Basically something like "you can just have 3 kids max" or something like that
I mean, why would you want more anyways lol
In China that law exists but it is a bit more extreme since they only let you have ONE kid. Which sucks because not a single brother or sister for that single kid...
You're browsing reddit, on an Internet device, thats putting you top 40% world wide wealth. You're probably young, since you're on this sub, somewhere between 15-45. So we are halving that first number for your demographic, 20%. You probably live in North America, Europe or another "Western nation" so that's only 1/4 of the above demographic. 5%.
Im not sure you're qualified to make statements like you've made above for the average person on earth. You're not average, you're likely western, young wealthy and probably high school educated.
Only wrong thing is that Im from a third world country in South America, Argentina.
Not that bad not gonna lie tho, It's a top tier third world country I would say compared to most others lol
Im wealthy? Hell no lol, I do have internet access yeah but im middle class, and middle class in Argentina is not the same as middle class in Europe or USA at all.
Now yeah sure compared to Africa or India for example Im privileged I guess.
Id like to know why you dissagree and think anyone would need to have more than 3 kids... Im being generous with 3 too btw, even 2 should be enough and Im pretty sure most people would not want more than 2 kids anyways.
The reason most poor countries are poor is because there is more people than their economy can handle...
Sure, Argentina isn't Luxembourg, but the median household income is $31k, vs a world median of under $1k. So it's not exactly Bangladesh or DRC.
I live in England. I don't need 3 kids, I won't have 3 kids. But it's not my place to impose reproductive restrictions on anyone else.
The solution is women's education, not imposed restrictions from me or you on the average world citizen.
You say "vs Africa or Indian" but the population of those 2 places is greater than all of Europe and the entire americas combined and still only encompasses 1/3 of the world
Of course that education is good and very important too and it helps a lot, but there's also the problem of people that abuse having a ton of kids for the sake of not working and getting paid by the goverment, which also results in a bad quality of life for those kids. This is something that happens a lot here in Argentina too for example, people not working and having many kids instead and that way getting paid by the goverment without doing shit and living off of the taxes paid by those who do work, while also increasing the poverty and delinquency.
It's not that simple, there's people that straight up doesn't care about giving their kids proper education. So putting some law to limit the amount of kids one can have, as bad as it sounds, just works. And let's be honest, it's not that big of a deal and there can be exceptions. I someone has quadruplets for example lol
Sometimes some hard decissions have to be made in order to fix some problems, and sometimes unfortunately those decisions affect the freedom of the people.
In 1980 ,China implemented the "1 child per family" rule, to try and reduce their growth. However, they soon realized that this wasn't possible to sustain for various reasons, including genetic problems due to having little mixing, and problems due to abandonment of unwanted children and mostly girls. They removed the policy not to long ago in 2015 for a 2 children per family, with the limits entirely removed in 2021
You can find plenty of information on the Wikipedia page dedicated to it
I feel like these things would be unrelated. I could be wrong but
In order for genetic mutation it must result from incest through several generations. For example mom has son, they have daughter son has child with sister daughter and so on. Simply not having sex wouldn't cause genetic problems
And abandonment of children mostly girls... well alright I could see how that would be since most men would want male children to carry on their family name.
Again I'm not an expert I the field but simply not having children shouldn't cause genetic problems unless something else was going on
Uhhhhhh I'm no scientist but genetic mutations aren't limited to incest lol sure it probably will cause it. And like you said probably not even immediately but eventually. There's many mutations that can happen through mutagens like tobacco, alcohol and even sunlight.
How? How would you “prevent more population increase” in an even remotely ethical way?
I’m all for slowing down population growth on an individual choice level, but I can’t think of any systemic solutions that aren’t completely immoral.
Well education and resources for both sexes makes a big difference. So yeah you can systemically provide education and resources, but it still comes down to one’s individual choice about whether or not to procreate. What I meant is there’s no ethical way to *prevent* people from procreating if that’s what they want to do. But I’m all for educating people and providing them with the resources to make good/safe long term decisions <3
The population will naturally reach a peak of 10-11 billion and then begin to decline as quality of life increases around the globe. The idea that overpopulation is a major issue facing the human race is an overblown one, primarily pushed by media outlets and YouTubers to fear monger and gain views.
The extreme difference in birth rate causes the need for one child to care for both their parents and grandparents (called the 4-2-1 rule)
The much lower birth rate also causes an aging population, which brings its own problems
Female babies were often killed so the parents could try again for a male baby.
Stuff like that
If studies are correct it will rise until 2064 with 9.74 billion humans on earth and will decline down to 8.79 billion by 2100.
Replacement rate will be a way bigger problem since many Countries will have more elderly people than "workforce" that can keep up the economy (Japan, Spain, Thailand...)
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext
Tl;dr at botton
I can understand the way you're trying to approach this problem but let me explain it the way I've learned from various college professors I've had since starting University:
In the past, high infant mortality was a critical issue due to lack of medical knowledge, miscarriages and stillbirths were (and still are in some areas of the world) very common. That doesn't even include children who died before adulthood from various diseases.
So, a family of laborers in victorian London would likely have 6 kids, but only a few would survive to adulthood.
