And one more valid reason why the Anti-choice crowd/lobby should be vigorously opposed, methinks.  Plus those opposing condom use, birth control, per se, and more.  BTW, I agree - Thx for posting.

I'm on board with this too.  I've posted exhaustively about this, so I'll leave it at that.  This topic tends to bring out lots of fierce opposition though.

I agree, certain areas can only support so many people before they begin to collapse. The problem is that with our technology today it becomes almost too easy to stretch and temporarily defy the boundaries that normally keep population under control. Of course doing this always results in negative outcomes for the population as a whole, but some of these long term problems are easily overlooked when you see the face of a starving child. Most people don't seem to realize that the choice is between living a bad life for a short time or forcing even more to live an even worse life. Think about it this way; if there is already a crowded population that has what can be considered by us to be a poor lifestyle, then keeping every individual of that population alive to reproduce and futher expand that population will drop that standard of living until it becomes unbearable. Unfortunately, sometimes it is better to let nature take its course than to fight it. 

I agree for the most part, but my way of thinking is that it's the affluent societies who use the lion's share of the resources and each family consumes and produces and wastes enough to maintain and village in a poorer society.  They may have a larger population, but until they become materially better off, they aren't really having as much of an impact.  They need their children to bring in enough income or labour to just get by.

It seems to me that it's the richer countries that need to look at population.

Yes - I can see how allowing generational epidemics of cholera, the bubonic plague and influenza (historical methods that nature used to cull millions upon millions...) sort us out makes much more sense than "fighting" it. 

The UN has a fairly comprehensive study on world population growth projections. Take a look: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf

In it, they describe the very observable trend that world population, according to a number of assumptions and models, will grow to about ~10 billion by 2050. However, the most developed nations on the planet will experience no growth - repeat: no growth. Our fertility rates are so low that without migration from the developing nations - we'd experience population decline over the next 40 years. 

The developing nations will experience massive population growth - largely correlated with the fact that they have much lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality rates, less education and a generally higher population distribution towards the under 35 year old category - prime baby making age. 

Projections beyond 2050 - assuming the developing nations continue to reap the technological rewards of the developed nations, increase their standard of living despite population growth, thereby garnering higher education and longer lifespans... population will inevitably stabilize and global population will start to decline. 

That's the long term "projection" over this current century anyway. I'd argue that we should stop worrying about what is inevitable - and start looking to increase our education and technological contributions so that solutions to future pollution and infrastructure problems can be more readily resolved without too much stress. 

Wow, I find it really sad that you are using sarcasm here. Plagues have happened in the past... and we are still here. What does this tell us? Oh... maybe nature's way actually did work...

But then again maybe it didn't! Perhaps instead of defeating the plagues all nature did was create some sort of weak barrier that needs to be remade, readministered, and altered constantly lest the plagues adapt and overtake us all! Okay, maybe that was a bit extreme. I just wanted to point out that I too could look cool with my sarcasm! Think about it a different way, nature has done a splendid job for gods know how many years. I'm not saying that there isn't a different way that could work just as well, but I am saying that I don't think we have struck that balance yet. I'm done talking about the nature part for now simply because I can't really go any farther without launching into a whole speech on genetics and decision making. This isn't really the post for that so I'll refrain.

So are you saying that we should just ignore it and it will work itself out when everyone gets technology and education? I have a hard time believing this. People in India often have the idea that the more kids they have, the better the life (put in a simple way of course). With the rate they are growing at, they already have many concerned. Despite their goverment's efforts to lower their population growth, they are still growing at alarming rates.This need for a large family is deeply rooted in their culture and is partly why they have grown so much. I doubt that will be changed even if you could manage to bring modern levels of education and technology to every citizen.

Will this all eventually even out? Of course it will. It has to. Either we find a way to limit our own population to match the resources available to us or nature does it for us. I'm saying that as the population gets more and more out of control, a larger price will have to be payed for it. I honestly don't think we will be able to enforce a valid solution before nature does, and so it would be best to end it before it gets worse.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I simply provided a more thorough, albeit dramatic, explanation of what is truly meant when individuals like yourself say utterly ignorant comments like "we should let nature sort us out". 

