Will Earth need a policy like China's 1 child policy?

[sear]

We should preface this topic by acknowledging that some mammalian species may tend to self-regulate their own populations.
We needn't mention the lemmings phenomenon (not deliberate population self management, but an observed phenomenon that affects population none the less), or contrast it with the occasional spikes in rodent populations (mice EVERYwhere!).

But I believe in nations such as Italy, they're @NPG (negative population growth).

So perhaps the notion of central planning (limiting) human populations is pointless.

None the less, as an analysis of principle:

----------------------------------------------------- --

China's central planners recognized that China's capacity to feed population, was approaching disaster with the growth of the population to be fed.

In response, China's planners (politburo?) attempted to impose a limit of one child per family.

Question:
The UN estimates Earth's human population at a little over 6,000,000,000.

Is there some level of human population, where a global cap on human population should be imposed?

12,000,000,000?
15,000,000,000?
50,000,000,000?
Or should we just allow humans to do as they wish, and leave to the famines what the politicians don't / won't (survival of the fattest?).

[Gay marriage] "will destroy the very fabric of our society, just like inter-racial marriage did." Errol Grey

[Dan Rowden]

I think there has to be some sort of restriction eventually. It's obvious that even if a change in politics and therefore resource management means we could sustain a greater population than we now have, it can't continue to rise endlessly. I'm not sure how such a restriction would work, however. Maybe we'll have to outlaw Catholicism :)

[Imadrongo]

I think we are already at an unsustainable population. Just wait and we will start dying off in large numbers sooner or later.

[Carl G]

We should preface this topic...
We needn't mention the lemmings phenomenon...
Or should we just allow humans to do as they wish,

Your premise and questions appear to presuppose some sort of unified "we" that has the power to consciously discern and carry out intentional action. Where is your evidence that such a "we" exists?

[Ataraxia]

I think there has to be some sort of restriction eventually. It's obvious that even if a change in politics and therefore resource management means we could sustain a greater population than we now have, it can't continue to rise endlessly. I'm not sure how such a restriction would work, however. Maybe we'll have to outlaw Catholicism :)

And replace it with what,Malthusianism?

This doesn't sound like particularly Buddhist thinking to me.

[sear]

"Where is your evidence that such a "we" exists?" Carl

I've re-read my post.
I find no such affirmative assertion.

Perhaps if you quote the actual sentence which you believe positively asserts such a thing exists.

Instead, I believe my post raises the question, -should we-.

The following is the precise wording.

"Will Earth need a policy like China's 1 child policy?" subject line

"Is there some level of human population, where a global cap on human population should be imposed?" sear

"Or should we just allow humans to do as they wish, and leave to the famines what the politicians don't / won't (survival of the fattest?)." sear

[please note punctuation error here. This final sentence ends with a period, but should have ended with a question mark. I regret my error.]

Germane to this topic would be, for those that assert some limits should be imposed, what agency should take lead responsibility. The U.N.?

And how should limits be imposed, and punishments exacted?

But first things first.

Is there some level of human population, where a global cap on human population should be imposed?

[Carl G]

Carl: "Where is your evidence that such a "we" exists?" Carl
Sear: I've re-read my post.
I find no such affirmative assertion.

Perhaps if you quote the actual sentence which you believe positively asserts such a thing exists.

I quoted three of them in my post to you:

We should preface this topic...
We needn't mention the lemmings phenomenon...
Or should we just allow humans to do as they wish,

Instead, I believe my post raises the question, -should we-.

There, there's a fourth example.

The following is the precise wording.
"Will Earth need a policy like China's 1 child policy?" subject line

There's a fifth. Or rather, it's actually a new subject to which you refer: Earth, rather than "we," though I suspect you are using them interchangeably.

Again I ask, where is the evidence that there is actually a unified we to whom to address this issue and who could then consciously form and enforce a wise policy? Or are you speaking theoretical, just for conversation.

[sear]

"Again I ask, where is the evidence that there is actually a unified we to whom to address this issue and who could then consciously form and enforce a wise policy?" Carl

You're on your own on that one Carl. Your confusion is as baffling to me as it is to you.

"Or are you speaking theoretical, just for conversation." Carl

Context sir! Context!
If I'd presented this topic question to the U.N. General Assembly, we might expect replies consistent with that medium.

But the topic is presented in this forum, for discussion, addressable by individual posters.
It's a solicitation of the opinion of individuals; not policy directives from global political leaders.

Normally I try to avoid stating the absolutely obvious.

For some reason, this seems to be not obvious to you.

Nope. No idea why not.
You?

[Katy]

Well, we run into a problem in that some countries (Russia recently) are worried about losing population and encouraging people to have babies (through a contest for those who manage to have the child born on exactly the right date...) but most of the developed world isn't experiencing out of control growth again, and many places have leveled off.