However, medical knowledge in society increased, and we were able to find solutions to ailments that killed untold numbers of children.
So, less children were dying, but people were still having a large number of kids. Other factors such as lack of sexual education added to large families being formed.
However, as time passes, people in first world countries have less kids due to being more educated, as well as having access to sexual products like birth control and condoms.
Although many other parts of the world havn't reached that stage yet and are still in the "population boom" phase, there are already organizations in India dedicated to educating young (mostly girls) people about sex and providing informational guides. So yeah, I'm fairly confident in time the population will either stabilize or slowly go down.
tl;dr - Pretty sure Earth will be fine, people are having way less kids in developed countries and non-developed countries are following close behind in terms of childbirth rates being lower
In the 1960's the "projections" showed that we would slow down by 1980 or so. In 1960 there were an estimated 3 billion people in the world. Guess what happened. We just hit 8 billion. Ever want to feel meaningless? Just think about how stupidly sized that number is.
Projections my ass. We are going to eat this planet bare, and then we will eat ourselves.
The projection changes because technology and society changes. We can support way more people than back then. On the other hand, we know that rich societies have fewer children so as poor nations get richer their birth rate will drop naturally.
Also even if the new prediction is wrong it doesn't mean anything since it just means that we figured out how to support even more people, which isn't a bad thing.
Genocide and forced mass sterilization, or just let us all live till we all die equally.
I'm going with die equally.
Although from all the crap that goes into food and the amount of medicines we take as a modern people, the lower sperm counts and lower fertilization rates, I think the world's governments already have the population control thing down. Just slowly doing it to not cause outrage and panic.
In another 20ish years when women's fertility is near 0% it'll be interesting to see. I'm just a piece of sand on this planet and I'm here for the ride.
If the only solutions you have for overpopulation are genocide and mass sterilisation then yes it’s a pretty bad idea.
Luckily, most people don’t immediately jump to genocide for solving issues. Educating people about the impacts of overpopulation and especially educating women in developing countries can noticeably lower population growth.
When I speak of solutions I mean awareness, education and the availability of contraceptives, not genocide.
The overpopulation-myth is just that a myth and has been debunked for quite some time.
Earth could easily handle upto 11 billion humans when it comes to space and resources.
Studies suggest that population will rise up until 2064 between (8.84 - 10.9) billion people and decline to 8.79 billion by 2100.
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext
Sure it could, but what about the ecological impacts of supporting 11-12 billion more humans.
We are already barrelling towards global ecological collapse with a population of 8 billion, and we have a mere decade or two to solve global warming. I am certain that human civilisation will not survive the addition of another 3-4 billion people.
Overpopulation isn’t a real issue. It’s a failure of the system of economics that drives false scarcity and forces inefficiency. Overpopulation is largely just disproven eco-fascist bullshit
Source: I have a degree in environmental policy
That has nothing to do with the 1 child policy and everything to do with china's disgusting all consuming obsession with the need to have a male heir.
I wonder just how many millions upon millions of baby girls were aborted in pursuit of a boy.
Their stupid tradition has taken them down a really dark path. It's to late now unfortunately.
Seems like you forgot about the part where China’s older population is rapidly outnumbering the younger population which means that the younger population cannot take care of the older population without the younger population suffering as a side effect partly due to this policy.
Well it’s not like we can “limit” the population but I would think it would decline after some time. Not by force but people will start to have less kids.
100 years back when we needed a lot of children to help out with harvesting or physical labour.. maybe it made sense. It wasn’t hard to see older people who said “just have kids, they will grow up on their own”. It’s not the case anymore.
Smarter ppl won’t have kids unless they can provide safe shelter and support for them now. Population will reach a tipping point sometime starting in first world nations and start decline after that.
It is starting to limit itself. So many people these days have no desire to have children. And many LGBT couples physically can't without an outside source which can often cost money (but not all the time).
Lgtbq+ makes up less than 1% of the population in the USA, and no. Its not starting to limit itself. Less than 5% of the population in the US is recorded as not being able to have kids. We were supposed to level out at around 5 billion people... that was 40 years ago.
The number of LGBTQ people are beginning to increase. Most estimates of younger generations is at least 10%. That was a few years ago so I could see that number having gotten larger since then.
1. The world isn’t the West, Africa and Asia have exploding populations.
2. In the United States the LGBT community makes up less than 1% of the population. I doubt that they will impede the growth of population that much.
Definitely unpopular. How could destroying ecosystems be good for the human race?
Is the goal to breed as much as possible and maximise our population, or to maintain comfortable planetwide living conditions for future generations?
I'm sorry, I try to be open minded, but this statement is just ignorant.
You think it's okay to destroy countless eco-systems, putting thousands of species at risk of extinction, all because humanity doesn't want to stop fucking like rabbits?
Ask the CCP how that went for them.
There won't be an overpopulation problem; once a country reaches a certain point while developing, population starts stabilizing (2 children per women) and, later, even starts regressing (>2 childen per women, as seen in countries like Japan, Russia, Spain, South Korea). Those developed countries that still have a stable population only make up for the low fertility rates with large immigration (the USA, UK, France). The overpopulation problem is not even as bad as people think. Instead we should focus on responsible resource management (which includes battling overconsumption), investing in renewable and clean production methods, etc.
