Should we limit population growth? Watch

Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
It seems blindingly obvious that the easiest way to prevent climate change, well, limit it, is simply by either mass sterilisation or one child policies. It's the elephant in the room, but it should be taken seriously like David Attenborough argue. More people, means more resources which means more mining, more deforestation et al and also means more carbon emissions.

I know this is controversial, but people need to be realistic. There is no way you can sustain mass population. I know there will those who say there is enough for everyone, but not enough for greed, but do you think the western world is going to drop everything they have? do you see india and africa regressing, or progressing, and becoming more western in terms of their living standards?
1
reply
ella1902
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
The issue with imposing a one child policy is that the issue isn’t developed countries. Countries such as Singapore etc have birth rates which result in a decreasing population, whilst that sounds ideal it means you’re going to end up with a country that has a lot of elderly dependants, and not many people of a working age having issues on retirement, shortage of employees etc. The issue is developing countries like India where they have 7 children per family, the best approach would be education, healthcare, and contraception available in these countries so they can make an educated decision on children, have the means to prevent having so many children, and have healthcare to reduce infant mortality so they don’t need to have so many children on the assumptions many won’t make it.
3
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by ella1902)
The issue with imposing a one child policy is that the issue isn’t developed countries. Countries such as Singapore etc have birth rates which result in a decreasing population, whilst that sounds ideal it means you’re going to end up with a country that has a lot of elderly dependants, and not many people of a working age having issues on retirement, shortage of employees etc. The issue is developing countries like India where they have 7 children per family, the best approach would be education, healthcare, and contraception available in these countries so they can make an educated decision on children, have the means to prevent having so many children, and have healthcare to reduce infant mortality so they don’t need to have so many children on the assumptions many won’t make it.
Exactly, but a lot of it is religous and cultural reasons. Education is key to family planning
0
reply
Sinnoh
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by ella1902)
The issue with imposing a one child policy is that the issue isn’t developed countries. Countries such as Singapore etc have birth rates which result in a decreasing population, whilst that sounds ideal it means you’re going to end up with a country that has a lot of elderly dependants, and not many people of a working age having issues on retirement, shortage of employees etc. The issue is developing countries like India where they have 7 children per family, the best approach would be education, healthcare, and contraception available in these countries so they can make an educated decision on children, have the means to prevent having so many children, and have healthcare to reduce infant mortality so they don’t need to have so many children on the assumptions many won’t make it.
In India it's 2.2 children per woman on average in India, not 7. Hasn't been like that for decades. Splitting countries into groups of "developing" and "developed" is inaccurate for the most part.

However I do agree that the best solution for curbing birth rates is the one that seems counter-intuitive: improving healthcare so that fewer children die.

Also it's worth pointing out that population growth is slowing down and is expected to stop by around 2100. In fact it's estimated that there will be as many children alive then as there are alive now.

like, damn. Look at this graph. That's impressive for a time span of fifty years.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...N?locations=IN
Last edited by Sinnoh; 1 month ago
6
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
We should educate by promoting reasonable family planning rather than impose any limits.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
Except you then run into the problem of an aging population - with the examples par excellence being Japan and China who are soon going to be in deep **** over their lack of kids.
1
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
Napp is spot on re. population control.

The problem with limiting population artificially is that you end up with an unbalanced population. China is now trying to combat this by raising their limmit to 2 children, but secretly my opinion is that they are expecting to open the doors to labour migration when **** really hits the fan. My wifes family is a typical chinese family... 10 or so grandparents still alive aged 80+... 20-30 or more aunts/uncles/parents generation aged 50-65... 8 children aged 25-35... 3 grandchildren aged less than 12. I work with many families here, and that's very common. The post-war grandparents were ecouraged to have so many children, that there are so many people aged 45-65.. but then after that the generations get smaller and smaller. Not only that, its the old people who are doing most of the hard low-paying manual work.. cleaning/farming etc. The young flee to the cities, get degrees and think they are above the manual work.


In the UK and a lot of western countries native(arguments over this word aside, i'm using it to mean white British or migrant families who have been here multiple generations) birth rates are bellow the level of repletion already. I believe the birthrate amoung native UK people is 1.8, which given that it takes 2 people to make a baby, gives you a declining population.

It would seem like this problem sorts its self out naturally, and as a country develops its birthrate falls, and things should ballance out. Except that we have artifically kept our population growing (because its an easy way to boost our economy) by starting and maintaining mass migration.

Mass migration does two things, first it dirrectly increases our population, and secondly it increases our birthrate, because you import people from cultures where its still the norm and the respectable thing to do to have many children and big families.. so despite coming to the UK, for at least the first generation their average birthrates are far higher than the norm for the country, and as a whole that pushes the UK back into positive growth numbers.