Nature has done a splendid job? The thread is about population growth - "nature" has done a splendid job of culling millions of innocent people every generation. Those unknown millions upon millions, died of horrible illnesses - in pain - in dark and damp corners of whatever hobbled existence they were able to find. Is that your idea of a "splendid job" ? Where is your humanity? 

I could care less what you "believe". I quoted from a 2006 United Nations comprehensive population growth study. What is the source of your "belief"? 

Where do you suppose they "got" that idea? Think about it in terms of population growth - and the stastics that factor into a human beings decision to reproduce or not.

The "government", despite its efforts, can not "order" people to stop making babies when making babies makes the most economic, life producing sense. I have many indian friends, married, who seek 1 maybe 2 children. They're very religious - and culturally oriented - but their education and life expectancy has shifted their reproducing priorities around. Every single country in the world that reaches a certain level of development notices, without a fail, a similar drop in fertility rates. 

So I have a response all written out and as soon as I hit save my computer decides to rebel. For some unkown reason it started highlighting everything and sent me back to my homepage whenever I tried to navigate to another webpage. The only fix I could find was a manual restarting. Needless to say, my prepared post is now long gone. I'm going to bed now because I am extremely tired, and since I will be traveling tommorrow I can't post again until Monday, maybe Tuesday. I hope to continue our little disagreement then, but don't for a second think you and my computer have won this Goodskeptic! :) 

 w00t. I'll patiently await your response. Safe travels. 

Unfortunately, sometimes it is better to let nature take its course than to fight it. 

Actually he does have a point whenever the population gets out of control nature finds a way to control it, makes you wonder how the planet feels about us doesn't it ?

I don't think of it as ignorace per say just realist or do you think you can pray your way into disasters not happening  to people ?

If people really wanted to save the planet they would quit breeding ....

Which is apparantly happening in Europe and check out the current issue of Macleans

Let's not feign compassion over a Sunday morning commerical of fly covered children

Most of the time its not even on our radar

Are you suggesting the planet "feels" anything at all? We're human beings - we're frail and for thousands of years, we've been victim to whatever viral, bacterial, or natural scourge threatened us. We're not talking about a few people here and there - we're talking millions in a single year, a thousand years ago.

Finally, the emergeance of a society that valued individual freedom brought forth the most profound boom in technological developments that finally gave us the ability to fight and prevent disease and natural disasters. If the planet has the right to "cull" populations at random, we certainly have every right to fight for our lives, every way our mind can imagine.

The only "realistic" position to have is that if we give up on technological progress and achievement... give up on ever greater medical pursuits... nature will, inevitably, find a way to decimate our populations again.

The audacity. Reproduction is a natural function of life. If people really wanted to save the planet they'd have a much more profound reverence for continuous education.

Read my first post or the massive 2006 United Nations report I linked. It specifically points to reasons why developed nations, representing 1.2B people today, are expected to have "nil" growth over the next 40 years... and what it implies about population growth and issues in other parts of the world.

It is the height of foolishness to breed ourselves into extinction.

Agreed. However, the evidence suggests that with education and a commitment to improving human longevity through technological advancements (medicinal, quality of life tech), stabilization can be achieved without curtailment of the individual's right to procreate.

As referenced above, the UN points to the fact that developed nation populations, without the assistance of migration from developing nations, is on the decline when considering fertility/mortality rates. Clearly overpopulation is not going to be an issue for developed nations. Rather, in areas of the world where life expectancy is low, infant mortality and fertility rates are high, reproduction remains the most viable way to assure survival. Increasing education and assisting those areas of the world to increase their quality of life - it would seem - would be the most non-invasive, most equitably human response to the problem of global population growth in the near term.

The audacity. Reproduction is a natural function of life.

Yes but some people overdo it

When they don't have the means

But that's okay right ?