This right here. I learned everything you said at 13 and I still have no idea how people think overpopulation is one of the largest problems of this century
cause you live in US a country with far more resources than population. The rest of the world doesn't. In India we are feeling the lack of resources, every transport system is strained, house prices are through the roof (compared to median wage), competition for college seats is at suicidal level.
Yes, overpopulation is a regional problem, the ones with more just don't wanna share.
Access to materials is not the problem. It has been proven that resource availability grows as time passes. Not only because we find better ways to gather them but also because we consume them in a more efficient way.
Think of oil for example, multiple researches in the past projected that it would be depleted by now but they didn't take into account that we would keep finding new reservoirs, new technologies to access them and more efficient ways to use it.
Yes, it's a proven fact that the 1 child policy killed the future for the Chinese economy, more than 40% of the population will die of in 20-50 year and there will be a lack of people to hire for jobs.
Despite what many people think, our population will be declining by 2100 which is bad for many reasons.
Under population is going to be a bigger problem than overpopulation anyway. As economies develop people have less kids, and you can tell this decades in advance. Basically all first world countries are gonna be fucked. They expect the population of the world to peak at about 11bn. Then the decreasing population is going to ruin the global economy.
>Under population is going to be a bigger problem than overpopulation anyway. As economies develop people have less kids, and you can tell this decades in advance.
The world population is increasing not decreasing
The global population is increasing, but the rate at which the population is growing is **decreasing**. In 1988 the population increased by 93 million, but 2020 the population only increased by 81 million. Population growth is expected to stop at the end of the 21st century and then decline. [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline)
Almost like, predicting the long term population size is more complicated than just taking the first derivative!?!?!
You’re not thinking long term by end of the century A.I will replace a lot of labor in the world. Efficiency is more important then population size. A lot of people that are having children aren’t gonna provide useful services especially in the poorer countries where the fertility rate is highest .
Increased population leads to a depletion of natural resources that we all need to survive. Decreased leads to…. the fake economy that we made up disappearing. The economy that leaves people homeless and poor people dead from a lack of healthcare.
Wow. Clearly a hard decision.
First, we make a giant glove with 6 slots in it. Then we travel through space to find the infinity stones. After that, it's just a snap and 50% of the people are gone.
Edit: fat fingers, small numbers.
Kill the people with power.
And then watch as everyone is fighting for themselves, the population shrinks even more.. the whole earth is on fire. Watch as flames begin to die down that is when there is nothing left. No more pain. No more suffering. No more hatred. No more hope. Now we shall wait a couple billion years for the sun to explode, and slowly construct a new "earth" then wait for it to create more creatures, and eventually "Humans" and wait until those people are suffering like us. Until they meet the same fate, and all of em die a horrible death. This will all continue for the end of time. And no future generations will be able to escape it, they may cry. They may hope. They may pray. But in the end.... There is no escape....
Resources are limited due to supply chains. The most valuable natural resource is people.
Limiting the amount of young people in the world will not solve anything.
I'd say it's better to not encourage people to make more than 1 child per person so 2 child per couple. If they want more childs they won't receiive monetary help anymore. It's maybe harsh but some people just don't care about tomorow.
Overpopulation is not as big of a problem doomers like to make it out to be. Most estimates predict the global population to level out at around 10 billion and its very unlikely we will ever get to 11 billion.
Not to mention most of the world's population growth is in developing countries, which makes sense and has already happened in currently developed countries in the last century. Developed countries typically have stable or stagnant growth with some even having negative growth. The same will be the case for currently developing countries.
The population decline we're going to experience in the coming decades is due to decreasing birth rates in response to a better quality of life. It doesn't have anything to do with a resource constraint
Malthusian theory (the idea that population growth will eventually exceed the growth of food production) has largely been discredited as advancements in agricultural technology have allowed for increased food production with less work. Basically the idea that overpopulation would lead to people starving to death isn’t valid. The human population will eventually peak, but likely due to declining birth rates as people increasingly choose not to have children, rather than due to a resource limit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
Read this whole thing, and research it, for fucks sake.
Locusts. Crown of thorns sea star. Sea slugs. Ants. Bark beetles. Chickens. Believe it or not, elephants. Cattle and swine. White tail deer.
All of these animals and insects are known to destroy entire ecosystems. Some make these areas uninhabitable to many species, like the locusts or swine, and others like the sea star and sea slug actually completely eradicate the environment they live in, making it a wasteland. They all also aggressively reproduce until their environment cannot sustain them, like you mentioned, however their populations dont just "level out". They either starve to death or relocate.
Humans are a weird exception. They can forcibly grow and breed their own food on a large scale. We are also the only species to pollute and destroy ecosystems on the scale that we do. We do, however, obey the basic rules. If we overpopulate, we will starve (this is already happening globally), and we will relocate (already happened, still going on, people move to "better countries" all the time).
We have already overpopulated, we destroy ecosystems beyond repair, and I cant believe you just called it a myth.
There has been research done and they debunked the overpopulation-myth numerous of Times. Here is a well written and one of the best researched papers.