---

So for the UK, if you want to stop population growth, just stop mass migration, limmit the people coming in to the people going out +essential areas.. and then within a couple of generations we will see the birthrate decrease enough that the population starts shrinking.

Over the world? Good luck. Not much you can do about it. You can't tell people in poor and developing countries not to have as many babies, it just won't work. Its in their interest to have as many kids as possible, and until that changes due to the economic conditions of their country, they will contineu to do so unless forced not to (like China) but most devleoping countries don't have the ability to do that.
1
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by Ferrograd)
It seems blindingly obvious that the easiest way to prevent climate change, well, limit it, is simply by either mass sterilisation or one child policies.
So are you offering to have yourself sterilised?

One child doesn't work - see China!
1
reply
SMEGGGY
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
It seems like the poorer the country the more children their citizens have. Wtf
1
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by SMEGGGY)
It seems like the poorer the country the more children their citizens have. Wtf
It's actually not surprising.

In developed countries, children are an economic asset; no child labour laws, etc, can be used to get clean water etc. in the west children are an economic burden.

Also children are more likely to die younger in poor countries so parents will havem more children to replace them. And a lot of poorer countries are more religous and socially conservative.
0
reply
11ftaura
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
Trying to limit population growth, especially when spouted by westeners about countries in the global south... it's just undercover white supremacist eugenic talk in my opinion. Like, the only populations you're trying to limit are those of black and brown people, who are often from poor socioeconomic backgrounds. Like. How is that NOT white supremacist talk? At the end of the day, better spread of resources and wealth is the way forward. The top 20% richest people in the world rn have contributed more to climate change than the world's poorest 50%... who are exactly the people you're targeting lmfao
0
reply
Sinnoh
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by ByEeek)
So are you offering to have yourself sterilised?

One child doesn't work - see China!
China's fertility rate had actually been falling before the implementation of the one-child policy, and it continued to fall
OK so this is interesting, it actually rose slightly from 2.5 to 2.6 in 7 or so years after the one-child policy was implemented. But then it fell again and since the late 90s it's been about 1.6 births per woman. Keep in mind the policy was still in effect all the way up until 2015.
So it's hard to say if it did or didn't work.
Last edited by Sinnoh; 1 month ago
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by Sinnoh)
China's fertility rate had actually been falling before the implementation of the one-child policy, and it continued to fall
OK so this is interesting, it actually rose slightly from 2.5 to 2.6 in 7 or so years after the one-child policy was implemented. But then it fell again and since the late 90s it's been about 1.6 births per woman. Keep in mind the policy was still in effect all the way up until 2015.
So it's hard to say if it did or didn't work.
If the birth rate was 1.6 per woman on average then either someone doesn't know how to count up to 1 or there were a lot of 1+ child women in China during the 1 child policy. Ergo - it doesn't work.

To say nothing of the high demand for boys and hence some villages and towns that now have virile men in their 20s and absolutely no women for them to woo.
Last edited by ByEeek; 1 month ago
0
reply
Sinnoh
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by ByEeek)
If the birth rate was 1.6 per woman on average then either someone doesn't know how to count up to 1 or there were a lot of 1+ child women in China during the 1 child policy. Ergo - it doesn't work.