Sure some people over do it. I'm not disagreeing with you. What is your solution though? Forcing them to stop? 

Ha, just because you disagree with my thoughts does not mean that I am ignorant.  And yes it was sarcasm because you were intending to convey a point that was the opposite of what you actually stated; in this case that you could see how letting nature sort us out is a good thing when you actually could not see that.

Yes, it is about population growth. Do you deny that nature has, for many years, been able to keep the populations of millions of species under control? You can throw in any moral accusations that you want, but the fact is that nature does not have a conscience. Get over it. Do you think that evolution is a bad thing? Many people had to die, in horrible conditions, for us to reach this point. It is a necessary part of life. Would it be nice if we could cover our eyes and make death go away? Maybe, but I'm never going to cower away from it.

And the issue about my personal humanity. Quite frankly, your idea of what should happen is not going to work in time. It would be nice if it did, but chances are it won't. That UN report you have seems to agree with me, India is going to keep growing. The longer we wait, the larger India's population becomes, the 

more will eventually die in the horrible, agonizing ways that so kindly described earlier.

 If it happened now, certainly less would die. Although it's nice that you want to strive for an ideal plan in which no one dies, (and trust me, I would jump right in with you if I thought it would work) but I'm afraid we've waited too long and nature will take it's toll.

Just because it comes from the UN in a fancy typed up report doesn't mean it has to be true. Do you know what a projection is? It could hardly be called a fact. It is more of a guess (hopefully an educated one) or "belief" if you will, about what may or may not happen in the future. Your whole argument seems to be based on these projections, so don't tell me that my beliefs aren't valid because you have someone else's beliefs typed up in a report. 

Isn't the action of making a baby always going to make the most life producing sense? :) Unless of course you want to drag cloning and what-not in here, but I hardly think that this is the thread for it!

According to your very own UN report, China has done very well with stunting the growth of their population, and to a degree India has also managed to slightly bring down their population growth rates. Will India do as well as China? Not if it wants to stay a Democracy.

Are your friends devout Hindu believers, playing their part in the caste system? Do they participate in arranged marriages at young ages? Do they hate and shun the Dalits? Etc.

While they might still participate in some of these, education can have the effect of erasing certain crueler or less fact based cultural aspects, but it certainly cannot erase these from the most insistent believers. The same can be said to be true with with the ideal number of children, although it is likely one of the easier things to change compared to religious beliefs.

 I'm worried about being breeded out! The whole assimilation aim of the Canadian government is still in its subtle effect. Have you seen the official definition of Status Indian? They keep changing it! I was walking in a mall once (WEM) and I had this man of Persian decent come up to me and tell me that I needed to breed more to save my race. Apparently Native Americans are a dying breed. Once main occupiers of Turtle Island, we remain scattered throughout, this once great nation of Canada. I leave you with this quote that a wise old woman told me:

From every woman, A nation is born.

Or overpopulation

Sure some people over do it. I'm not disagreeing with you. What is your solution though? Forcing them to stop? 

Financial incentive would be nice better tax breaks for people with less than 8 kids heck even people with no kids. Better education for women .....better birth control options .... we have 5 year birth control meds now .. We know education works, people who have higher education have less children ... why not just nip the issue in the bud if you want to save resources I don't think  the world will suffer more if there are less people using resources in the future ... Lets face it not everyone is up for parenthood in the first place .... if they knew they had options they might think differently

I just came across the funniest website

It's called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

http://www.vhemt.org/

I think that vhemt, while appearing extreme, is actually very entertaining and informative if you take the time to peruse the website.  It suggests actions to take at every level of committment, which is useful.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1484635787266506285

I understood your opinion to be in support of allowing (not defending against) nature to take care of our populations... which, in my opinion, is ignorant and insulting. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

Yes. I apologize for the saracasm. It was uncalled for.