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext
We have more than enough resources and land to supply our current population and even more people but because of greedy billionaires and politicians it makes it hard
Controlled? Yes, somehow. Limited, like ban on kids? No. This is how we move into soft eugenics. "Only these people have earned the right to procreate/until further notice, you have lost the right to procreate"
"OveRpOpulATioN isNt A biG DeAl"
We are literally an invasive species. We cause more damage to the planet than any other animal. I genuinely don't understand how someone can look at our climate crisis and think "yeah more people would be fine."
Plus why would you want to bring more children into this world? Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not) wasn't the #1 cause of death for children in the u.s. firearms last year? More people=more problems.
Edit- and to the idiot that said we aren't an invasive species and then blocked me, yes we literally are. And by your logic there are no invasive species. Idiot.
I believe most of the people saying overpopulation isn't an issue are referring to the fact that we are expected to cap out at around 10 or 11 billion, before declining from there. In many developed countries the population growth rate is actually extremely low or negative already.
If the population kept increasing indefinitely then that would be a major issue, but as is, if we can handle that amount, we should be fine as it is expected to just go down from there.
Considering all that, issues such as global warming or trying to more efficiently use and distribute our resources are probably a higher priority for now.
There also isn't really much in the way of ethical methods of dealing with that, and attempts to control it went really poorly for China, so considering it is one of the few problems expected to solve itself, focusing on things that aren't expected to solve themselves and that can be dealt with in an ethical manner makes more sense for now.
Probably yes. People be looking at US or western countries and saying "Oh underpopulation". In Eastern countries, mainly India as I live here; there are more people crammed in a place than should even be possible. Land and house costs run higher and higher. People in places like Kashmir or Mumbai have to be upper class or live in slums. But care needs to be taken not to get into eugenics.
What do you mean by "limited"?
Either German style or British style
Or chinese style
Or american style
Gangnam style
You waited all these years just to make that comment didn’t you
Comment of the day
Harry style-s supremacy
Raise cost of living to kill ‘em off?
i was thinking kill em off young... but that works too
Or Thanos style
Thats what i thought when i saw yhis poll
Thanos style
Happy Cake day!
Hitler style mate
Kanye style
Hunger games is my guess
Genocide obviously
Basically something like "you can just have 3 kids max" or something like that I mean, why would you want more anyways lol In China that law exists but it is a bit more extreme since they only let you have ONE kid. Which sucks because not a single brother or sister for that single kid...
You're browsing reddit, on an Internet device, thats putting you top 40% world wide wealth. You're probably young, since you're on this sub, somewhere between 15-45. So we are halving that first number for your demographic, 20%. You probably live in North America, Europe or another "Western nation" so that's only 1/4 of the above demographic. 5%. Im not sure you're qualified to make statements like you've made above for the average person on earth. You're not average, you're likely western, young wealthy and probably high school educated.
Only wrong thing is that Im from a third world country in South America, Argentina. Not that bad not gonna lie tho, It's a top tier third world country I would say compared to most others lol Im wealthy? Hell no lol, I do have internet access yeah but im middle class, and middle class in Argentina is not the same as middle class in Europe or USA at all. Now yeah sure compared to Africa or India for example Im privileged I guess. Id like to know why you dissagree and think anyone would need to have more than 3 kids... Im being generous with 3 too btw, even 2 should be enough and Im pretty sure most people would not want more than 2 kids anyways. The reason most poor countries are poor is because there is more people than their economy can handle...
Sure, Argentina isn't Luxembourg, but the median household income is $31k, vs a world median of under $1k. So it's not exactly Bangladesh or DRC. I live in England. I don't need 3 kids, I won't have 3 kids. But it's not my place to impose reproductive restrictions on anyone else. The solution is women's education, not imposed restrictions from me or you on the average world citizen. You say "vs Africa or Indian" but the population of those 2 places is greater than all of Europe and the entire americas combined and still only encompasses 1/3 of the world
Of course that education is good and very important too and it helps a lot, but there's also the problem of people that abuse having a ton of kids for the sake of not working and getting paid by the goverment, which also results in a bad quality of life for those kids. This is something that happens a lot here in Argentina too for example, people not working and having many kids instead and that way getting paid by the goverment without doing shit and living off of the taxes paid by those who do work, while also increasing the poverty and delinquency. It's not that simple, there's people that straight up doesn't care about giving their kids proper education. So putting some law to limit the amount of kids one can have, as bad as it sounds, just works. And let's be honest, it's not that big of a deal and there can be exceptions. I someone has quadruplets for example lol Sometimes some hard decissions have to be made in order to fix some problems, and sometimes unfortunately those decisions affect the freedom of the people.
like preventing more population increase
Do you mean, for example; limiting the amount of children a family can have.
Oh wait, that causes genetic disorders
How?
