


    OP, your comment stinks of "Eugenics" :(

    Do you think you are god and can suggest ideas to cull people left right and centre? shame on you.
    Leave life to God (Or whoever or whatever it is that controls the universe).
    Humans have NO right to kill or dictate to other humans.
    NO RIGHT.


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭✭ Cawk n bawllz


    singathim wrote: »
    OP, your comment stinks of "Eugenics" :(

    Do you think you are god and can suggest ideas to cull people left right and centre? shame on you.
    Leave life to God (Or whoever or whatever it is that controls the universe).
    Humans have NO right to kill or dictate to other humans.
    NO RIGHT.

    Hmmm... not sure if you're trolling or just Christian.
    I didn't suggest eugenics or killing anyone.
    I'd like to see population control addressed in ways such as making people think responsibly about having children so that in future we can avoid a situation where people are struggling for survival.
    Humans have no right to kill or dictate to other humans? Maybe not but it's something humans do a hell of a lot!


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,406 ✭✭✭✭ Stark


    singathim wrote: »
    OP, your comment stinks of "Eugenics" :(

    Do you think you are god and can suggest ideas to cull people left right and centre? shame on you.
    Leave life to God (Or whoever or whatever it is that controls the universe).
    Humans have NO right to kill or dictate to other humans.
    NO RIGHT.

    Are we about to have a lecture on the evils of contraception and family planning?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,278 ✭✭✭ dowlingm


    The one thing we have to keep to the forefront is that every Westerner uses an order of magnitude (some two orders, the sort we celebrate in "celebrity", sport and business publications) of resources that your average Third Worlder uses, never mind the poorest of them. So the argument that Third World population growth is going to cause resource depletion is pretty much just plain wrong.

    However, self-interest should govern Third World governments in respect of population control, since overpopulation causes them to rely on external sources of assistance which may or may not be forthcoming.

    In the First World, population growth is tolerated via immigration (rather than celebrated) because the weird foreigners are basically the only way the Ponzi scheme that is First World Pension and Social Safety Net programmes can be paid for when there aren't enough locally born kids to support Boomers. I myself am an immigrant supporting the Canadian "Social Ponzi scheme" through my taxes :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭ srsly78


    The problem will sort itself out, whether via plague or war or education/management. It's a self-regulating system.

    My money is on war over limited resources btw.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭ Aard


    I've read before that the world population is expected to plateau around the 10bn mark.

    At any rate, different countries have different priorities. France actively encourages people to have larger (3 children) families through its welfare system. China, famously, has its one-child policy. Japan is experiencing population decline (in part due to it being a relatively impenetrable country for potential immigrants) which has a lot of middle aged Japanese worried about money being available for pensions.

    I think it's too much of a (relatively) local issue for any kind of world policy on population contol.


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭✭ Cawk n bawllz


    srsly78 wrote: »
    The problem will sort itself out, whether via plague or war or education/management. It's a self-regulating system.

    My money is on war over limited resources btw.

    Oh it absolutely will sort itself out one way or another. But we either take care of it now and deal with population growth responsibly or we let nature take its course and that's going to be harsh for everybody. In 2050 I'll be a vulnerable old man. I'm hoping I'll be able to live comfortably by then and die a natural death rather than having to fight people for food and water.
    Yes, it sounds crazy and drastic now but with the way things are going it's not going to end well.
    Maybe I'm wrong. I really really do want to be wrong about this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 188 ✭✭ Packet


    Sorry to come back with some more optimism but the problems of greater need to responsibly manage resources like fresh water on a global scale are more likely to be resolved in a peaceful manner.

    There might be the odd minor conflict but the numbers of deaths are likely to be proportionally smaller compared to those of the first half of the twentieth century, or the even bloodier medieval times or the prehistoric origins of civilization. There was a big dip in violent deaths starting from the enlightenment.

    Seeing trouble in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya on the news leads to a distorted impression of how violent the world is. The numbers dying are very small compared to even the "total war" in Europe in WWII.


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭✭ Cawk n bawllz


    Packet wrote: »
    Sorry to come back with some more optimism but the problems of greater need to responsibly manage resources like fresh water on a global scale are more likely to be resolved in a peaceful manner.

    There might be the odd minor conflict but the numbers of deaths are likely to be proportionally smaller compared to those of the first half of the twentieth century, or the even bloodier medieval times or the prehistoric origins of civilization. There was a big dip in violent deaths starting from the enlightenment.