Seems the answer may be as simple as having an economic system where people don't need a lot of kids to work the farm/family business/whatever...


... or maybe Dan has the right idea.

[Carl G]

Sear,

I believe it is you who is confused. You come onto a logic board wagging a political tongue, saying "what do WE need to do, we as a people." I am asking you who exactly is this "we" who has any power to do anything. I am pointing out the illogic, delusion, unconsciousness, internal and external divisions that exist in people. In this light, I am asking you if your questions are rhetorical, which I think they must be. I am pointing out the illogic in your approach to the issue if you are serious about it.

[sear]

"I believe it is you who is confused." Carl

Not until you joined in Carl.
None the less, I credit you for having observed this; on no evidence more substantial than me having posted it:

"Your confusion is as baffling to me as it is to you." sear

Reading comprehension: C+

"I am pointing out the illogic, delusion, unconsciousness, internal and external divisions that exist in people." Carl

Oh.
And you've chosen a thread about Earth's human population explosion for that, why exactly?

If that's a topic that interests you, why not open a topic dedicated to it? You may even link to this thread, if you think doing so constructive.

"In this light, I am asking you if your questions are rhetorical, which I think they must be." Carl

"Must be"?
For you to conclude that, it would seem you perceive no other plausible explanation, such as that I might have been trying to stimulate a thoughtful exchange on the topic, as I did (for example) here:

http://freethinkerspub.yuku.com/topic/1769?page=1

Carl, please note the conspicuous absence of such process distractions as yours in that thread, or in this one, apart from yours.

"I am pointing out the illogic in your approach to the issue if you are serious about it." Carl

And thereby utterly deflecting opportunity for constructive address of the stated topic.

Nope. Still not sure why.
Envy perhaps?

You flatter me Carl.

And of course, you're still welcome to post on topic in this thread, if you can manage it Carl.

[Carl G]

Sear,

The linked thread appears to be wankery, or as I termed it, rhetorical discussion.

Your responses to me appear so confused as to indicate you do not comprehend my practical point in the least.

No worries, I withdraw, please carry on.

[sear]

"rhetorical discussion" Carl

As opposed to non-rhetorical discussion?

Perhaps I misapprehend the purpose of this forum. But if it is not for discussion of the posted topics, then what is the purpose?

rhetoric (rèt´er-îk) noun
Abbr. rhet.
Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.

discussion (dî-skùsh´en) noun
Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Of course, globally and here and there locally there are certainly problems with a too large population compared to the 'Western' standard of resource use, often to do with crazy government policy, ideologies or traditions conflicting with the changing social realities.

At the same time, the economy (and perhaps also identity) of a nation is linked to a certain stability in numbers. This is why oddly enough in Russia there's such a craving to extent the population again.

Russian province gets set for 'Conception Day'

Same place already offered prices in the past (TV's, SUV's) to get people to make more children. It's an increasing problem in Russia, declining with 100,000's a year. So I don't see why the "Earth" needs a child policy at all. We need only to make the economy less dependent on the availability of manual labor or mass consumption. The numbers are already decreasing by themselves, at least in those countries where the governments would be able to actually implement any policy of that kind without getting overrun right away.

[sear]

"So I don't see why the "Earth" needs a child policy at all." Diebert

You may be right, for a number of different reasons Diebert.

For one:
Earth's human population may just naturally regulate itself by reproduction behavior.

Another possibility:
The population may be affected by plague, or some other global disaster inflicting a reduction to Earth's human population which would result in requiring centuries to recover to current population levels.

And it may be that simply allowing some population centers to overpopulate, and perhaps even to suffer localized famines, works out best; better than the political repercussions of attempting to implement extra-national seeming imperialist family limits.

But the question is; should we consider some limit?

10 Billion?
50 Billion?
100 Billion?
10 Trillion?

Is planning better than mass starvation?

The irreducible fact is, there is some limit; whatever that limit may be; much beyond which Earth simply can't sustain a human population.

Shall we simply take the pseudo-Darwinian approach? Survival of the wealthiest?

Or does it make sense to at least consider (in this thread, theoretically) exploring the possibility of establishing a limit or limits; what those limits might be (whether per couple, per family, per State, per nation, per continent, or whatever), and how they might be enforced; and by whom or what?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Or does it make sense to at least consider (in this thread, theoretically) exploring the possibility of establishing a limit or limits; what those limits might be (whether per couple, per family, per State, per nation, per continent, or whatever), and how they might be enforced; and by whom or what?

From what I can see there's a limit in place but not set by us, it might also be too complex to calculate with all the psychological and technological unknowns. The regulation is in place too, possibly deep inside our reptilian past: the rising of killing energy, general stress, decrease of will and fertility and general unbalances in the crowded system that inevitably cause for example contagious diseases or lethal chaos during natural disasters.