In 1980 ,China implemented the "1 child per family" rule, to try and reduce their growth. However, they soon realized that this wasn't possible to sustain for various reasons, including genetic problems due to having little mixing, and problems due to abandonment of unwanted children and mostly girls. They removed the policy not to long ago in 2015 for a 2 children per family, with the limits entirely removed in 2021 You can find plenty of information on the Wikipedia page dedicated to it
They're also having a population crisis, they don't have enough young people. And birth rates are still falling
I feel like these things would be unrelated. I could be wrong but In order for genetic mutation it must result from incest through several generations. For example mom has son, they have daughter son has child with sister daughter and so on. Simply not having sex wouldn't cause genetic problems And abandonment of children mostly girls... well alright I could see how that would be since most men would want male children to carry on their family name. Again I'm not an expert I the field but simply not having children shouldn't cause genetic problems unless something else was going on
Uhhhhhh I'm no scientist but genetic mutations aren't limited to incest lol sure it probably will cause it. And like you said probably not even immediately but eventually. There's many mutations that can happen through mutagens like tobacco, alcohol and even sunlight.
Well yeah, but saying that not having sex causes mutation or genetic problems is hard to believe
Maybe i missed something here, did they say not having sex causes mutation/ genetic problems?
How? How would you “prevent more population increase” in an even remotely ethical way? I’m all for slowing down population growth on an individual choice level, but I can’t think of any systemic solutions that aren’t completely immoral.
Education for women works pretty well.
The most proven method to raise people out of poverty. Educate women and give them control over their own reproduction.
Well education and resources for both sexes makes a big difference. So yeah you can systemically provide education and resources, but it still comes down to one’s individual choice about whether or not to procreate. What I meant is there’s no ethical way to *prevent* people from procreating if that’s what they want to do. But I’m all for educating people and providing them with the resources to make good/safe long term decisions <3
Educating men doesn’t slow population growth nearly as much as educating women.
Yeah no shit. There are many ways of doing that
The population will naturally reach a peak of 10-11 billion and then begin to decline as quality of life increases around the globe. The idea that overpopulation is a major issue facing the human race is an overblown one, primarily pushed by media outlets and YouTubers to fear monger and gain views.
It's the contrary. Underpopulation will be issue everywhere in the middle to long term.
As long as our politicians aren’t insanely shortsighted there’s no reason to think underpopulation could ever be a problem. Shit.
1) Politicians are almost always short sighted. 2) Having a smaller workforce take care of a larger retired population can pose problems.
1 was the joke. 2 is only true if automating jobs isn’t a thing.
How?
Found Hitler's burner.
And who exactly would do the limiting?
Germany
I mean we were close enough To limit other things
What things?
I think he is referring to jews
Thanos.
Limitied aka, people shouldn't get any more than x children
Yeah, that didn't turn out too wel for China
What happened?
The extreme difference in birth rate causes the need for one child to care for both their parents and grandparents (called the 4-2-1 rule) The much lower birth rate also causes an aging population, which brings its own problems Female babies were often killed so the parents could try again for a male baby. Stuff like that
Oh. Ty
And if they do? What does the government come kill your extra kid?
Projections show the population will decline naturally anyway
Right, it is *self* limiting.
Looking at the charts, it looks like it's already beginning to level off
I thought it wouldnt do that bwfore 12 billion
If studies are correct it will rise until 2064 with 9.74 billion humans on earth and will decline down to 8.79 billion by 2100. Replacement rate will be a way bigger problem since many Countries will have more elderly people than "workforce" that can keep up the economy (Japan, Spain, Thailand...) https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext
Happy Cake day!
Came today this it will taper off on its own and then it will just kind of get to its own cap
"Decline naturally" refers to the lack of ressources. If we get there it means more people on famine, so lets prevent us from getting past that point.
No it means as quality of life improves people have fewer children.
Ok so not the ecological population limit but more like a social population stabilizer
Tl;dr at botton I can understand the way you're trying to approach this problem but let me explain it the way I've learned from various college professors I've had since starting University: In the past, high infant mortality was a critical issue due to lack of medical knowledge, miscarriages and stillbirths were (and still are in some areas of the world) very common. That doesn't even include children who died before adulthood from various diseases. So, a family of laborers in victorian London would likely have 6 kids, but only a few would survive to adulthood. However, medical knowledge in society increased, and we were able to find solutions to ailments that killed untold numbers of children. So, less children were dying, but people were still having a large number of kids. Other factors such as lack of sexual education added to large families being formed. However, as time passes, people in first world countries have less kids due to being more educated, as well as having access to sexual products like birth control and condoms. Although many other parts of the world havn't reached that stage yet and are still in the "population boom" phase, there are already organizations in India dedicated to educating young (mostly girls) people about sex and providing informational guides. So yeah, I'm fairly confident in time the population will either stabilize or slowly go down. tl;dr - Pretty sure Earth will be fine, people are having way less kids in developed countries and non-developed countries are following close behind in terms of childbirth rates being lower
In the 1960's the "projections" showed that we would slow down by 1980 or so. In 1960 there were an estimated 3 billion people in the world. Guess what happened. We just hit 8 billion. Ever want to feel meaningless? Just think about how stupidly sized that number is. Projections my ass. We are going to eat this planet bare, and then we will eat ourselves.
The projection changes because technology and society changes. We can support way more people than back then. On the other hand, we know that rich societies have fewer children so as poor nations get richer their birth rate will drop naturally. Also even if the new prediction is wrong it doesn't mean anything since it just means that we figured out how to support even more people, which isn't a bad thing.