    Seeing trouble in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya on the news leads to a distorted impression of how violent the world is. The numbers dying are very small compared to even the "total war" in Europe in WWII.

    I absolutely welcome some optimism.
    I agree with you about the media distorting how violent the world is. Fear is a powerful tool in manipulating people.
    This may take the thread off in a tangent but I'm feeling very uneasy about what to believe. I've seen a number of documentaries recently some optimistic, most pessimistic about what the next century holds for humankind.
    The oil crisis and global warming were the most prominent themes. It's possible that both of these issues are actually fear campaigns and claiming oil scarcity is a great way to drive up the price of it. However, THAT may in fact be propaganda to stop people from being worried or concerned about the world and continue to recklessy consume and live lives of excess (which the corporate fat cats love to see!).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 BluntGuy


    The oil crisis and global warming were the most prominent themes. It's possible that both of these issues are actually fear campaigns and claiming oil scarcity is a great way to drive up the price of it. However, THAT may in fact be propaganda to stop people from being worried or concerned about the world and continue to recklessy consume and live lives of excess (which the corporate fat cats love to see!).

    Well certainly there is a great deal of global warming denialism, one doesn't even need to venture beyond these Boards to witness it. At government level we are still seeing a rather half-hearted approach to it, which should be a cause for concern. However the electorate tend to think in terms of the short-term, which is why long term issues like global warming aren't big ticket electoral promises. Indeed, that may answer one of the OP's questions as to why it is not widely discussed in politics. Very little political gain.

    However in the coming years that attitude may very well change, as the idea of energy security becomes a far more relevant one in the public consciousness.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    Ireland is sparsely populated for a European Country, a larger population will mean an economy of larger scale. We must plan for an increasing population with improvements to infrastructure and propoer urban planning. Why should we give a ****e if India's population is rocketing, it's up to them to deal with that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭✭ Cawk n bawllz


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Ireland is sparsely populated for a European Country, a larger population will mean an economy of larger scale. We must plan for an increasing population with improvements to infrastructure and propoer urban planning. Why should we give a ****e if India's population is rocketing, it's up to them to deal with that.

    Well we live in a global community and everything that happens in another country has a knock-on effect everywhere else. But yeah, forget about India. Leave their problems to them.
    Back to Ireland though. Sparsely populated? How do you figure that? The amount of people per square mile?
    In relation to our infrastructure we're overcrowded. Too many people, no jobs OR job prospects for them. The FAS training schemes are an absolute farce.
    The celtic tiger was perhaps the worst thing to happen to this country. Everyone with a job was taking out loans, having a house built and farting out kids as if that sort of economy would last forever. And I don't blame them. People are clueless. The government saw the bubble burst coming a mile away and they let it happen just happy to fill their pockets while the getting was good and **** what happens to people in the future.
    Now the people of Ireland are drowned in debt with a household of 4+ hungry kids to feed and there's no way this "economic downturn", this "brief economic hiccup" is ending any time soon.
    "We look attractive to foreign investors in the IT sector." "Google promise to bring 500 jobs to Ireland", "Microsoft to bring 1000 jobs to Ireland over the next 10 years"... what use is any of this to a country jampacked with laid off middle aged builders and tradesmen and young men who've just finished their apprenticeships? What are they to do? Go back to college and study software development? Most of them have never heard of a computer!
    Hmmm... where is this rant going...? Okay to sum up, this country is a trainwreck and anyone thinking about starting a family here in the next few decades to come is in for an extremely difficult life but most people have no foresight whatsoever so our government, our ELECTED LEADERS should stop treating their positions like a constant popularity campaign and try to make people aware of the dire future ahead of us and to stop breeding like ****ing rabbits!


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    Back to Ireland though. Sparsely populated? How do you figure that? The amount of people per square mile?

    yes, that is how population density is determined.
    In relation to our infrastructure we're overcrowded.

    Possibly, regarding water, broadband and rail infrastructure. In roads we are severly under crowded. Solution: improve infrastructure and put people to work in the process.
    Too many people, no jobs OR job prospects for them. The FAS training schemes are an absolute farce.
    The celtic tiger was perhaps the worst thing to happen to this country. Everyone with a job was taking out loans, having a house built and farting out kids as if that sort of economy would last forever. And I don't blame them. People are clueless. The government saw the bubble burst coming a mile away and they let it happen just happy to fill their pockets while the getting was good and **** what happens to people in the future.
    Now the people of Ireland are drowned in debt with a household of 4+ hungry kids to feed and there's no way this "economic downturn", this "brief economic hiccup" is ending any time soon.