Are we arguing for the same thing - but from different angles? I thought you suggested we shouldn't fight nature's mechanisms for "controlling" our populations? When you ask "do you deny that nature has..." -- are you asking me to simply accept, from a human being's perspective, nature's ability to control our population with disease? No one deny's nature's track record for controlling all organisms on the planet. It's an entirely different issue when you suggest human beings should stop "fighting" nature and allow it to take us, as it naturally would without the intervention of our natural abilities....

I won't jump the gun this time - as I don't disagree with the above. However, what do you suggest we do? Are you proposing that developed, non-growing nations take charge and force our more educated and enlightened will on places like India and China? I'm not proposing anything radical. More advancements were made in the last 25 years in medicine and technological achievement than the 75 preceding it. Why would an intensification in productive development not continue to yield ever increasing rewards? 

I made no attempt to debate the voracity or statistical error rates inherent in the UN projection - or any projection for that matter. You seem intelligent, and would likely be aware. I simply asked what the source was for the opinions you've been providing. Is your argument based on what you "feel" about the situation? 

Touche. =P

I wouldn't even understand the journals I'd have to read... so nope!

Time will tell - though your speculation that democracy in India will fail if it attempts to implement reforms is a dubious in that it's based on the assumption that India would go the China route and enforce baby-per-family laws... yes? There are other, less drastic ways, that involve a longer time frame.

In your own words - a little education can go a long way to change "traditional" ways of life.

Jesouitte - I agree - the solutions you've alluded to are positive incentives to change behaviour. Coupled with education, that would be my preferred solution. Anything but forcing people with draconian child laws...

Frank H, You and Nemo Man forget the constant and incessent conflicts around the world,as well as the various disasters which seem to happen on a near-regular basis due to environmental collapse on a varying scale.Population control happens on a daily basis and people in countries impoverished and wealthy give a silent nod of consent to it all for their own varied reasons,for its been the belief that it is easier to give one a bullet than a meal,and get free fertelizer to plant cash crops like marajuana and opium rather than corn or potatoes out of the half-buried corpses of those souls unlucky enough not to be at the top of some nebulous,irrelevent social pyramid;or not to be blessed with all the trappings of those qualities of which is believed to make one a "superior being"beauty,intelligence,grace,strength;maybe we should realise that mad dream of a genetic superman (a nightmare,really,that refuses to fully die)and then castarate everybody else after their(his and Her)creation,which would include the two of you,myself and everyone else born of random chance,because they would definitely do it themselves just to be on the safe side of things...

Tell you what we'll do.

Let's demand the death of everyone upon reaching age 30.

(We'll tell them that they're souls will be renewed into the next generation via some kind of magical carousel.)

Of course we will have to hunt down any runners who try to evade destruction. 

Let's demand the death of everyone upon reaching age 30.

That's still a pretty cool movie

Not to mention being in a domed existence  all I can think of is ewwwwwww

 A serious consideration in relation to the population "problem" is that one child born in North America and raised to the agae of 18 will consume around 60 times the resource of one child born in Rural India or Africa. Were it biologically possible for people in poor countries to begin having children at an equivalent rate (based on impacts) to those of us in the wealthy west, we'd be very very worried. But we happily try to sustain our inherently unsustainable lifestyles...and THAT is the population "problem": greed (most notably OUR greed).

The lack of concern (see above posts)  for the suffering that accompanies war and famine (as long as it doesn't happen to me) reveals a monstrous moral sickness in the wealthy West. We inhabit and rejoice in a depraved society and that, without divine interference of any sort, will annihilate us. then we'll hear sniffles about why does God allow such injuries. Hell, we welcome them when others are on the receiving end.

I agree Mike, therein lies the problem. We just don't care enough to stop breeding and consuming ourselves into extinction.

It's funny how we can somehow understand that any system with finite resources cannot sustain unlimited growth, as in an houshold pet aquarium, for instance, but when it comes to our planet, we just don't seem to get it... or care enough to get it.

Want a future for your great-great... grandchildren? Stop having more babies that required to maintain zero population growth. Better still, aim for gradual, voluntary population reduction, through education. Simple enough... but apparently we're to stupid as a species, or too greedy as individuals, to get it.