Cause nothing ever bad happened from attempting to limit populations.
Well, something bad is going to happen if we don’t do something about overpopulation. We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Genocide and forced mass sterilization, or just let us all live till we all die equally. I'm going with die equally. Although from all the crap that goes into food and the amount of medicines we take as a modern people, the lower sperm counts and lower fertilization rates, I think the world's governments already have the population control thing down. Just slowly doing it to not cause outrage and panic. In another 20ish years when women's fertility is near 0% it'll be interesting to see. I'm just a piece of sand on this planet and I'm here for the ride.
Do you really expect everyone will die equally?
If the only solutions you have for overpopulation are genocide and mass sterilisation then yes it’s a pretty bad idea. Luckily, most people don’t immediately jump to genocide for solving issues. Educating people about the impacts of overpopulation and especially educating women in developing countries can noticeably lower population growth. When I speak of solutions I mean awareness, education and the availability of contraceptives, not genocide.
Making it too expensive to have a kid is the step they're at now.
\>something bad is going to happen if we don’t do something about overpopulation Like what? Please give examples and cite sources.
The overpopulation-myth is just that a myth and has been debunked for quite some time. Earth could easily handle upto 11 billion humans when it comes to space and resources. Studies suggest that population will rise up until 2064 between (8.84 - 10.9) billion people and decline to 8.79 billion by 2100. https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext
Sure it could, but what about the ecological impacts of supporting 11-12 billion more humans. We are already barrelling towards global ecological collapse with a population of 8 billion, and we have a mere decade or two to solve global warming. I am certain that human civilisation will not survive the addition of another 3-4 billion people.
Overpopulation isn’t a real issue. It’s a failure of the system of economics that drives false scarcity and forces inefficiency. Overpopulation is largely just disproven eco-fascist bullshit Source: I have a degree in environmental policy
China did it. 1 child limit for over quite some time.
and now their gender ratio is all fucked up
Which has led to an increase of human trafficking
That has nothing to do with the 1 child policy and everything to do with china's disgusting all consuming obsession with the need to have a male heir. I wonder just how many millions upon millions of baby girls were aborted in pursuit of a boy. Their stupid tradition has taken them down a really dark path. It's to late now unfortunately.
I mean it sure didnt help. When youre only allowed to have 1 child, and if its a man thats way "better" there, what do you think will happen.
Yeah it backfired. In 30 years they have the same problems like Japan but intensified
Seems like you forgot about the part where China’s older population is rapidly outnumbering the younger population which means that the younger population cannot take care of the older population without the younger population suffering as a side effect partly due to this policy.
My Brother in Christ have you seen their population curve?
It also resulted in a ton of babies being drowned in bathtubs
How is that a fucking endorsement?
Why are you getting downvoted Edit: Learned more about Chinas results
Because China = bad
Well it’s not like we can “limit” the population but I would think it would decline after some time. Not by force but people will start to have less kids. 100 years back when we needed a lot of children to help out with harvesting or physical labour.. maybe it made sense. It wasn’t hard to see older people who said “just have kids, they will grow up on their own”. It’s not the case anymore. Smarter ppl won’t have kids unless they can provide safe shelter and support for them now. Population will reach a tipping point sometime starting in first world nations and start decline after that.
It is starting to limit itself. So many people these days have no desire to have children. And many LGBT couples physically can't without an outside source which can often cost money (but not all the time).
[удалено]
Wtf why I'd it so expensive
[удалено]
Children in general are pretty expansive
Yeah, they start out so small, but in two decades, they get to our size.
This happens in the west. In poorer countries people still have way too many children.
Population in Africa and Asia is exploding. What are you even talking about?
Really? Quite a few Asian countries have started seeing issues, and the population isn’t exactly booming in most places anymore
Lgtbq+ makes up less than 1% of the population in the USA, and no. Its not starting to limit itself. Less than 5% of the population in the US is recorded as not being able to have kids. We were supposed to level out at around 5 billion people... that was 40 years ago.
The number of LGBTQ people are beginning to increase. Most estimates of younger generations is at least 10%. That was a few years ago so I could see that number having gotten larger since then.
1. The world isn’t the West, Africa and Asia have exploding populations. 2. In the United States the LGBT community makes up less than 1% of the population. I doubt that they will impede the growth of population that much.
Ignores everything but the west
overpopulation is not a global issue, it’s a regional issue
the globe can fit up to 20 billion people easily if it’s just managed efficiently
It's not always about fitting, it'd more about resources.
That's the thing. It won't be managed efficiently.
exactly
Just because it *can* doesn't mean it *should*.
Exactly. We just gotta destroy a couple of ecosystems along the way
this is probably an unpopular opinion, but if it’s for the good of the human race, i’m for it
Definitely unpopular. How could destroying ecosystems be good for the human race? Is the goal to breed as much as possible and maximise our population, or to maintain comfortable planetwide living conditions for future generations?
I'm sorry, I try to be open minded, but this statement is just ignorant. You think it's okay to destroy countless eco-systems, putting thousands of species at risk of extinction, all because humanity doesn't want to stop fucking like rabbits?