    The economic mess is not the result of over population, quite the opposite in fact, it is our sparse population that allows parish pump politics, and therefore corruption, to flourish.
    What are they to do? Go back to college and study software development? Most of them have never heard of a computer!

    don't be such an ignorant sh*te people in trades are not stupid, oh what a brave keyboard warrior you are.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭ D.L.R.


    OP, go back to China with your communistic control freakery.


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭✭ Cawk n bawllz


    cgcsb wrote: »
    yes, that is how population density is determined.

    don't be such an ignorant sh*te people in trades are not stupid, oh what a brave keyboard warrior you are.

    Hahaha, yeah I'm sorry, cgcsb. It sounded like I was putting down the working man. My whole family and many of my friends and their families are/were labourers and tradesmen and I have nothing but love for them.
    A misuse of language on my part.
    I know that they know what a computer is but they're never going to have a career in IT.
    What I mean is that our government are trying to trumpet the IT industry as the saviour of the Irish economy but there's no way in hell these working men are going to sidestep into IT. Maybe a small number of the younger ones.
    The government has been spitting in the manual labourers' face for years now. First it's "**** off home and make room for all these cheap foreign labourers." and now it's "Look at all these jobs being created. IF you have a degree in IT."
    It's a mess. And a good 90% of the fellas I went to school with all wanted to be carpenters and electricians or just labourers OR they wanted to be architects or engineers, all wanted to be some part of construction.
    It might have been nice of our government to say "Hey guys, listen... this construction thing is not going to last forever so you might want to consider your career more carefully." If they had taken even that much responsibility back then maybe now we wouldn't have a country full of skilled construction workers sitting at home with their lads in their hands.


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭✭ Cawk n bawllz


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    OP, go back to China with your communistic control freakery.

    Are you taking the piss out of China? They're booming right now. Maybe I will go to China if they'll have me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 Duggys Housemate


    Do you really think the current recession in Ireland and globally is a short term difficulty? It's just the tip of the iceberg.
    Maybe the rate is declining but the population is still growing.
    The population explosion we've had in the last 200 years is thanks to fossil fuels. It supports the infrastructure which makes a human population of 7 billion possible. No renewable energy source will have the potency of fossil fuels to maintain things as they are.
    The entire global population as it is now will not survive the decline from fossil fuels to renewable energies.
    The capitalist model we live on depends on constant expansion, infinite expansion where as the resources we depend on are finite.

    Peak oil nonsense. There are hundreds of years left in non renewables. So unconcerned are we by this we ban nuclear and shale oil.


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭✭ Cawk n bawllz


    Peak oil nonsense. There are hundreds of years left in non renewables. So unconcerned are we by this we van nuclear and shake oil.

    Hundreds of years? That's incredibly optimistic. Many experts have concluded that we have a couple of decades of oil left in the world. If that's true it's going to be an insurmountable disaster.
    On the other hand maybe it's all lies designed to scare us into thinking oil is as rare and precious as gold and we should pay for it accordingly.
    There's a theory that oil is in fact not a fossil fuel and is produced by the magma at the core of the earth. But then that could be total BS too.

    If we were to move to nuclear energy it wouldn't serve us for as long as oil has and also the risk of pollution AND terrorism rises significantly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 Duggys Housemate


    Peak oil nonsense. There are hundreds of years left in non renewables. So unconcerned are we by this we van nuclear and shake oil.

    Hundreds of years? That's incredibly optimistic. Many experts have concluded that we have a couple of decades of oil left in the world. If that's true it's going to be an insurmountable disaster.
    On the other hand maybe it's all lies designed to scare us into thinking oil is as rare and precious as gold and we should pay for it accordingly.
    There's a theory that oil is in fact not a fossil fuel and is produced by the magma at the core of the earth. But then that could be total BS too.

    If we were to move to nuclear energy it wouldn't serve us for as long as oil has and also the risk of pollution AND terrorism rises significantly.