Some have speculated that nature will take care of our excessive population growth, and indeed it will through diseases, starvation, and wars; but how pitiful we are that we can do something about preventing such disaster yet we fail to do what is necessary to reduce growth to zero.  Inspite of nature's effects the population of the earth is doubling every 40 years.  Is that not sufficient notice to cause us to take whatever steps are necessary to bring growth to a halt?

I believe that we can require every man and woman to be sterilized after the birth of their second child.  As much as I treasure individual freedom, I believe that something like this is a necessity. 

Current best estimates for "developed" nations suggest a "zero" growth rate over the next 50 years. In fact, when factor out immigration, western populations are declining. Why should we be sterilized? I can only imagine you mean for us to set some sort of example for India and China? 

If you truly "treasured" individual freedom - forced anything would be impossible for you to even entertain. Education and rigorous dedication to improving quality of life through technological advancement is the only avenue available if you cherish individual freedom.

I agree as well. What I have noticed, is that people do not think with their heads.

People sell tomorrow for today, unaware of the damages caused in the process, and with the excuse that they can't help themselves but be consumers!

I think we are too greedy, but not as individuals. More like a herd. We are raised to be consumers. Everyone around us is. It is mainly our fault, because we have too many choices. We buy stuff we don't need, we create things we don't need.

And instead of women adopting abandoned orphans who actually need a home, they just decide to have children of their own. Teenage girls have also become very irresponsible about what they do with their partners. Almost every day I heard about how this girl got pregnant and how that girl got pregnant...

Honestly, there are no thoughts. There's only ignorance, which leads to more and more problems we don't need.

 This generation has lost it's way. When you think about it, who are the parents that babies look up to when they grow up? Especially if they are NOT breastfed! Their mothers are literally in the field because they are cows! Ever wonder why there is an increase in murders? Humans no longer feel connected spiritually to others. Think about it. And call me crazy if you like. But its the truth. 

Humans no longer feel connected spiritually to others.

This is nothing new people havent really connected for a long long time , but I would not be too quick to discount the online connection.

I also think we over estimate how much the planet "needs" us

check out The World Without Us Alan Weisman  ...  a freaky read

I'm going to try catching the "World Without Humans" tv series.  It is freaky, but I love that stuff.  I confess I haven't read a book for a long time.... too much interesting stuff online.

I believe the main problem in this world, as far as our survival collectively, is our division.

The reason I say this is, with the division of "classes" the poorer, the richer, the stronger the weaker, & if we worked towards a more collective resolution to this dilema.

It could be controlled acceptably, especially with our technology today.

Instead of our main resources going towards the mass destruction of life, we could be putting those resources to the development of a reasonable solution to population "control".

I do understand the word "control is hard for some to accept in some contexts.

The division between the flesh & the spirit is what is keeping such strategies from even coming to fruitation in this world.

This progressive unity is what is required for such solutions, & this is what will eventually be implemented by our own world leaders,,,,soon.

The problem is, there is never unity if the flesh dominates the spirit because, the Spirit is what binds this perfect unity, not the flesh. 

So what will come next? Or morph along with this progressive unitive economic world system?

A unitive world religion.

For there to be a complete Kingdom, it is to be a Kingdom both of the flesh, & the spirit.

 This is what God had intended from the start. I don't believe God ever intended there to be a separation of church & state in the Kingdom of God.

But in a carnal world, it is a necessity. It's a must.

A Kingdom, according to how a Kingdom shall stand forever, is built on perfect unity.

With the Kinigdom of God, thiss unity starts between the flesh & the spirit.

I believe it is in the the spirit, that we are in the "image" of God.

But looking in a mirror & seeing an 'image' of yourself, is less satisfying than speaking on the phone to one you love, in a long distance relationship.

How "distant" this relationship is, is between the indevidual & God.

Soon this "relationship", this Kingdom, will be established on Earth, & there will be nothing distant about it.