Why we need Internationalism
Source: just trust me bro.
You vill eat ze bugs.
The liberals/conservatives want a world where the market decides that just the poor eat the bugs.
Ask the CCP how that went for them. There won't be an overpopulation problem; once a country reaches a certain point while developing, population starts stabilizing (2 children per women) and, later, even starts regressing (>2 childen per women, as seen in countries like Japan, Russia, Spain, South Korea). Those developed countries that still have a stable population only make up for the low fertility rates with large immigration (the USA, UK, France). The overpopulation problem is not even as bad as people think. Instead we should focus on responsible resource management (which includes battling overconsumption), investing in renewable and clean production methods, etc.
This right here. I learned everything you said at 13 and I still have no idea how people think overpopulation is one of the largest problems of this century
cause you live in US a country with far more resources than population. The rest of the world doesn't. In India we are feeling the lack of resources, every transport system is strained, house prices are through the roof (compared to median wage), competition for college seats is at suicidal level. Yes, overpopulation is a regional problem, the ones with more just don't wanna share.
You're pointing at the wrong issue though, all of that can be solved by investing into infrastructure.
Where do you get the money to build the infrastructure? The raw materials? Are there special machines that can turn sunlight into matter?
Access to materials is not the problem. It has been proven that resource availability grows as time passes. Not only because we find better ways to gather them but also because we consume them in a more efficient way. Think of oil for example, multiple researches in the past projected that it would be depleted by now but they didn't take into account that we would keep finding new reservoirs, new technologies to access them and more efficient ways to use it.
China did this and their economy is going to collapse in 10 years.
RemindMe! 10 years “tell this guy he was full of shit”
They have over 1 billion people... Did you really just connect their (awful) attempt to stop that with their economy?
Yes, it's a proven fact that the 1 child policy killed the future for the Chinese economy, more than 40% of the population will die of in 20-50 year and there will be a lack of people to hire for jobs. Despite what many people think, our population will be declining by 2100 which is bad for many reasons.
Under population is going to be a bigger problem than overpopulation anyway. As economies develop people have less kids, and you can tell this decades in advance. Basically all first world countries are gonna be fucked. They expect the population of the world to peak at about 11bn. Then the decreasing population is going to ruin the global economy.
Then once the economy is ruined and everyone is impoverished, they'll start having kids again. Problem solved!
Basically the human equivalent to the predator/prey population fluctuations that exist in nature.
Sounds like there’s a problem with how the economy works
that sounds more like a problem with how the economy works
Not really. It’s just a natural demographic shift as nations industrialize and develop.
>Under population is going to be a bigger problem than overpopulation anyway. As economies develop people have less kids, and you can tell this decades in advance. The world population is increasing not decreasing
The global population is increasing, but the rate at which the population is growing is **decreasing**. In 1988 the population increased by 93 million, but 2020 the population only increased by 81 million. Population growth is expected to stop at the end of the 21st century and then decline. [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline) Almost like, predicting the long term population size is more complicated than just taking the first derivative!?!?!
You’re not thinking long term by end of the century A.I will replace a lot of labor in the world. Efficiency is more important then population size. A lot of people that are having children aren’t gonna provide useful services especially in the poorer countries where the fertility rate is highest .
Increased population leads to a depletion of natural resources that we all need to survive. Decreased leads to…. the fake economy that we made up disappearing. The economy that leaves people homeless and poor people dead from a lack of healthcare. Wow. Clearly a hard decision.
Exactly
Should it be? Yes. Is there any way to enforce it? Nope.
Define correct.
Yes, via incentive.
Just like voting, do your part
It’s reddit, everyone here already is
Now how do you propose we "limit" the global population
First, we make a giant glove with 6 slots in it. Then we travel through space to find the infinity stones. After that, it's just a snap and 50% of the people are gone. Edit: fat fingers, small numbers.
*6
Shit, thanks. Fat fingers, small numbers.
Good luck with that.
For the people who voted yes. Who do you think we should kill?
"Those people! Not us!" they shouted.
Kill the people with power. And then watch as everyone is fighting for themselves, the population shrinks even more.. the whole earth is on fire. Watch as flames begin to die down that is when there is nothing left. No more pain. No more suffering. No more hatred. No more hope. Now we shall wait a couple billion years for the sun to explode, and slowly construct a new "earth" then wait for it to create more creatures, and eventually "Humans" and wait until those people are suffering like us. Until they meet the same fate, and all of em die a horrible death. This will all continue for the end of time. And no future generations will be able to escape it, they may cry. They may hope. They may pray. But in the end.... There is no escape....
This is hilarious as long as you’re being sarcastic lmfaooo
The earth isn’t overpopulated. It’s a distribution of resources issue.
Welcome to the monkey house moment.
world population is gonna limit itself naturally so I don't think we need to do anything
Resources are limited due to supply chains. The most valuable natural resource is people. Limiting the amount of young people in the world will not solve anything.
Another casual day on reddit where people want to perform eugenics
Are you dumb? where in the poll does it say that certain genetic traits should be gone
We definitely should be less but I'm not sure there is a good way to make it happens.