To say nothing of the high demand for boys and hence some villages and towns that now have virile men in their 20s and absolutely no women for them to woo.
It was never quite every family forced to only have one child. They were never that strict on it. The aim of it was to reduce the birth rate
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by Sinnoh)
It was never quite every family forced to only have one child. They were never that strict on it. The aim of it was to reduce the birth rate
I'm sure. My understanding that if you played the corrupt system, you could do what you liked. Is that what the OP is advocating?
0
reply
Sinnoh
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by ByEeek)
I'm sure. My understanding that if you played the corrupt system, you could do what you liked. Is that what the OP is advocating?
What the OP's advocating for definitely wouldn't solve it. It's not "they can't live like us", really it's "we can't live like us".
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by Sinnoh)
It was never quite every family forced to only have one child. They were never that strict on it. The aim of it was to reduce the birth rate
Your right it never would get down to exactly 1 because of two things - various rural regions and areas were exempt because they were deemed to need more children for their work/livelyhood... and for the rich the fines for having a second baby became more like a baby-tax, many just had them if they wanted to and were happy to pay the small (for them) fine.
0
reply
princetonalec
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
Wow! Yet again, a lot of negative assumptions in this thread.
1) "Developing countries have more kids because children are disposable!"
Children are only didposable to psychopathic individuals, and to say that for some reason since a child can be used for money due to a lack of child labour laws? It was barely 100 years ago when we cut out having children work dangerous jobs ourselves. People do not have children because they want money, but their children go into work because they need money. Even now there are low income families in the UK who have kids/young adults aged 15-18 working instead of focusing on their education, not because their Evil Parents think their child is just a Money Machine so they can be On The Doss, but because they're struggling.
Also as a white working class kid who was lucky enough to never have to work a job, my parents still made me run errands? I still had to go buy them milk and bread from the corner shop when we ran out? Children are sent on errands. Frame it as 'walking miles to a water hole' all you want (which has changed since all these initiatives for wells have been running for a few years) but kids always run errands.
2) A lot of countried have a low birthrate anyway, which is true!
Like Napp has spoken about we're seeing the impact of this in places like China and especially Japan. Japan has a huge problem with an aging population and a huge lack of children right now, to the point where the age of being legally considered an adult has been planned to be dropped to 18 instead of 20 in coming years. When you impose population control, such as with the Chinese example, you run into cultural and economic issues. A poor family who has a girl, for example, will be much more likely to give that girl up or find... 'other methods' for not keeping her (the killing of female babies in Indian communities, especially the hugely low income, is unfortunately not common: normally done by just burying the baby). China not only has a lack of babies, it has a generation which lacks women now. The implications are already starting to be felt, but its going to really come to a head in the next 5 years or so.
3) We can't make enough food!
We can? Look at how jam packed your super market shelves are. The issue comes in two parts:
1) The areas which will need the food the most can't get it.
2) Our current method of farming (monoculture, where we plant the same crop, harvest, and plant the same crop again) makes soil less viable as time goes on.
We also have food desserts, which make it hard for people to get locally sourced food because there is none. It would be more beneficial to the world to eat pork from a close farm than it would be to go vegan, because its the difference between local produce and pollution from transporting goods.
The best way to fight climate change? Localise farming, rotate crops, and accept that there are some foods you don't get to eat.
4)My personal opinion.
Phrases like 'population growth' scare me, because some people (and I am not saying anyone on this thread has) can use it as a platform to promote anything from extreme racism to eugenics when the problem isn't too many people, but is poverty, poor agricultural decisions made over a couple of hundred years, and a lack of understanding from where our food comes from. If you really want to make a change buy in season produce as locally as you can, get in touch with a local butcher instead of going for Asda's own, and yes maybe consider adoption but also have a child if you want a child.
Population control suggests there is one problem, when there isn't. Global warming as a beast, and telling the family who fed from Libya to not have that third child wont do nearly as good as holding oik and coal companies accountable for what THEY'VE done to the world over the last couple of years.
Like we know who has caused the worst of global warming. Its two greyhound busses full of executives. I don't see why we blame people in Africa when we literally have a complete list of guilty persons who not only surpressed knowledge of climate change, but continue to deny it!
2
reply
toriches
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by Ferrograd)
It seems blindingly obvious that the easiest way to prevent climate change, well, limit it, is simply by either mass sterilisation or one child policies. It's the elephant in the room, but it should be taken seriously like David Attenborough argue. More people, means more resources which means more mining, more deforestation et al and also means more carbon emissions.

I know this is controversial, but people need to be realistic. There is no way you can sustain mass population. I know there will those who say there is enough for everyone, but not enough for greed, but do you think the western world is going to drop everything they have? do you see india and africa regressing, or progressing, and becoming more western in terms of their living standards?
Firstly overpopulation is a myth. We have enough of every resource, almost every single signifier of "overpopulation" can be explained by a problem of concentration, money or some other factor indepenand of population size. Ie the problem is caused by x resource being concentrated in one place or the problem is there are a lot of people that need x resource but are too poor to aford it. Whether it be water food or housing, the problem is never actually simply we have too many people in y place.

Cripling issues with one child policy
-massive gender imbalance, most countries in the world dont value women equally to men; so you will see a similar situation to the rural areas of China where you have like 10 men for every woman
-dont work becuase they are unenforcable, In china you either you had enough money to pay a bribe for 2+ kids or you sent your older kids to work in the city
-the problem people in the problem countries actually often need multple children becuase infant mortality is high and they wont have enough money to pay a fine

Cripling issues with sterilization
-its immoral, its peoples right to have as many kids as they want, its not worth contiuning the species if most of have to live like pets to the elites
-There is no compelling reason for government officials to have this kind of authority over citizens, no one in democratic countries will be conviced by this and this policy is too far for non democratic countries to enact without being over thrown
-The government body that decides who does and does get to have kids will with 100% certainly become deeply corrupt increadibly quickly, just like communism its definetly going to go wrong its far too much power.

both
- ageing populations
- there are better more moral ways to curb populations numbers, even if you dotn care about morality most people and so if you want to enact policy that wont just be thrown out you need to make it moral.
2
reply
AngeryPenguin
Badges: 18
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
Almost all industrialized countries in the world have below replacement birth rates.

2.1 children per couple is the replacement rate, and Europe and China are at 1.5 - i.e. each generation is less than 75% the size of the last generation.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (532)
66.75%
No (265)
33.25%

Watched Threads

View All