Any over-crowded system is increasingly vulnerable by itself, its inherent to the mathematics underlying it. There's no technological savior to set us free from this mechanism. The only way forward I see is not imposing limits or regulation (that's just the first stage, when fighting the first symptoms without realizing yet the impossibities) but to decentralize, 'unclog' the system; a smaller scale approach in organizing using loser networks with stronger independence of the cells.

This will require a lot more clearheaded thinking of a great more many people because it goes against some of the thinking encouraged by our slower moving genes and memes that rule the common mind.

[sear]

"The only way forward I see is not imposing limits or regulation (that's just the first stage, when fighting the first symptoms without realizing yet the impossibities) but to decentralize, 'unclog' the system" Diebert

I'm not endorsing it.
But I'm curious about your perspective on it Diebert.

What do you think of China's one child policy?
You have a multitude of possible perspectives.
But is your perspective closer to:
China dodged the bullet. If the wise central planners hadn't demonstrated the foresight to prevent a population explosion that couldn't be fed, it would have been a human catastrophe.

- or -

The Chi-Comms just don't get it. Humans are practical. The Chinese population would have increased, but not exploded. When it got crowded, the Chinese People would have instinctively self-regulated, and there would not have been any catastrophe.

- or -

???

What do you think Diebert?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What do you think of China's one child policy?

It's just a simple corrective reaction on Mao's insane and miscalculated "as much children as possible" policy in the past. Both policies are insane but born out of each other and only in that context the one child policy makes sense.

I'm not sure in case of China it would have self-regulated that easily without their one child policy. Also one could see their policy as just a form of taxation (one has to 'pay' for extra children). It's not different than the raising costs of living and taxes in any other country: the environment gets tougher to signal the organism that it's not a good time/place for procreation.

It's true that the wealthier in this scheme have in theory more choices to have offspring. Since their numbers are significantly smaller and their lifestyles often more self-centered I highly doubt if this will cause a "survival of the wealthiest".

[sear]

"... only in that context the one child policy makes sense." Diebert

OK
So hypothetically (this is after all, a hypothetical topic), if Earth's human population, recently estimated to be 6,000,000,000 (6B), reached 50B; in that context would some human population limitation regime akin to China's one child policy make sense?
If not 50B, 500B?

[daybrown]

The world could support a much larger population, but the people would have to be saner and smarter, otherwise demagogues will ramp up populations of fools to increase their followership hoping to take power.

Given the environmental problems we already have, and Hubbard's Peak Oil, economic & political crisis seems likely to expand out of the "failed states" we already see, and could crash the global economy. Which would produce global famine and solve the population problem the old fashioned way.

i have advocated that we subsidize the welfare queens who go to fertility clinics so that they can bear children who will be smart and sane enuf to deal with these problems. We need a lot more of them.

But I dont see the feeback to suggest that's going to happen before global economic crisis.

[1ntel]

I think there has to be some sort of restriction eventually. It's obvious that even if a change in politics and therefore resource management means we could sustain a greater population than we now have, it can't continue to rise endlessly. I'm not sure how such a restriction would work, however. Maybe we'll have to outlaw Catholicism :)

Doesn't this mean that a global birth restriction wouldn't work very well. Dan gave it away by concluding with: "outlawing Catholicism".

[daybrown]

I think there has to be some sort of restriction eventually. It's obvious that even if a change in politics and therefore resource management means we could sustain a greater population than we now have, it can't continue to rise endlessly. I'm not sure how such a restriction would work, however. Maybe we'll have to outlaw Catholicism :)

Doesn't this mean that a global birth restriction wouldn't work very well. Dan gave it away by concluding with: "outlawing Catholicism".

There's other ways to do it. We can do it the old fashioned way, and wait until some global pandemic breaks out as the healthcare infrastructure continues to decline along with the decline in competent women giving birth to girls smart enuf to grow up to get nursing degrees. Alan Greenspan pointed out that it wont matter how much money you throw at Medicare when the boomers retire if there's not enough nurses to provide it. And there's a severe shortage already. I know an MSW that still works long hours, well over 40, every week who is 69. They cant find anyone to replace her.

As the job outsourcing continues to eat at middle class income, it'll be harder for even the girls competent enuf to get degrees to stay in school, and the funding for hospitals in many parts of the world has fallen off while the case loads have increased.

As agribusiness shifts from growing food to growing fuel, food prices will rise, and with increased malnutrition the percentage of impaired immune systems will rise as well, providing fertile ground for a new global pandemic.

The USA has already seen disease outbreaks from illegals who were not properly immunized before coming. The government seems blissfully unaware of this kind of "national security" problem. Its not even on the radar map of the political forums on the blogs or usenet. The debates look like deckchair arrangements over who gets to sit up front on the ship of state.

The solutions I've posted about using fertility clinics to ramp up the production of competent girls to meet the coming need of the social safety net has been largely met with deafening silence.