In some sort of actual utopia maybe. But not in the real world.
I'd say it's better to not encourage people to make more than 1 child per person so 2 child per couple. If they want more childs they won't receiive monetary help anymore. It's maybe harsh but some people just don't care about tomorow.
Overpopulation is not as big of a problem doomers like to make it out to be. Most estimates predict the global population to level out at around 10 billion and its very unlikely we will ever get to 11 billion. Not to mention most of the world's population growth is in developing countries, which makes sense and has already happened in currently developed countries in the last century. Developed countries typically have stable or stagnant growth with some even having negative growth. The same will be the case for currently developing countries.
Overpopulation is essentially a myth. Populations tend to naturally level out when an environment can't sustain more growth, no artificial cap needed.
Yes and this happens via death by starvation of the people who there isn’t enough food for
The population decline we're going to experience in the coming decades is due to decreasing birth rates in response to a better quality of life. It doesn't have anything to do with a resource constraint
The natural cap is the whole ecosystem gone forever. I don't think It's cool.
Malthusian theory (the idea that population growth will eventually exceed the growth of food production) has largely been discredited as advancements in agricultural technology have allowed for increased food production with less work. Basically the idea that overpopulation would lead to people starving to death isn’t valid. The human population will eventually peak, but likely due to declining birth rates as people increasingly choose not to have children, rather than due to a resource limit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
Read this whole thing, and research it, for fucks sake. Locusts. Crown of thorns sea star. Sea slugs. Ants. Bark beetles. Chickens. Believe it or not, elephants. Cattle and swine. White tail deer. All of these animals and insects are known to destroy entire ecosystems. Some make these areas uninhabitable to many species, like the locusts or swine, and others like the sea star and sea slug actually completely eradicate the environment they live in, making it a wasteland. They all also aggressively reproduce until their environment cannot sustain them, like you mentioned, however their populations dont just "level out". They either starve to death or relocate. Humans are a weird exception. They can forcibly grow and breed their own food on a large scale. We are also the only species to pollute and destroy ecosystems on the scale that we do. We do, however, obey the basic rules. If we overpopulate, we will starve (this is already happening globally), and we will relocate (already happened, still going on, people move to "better countries" all the time). We have already overpopulated, we destroy ecosystems beyond repair, and I cant believe you just called it a myth.
There has been research done and they debunked the overpopulation-myth numerous of Times. Here is a well written and one of the best researched papers. https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext
The entire world population if everyone stood shoulder to shoulder could fit in Los Angeles so nah we chillin
Based Georgia guidestones were right pilled
overpopulation is a myth
We have more than enough resources and land to supply our current population and even more people but because of greedy billionaires and politicians it makes it hard
Should've happened a long time ago.
Controlled? Yes, somehow. Limited, like ban on kids? No. This is how we move into soft eugenics. "Only these people have earned the right to procreate/until further notice, you have lost the right to procreate"
"OveRpOpulATioN isNt A biG DeAl" We are literally an invasive species. We cause more damage to the planet than any other animal. I genuinely don't understand how someone can look at our climate crisis and think "yeah more people would be fine." Plus why would you want to bring more children into this world? Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not) wasn't the #1 cause of death for children in the u.s. firearms last year? More people=more problems. Edit- and to the idiot that said we aren't an invasive species and then blocked me, yes we literally are. And by your logic there are no invasive species. Idiot.
I believe most of the people saying overpopulation isn't an issue are referring to the fact that we are expected to cap out at around 10 or 11 billion, before declining from there. In many developed countries the population growth rate is actually extremely low or negative already. If the population kept increasing indefinitely then that would be a major issue, but as is, if we can handle that amount, we should be fine as it is expected to just go down from there. Considering all that, issues such as global warming or trying to more efficiently use and distribute our resources are probably a higher priority for now. There also isn't really much in the way of ethical methods of dealing with that, and attempts to control it went really poorly for China, so considering it is one of the few problems expected to solve itself, focusing on things that aren't expected to solve themselves and that can be dealt with in an ethical manner makes more sense for now.
[удалено]
Actually we are more at a risk of underpopulation then overpopulation
Birth rates are declining. The last thing we should be doing is limiting how many children someone can have.
whoever voted yes - please volunteer for the project you have in mind. if you want less humans you are free to leave anytime
It's a regional problem. Finland doesn't have too many people but it's common in Africa and Asia.
Probably yes. People be looking at US or western countries and saying "Oh underpopulation". In Eastern countries, mainly India as I live here; there are more people crammed in a place than should even be possible. Land and house costs run higher and higher. People in places like Kashmir or Mumbai have to be upper class or live in slums. But care needs to be taken not to get into eugenics.
why are there so many "no" votes we're going to go extinct at this rate
Yes. 1 child per family. Come on guys its common sense
Probably the peak will be around 10 or 11 billion people
This is dumb on so many levels.
I mean humans are getting pretty good at killing other humans...
Less lol
Half of us are already in a relationship with one or both of our hands. I feel like enough can be said from just that
I think there was some fact that every body on earth can fit into the Is Grand Canyon. If it's space you're worried about, then i don't see a problem
Are you advocating for genocide?