    Terrorism is an issue, pollution isn't. What I am saying is simple, if we were running out of oil we would be building nuclear plants, in fact we are decommissioning them. Peak oil theories rely on one truth ( they are not infinite) and plenty of distortions. It ignores market feedback, people reducing demand as prices increase, new technologies like fracking, incentives to invest in newer once uneconomic fields. And so on.

    If politicians were convinced we would run out of oil in the near future they would push nuclear, and if people saw prices triple they would support fracking. In theory at least.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 newmug


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Ireland is sparsely populated for a European Country, a larger population will mean an economy of larger scale. We must plan for an increasing population with improvements to infrastructure and propoer urban planning. Why should we give a ****e if India's population is rocketing, it's up to them to deal with that.


    I am gobsmacked at his little gem. Are you messing? The OP said people have no foresight, but this takes the biscuit. Really, are you trolling, cos its a poor attempt if you are, and unbelievably narrowminded if you're not!

    Our land can feed 1 million people per year. Already we are 4 times overcrowded going by that. Increasing our popualtion to pay for the pensions of the elderly is insane, it means you will always have to have a bigger population than the previous generation. Somewhere along the way, some people are just going to have to suffer pension-wise until its evened out. As for improvements in infrastructure, we have how many extra, unfinished, unsellable houses? You do know the investors in all the recently built tool-roads are actually suing the govt. because the volume of traffic (ridiculously) promised by the govt. isnt there? And I'm sure you're also aware that urban planning would only apply to the 25% of the population who actually are urban dwellers, and would mean nothing to the other 75% of us who live rurally, an essential way of life for a rural country?

    But yeah forget about India, its not as if they'd ever end emmigrating due to their overpopulation, especially to a place like Ireland!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 Duggys Housemate


    newmug wrote: »
    cgcsb wrote: »
    Ireland is sparsely populated for a European Country, a larger population will mean an economy of larger scale. We must plan for an increasing population with improvements to infrastructure and propoer urban planning. Why should we give a ****e if India's population is rocketing, it's up to them to deal with that.


    I am gobsmacked at his little gem. Are you messing? The OP said people have no foresight, but this takes the biscuit. Really, are you trolling, cos its a poor attempt if you are, and unbelievably narrowminded if you're not!

    Our land can feed 1 million people per year. Already we are 4 times overcrowded going by that. Increasing our popualtion to pay for the pensions of the elderly is insane, it means you will always have to have a bigger population than the previous generation. Somewhere along the way, some people are just going to have to suffer pension-wise until its evened out. As for improvements in infrastructure, we have how many extra, unfinished, unsellable houses? You do know the investors in all the recently built tool-roads are actually suing the govt. because the volume of traffic (ridiculously) promised by the govt. isnt there? And I'm sure you're also aware that urban planning would only apply to the 25% of the population who actually are urban dwellers, and would mean nothing to the other 75% of us who live rurally, an essential way of life for a rural country?

    But yeah forget about India, its not as if they'd ever end emmigrating due to their overpopulation, especially to a place like Ireland!

    Your statistics on how many people Ireland can feed, and how urban it is are way off.

    And Ireland is sparsely populated for a European country. In fact your toll road argument is an argument to Ireland's under population relative to projections.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭ dubhthach


    newmug wrote: »
    I am gobsmacked at his little gem. Are you messing? The OP said people have no foresight, but this takes the biscuit. Really, are you trolling, cos its a poor attempt if you are, and unbelievably narrowminded if you're not!

    Our land can feed 1 million people per year. Already we are 4 times overcrowded going by that.

    Where are you getting this "1 million people per year" figure. Every figure I've read is that Ireland currently produces enough food to feed 36 million people a year. The plans are to increase this to 50 million by 2020

    See:
    Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0627/1224299635119.html
    Irish Independent: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/coveney-attacks-eu-for-penalising-dairy-farmers-2674982.html

    62% of population live in Urban areas as per Census 2011. You can read that here in the Times as well:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0330/1224314099276.html


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭ dubhthach


    I should add that densisty in the Republic is 67 people per km², in Northern Ireland it's 122/km². If the density was equivalent in the Republic the population would be 8.6million.

    Currently the only countries with lower population densities then in Europe are:
    • Lithuania
    • Belarus
    • Montenegro
    • Latvia
    • Faroe Islands
    • Estonia
    • Sweden
    • Finland
    • Norway
    • Russia
    • Iceland


Advertisement