Is this not where this concept of spirituality of mankind is birthed? Within the indevidual & is designed to morph into a collective way, not due to fear, but out of love for this collective thought in Christ & grow into a spiritual Kingdom on Earth?

This perfect thought.

 I believe, this perfect collective thought is given to us by our Creator God, through the mind of Christ.

This "thought", this mind of Christ, is referanced in Holy Scripture through written word, along with the varification & direction of the Holy Spirit.

This is only reached within a relationship with God, through His son.

And you shall always see who represents Who, by their fruits.

As far as I can tell with my experience, there is non other who can convince me, that they are more qualified & experienced to teach me any different, than what is taught to me through this relationship in Christ.

Most of all, there is non other, who has shown me such Perfect Love.

Bolt

Just wanted to add a small comment.

I've always wanted children and I struggle with myself because I see that the world is over populated. Do I give in to my own desires? Or do I forget them for the better good of the planet? I can't answer these questions.

But I always thought if adoption was less expensive I would have no problems raising someone else's child. I could take two or three and base our family around them. And inside I would feel like I've done my part to help out the big picture of things. Its just that adoption is out of our budget, kinda sad actually. Because all those kids need love and I have lots to give them.

Its just that adoption is out of our budget, kinda sad actually. Because all those kids need love and I have lots to give them.

By that defination kids would be out of your budget as well

They say from birth to 18 it costs about $100,000

Hi Jooly -- welcome to the cafe! 

I think it's important to think about whether or not to have biological children, and my concern is that not enough information is brought to bear in the decision to have kids.  Sounds like you've really explored the whole question, and that's admirable.  I hope people who make decisions the way you do aren't the rare exception.

We appear to have only one story, and that's the one about personal and family fulfillment.  Some of that is societal pressure.  I believe it's important to parse out the differences and to realize that our choices impact a lot more than our immediate circumstances.  That said,  I'm not at all against having children and can't even imagine that it's anything but a personal decision.  I just wish everyone didn't automatically have kids without really going beyond the cultural, instinctive, consumer-driven stuff.

Do we love all children, or are ours better in some way?  Do we care about the children of the future in a world of dwindling resources?  Are those cute, heart-melting smiles worth the staggering amount of energy, water, consumer goods, pollution, etc that this cutie is going to produce over the next century or so?  This thinking isn't new.  Looking generations ahead isn't foolish.

Some people who have thought about this opt to adjust their lifestyles to consume less to offset the additional burden of another person in the world.  That's admirable too, IMO.

Anyway, this is all an opinion.  I would never presume to tell someone else what to do, I just hope they take the time to think outside the box and act accordingly. 

RE Adoption.

When I read about people getting rich from those who sincerely want to adopt a child in need, it makes me really angry.  It happens all the time.

Does anyone think that its possible to have fullfillment without kids

What guarantee is there that they will make us happy ?

I'm in 100% agreement.  Additionally, I believe we are "fed" the story about how fulfillment is only acheived through parenthood, and that one isn't complete unless they reproduce.  Why is that the only story?  Some of us  really don't want to be parents, and get pressured into it.  Sure we love our kids when they appear, but how many people actually see a child-free life as a good life?  Just ask anyone who chooses not to have kids.

Yeah I know people single people and couples who have no kids and are quite happy

No hassles no stress

I also know people with children who complain constantly about how life is so tough and their kids are just sucking the life outta them .....

And then you wonder why did they bother in the first place

Thank you Ninjafaery that is a good way of making me think on it some more. And I'm happy to see that others think as I do.

For me children of any sort have always made me happy. I think I missed the boat by not becoming a teacher or social worker. People around me have always told me that I have a way with children as well.

And Jesouhaite777 I agree children cost alot from birth till the age of 18 but that is a gradual expense. Adoption is like buying a car you need the money up front. And I don't have it. I understand that the money goes towards education programs and keeping the adoption programes alive. But I think if they lowered the prices more couoples would adopt.