UKC

There are a lot of discussions around presently relating to population control - notably stemming from Michael Moore's controversial Planet of the Humans.

And there is an ever present element of racism lurking in such discussions - because 'we' have quit multiplying while the developing countries continue to expand.

But the essential factor in such discussions is planetary impact - and the footprint of westerners (and americans !) is undisputably greater than that of those in the developing world.

So let's start at home, is it really a problem that our population shrinks ? - esp in the crowded British Isles. How, without denying liberty, can we not just educate but logically incentivise family size ? Cut family allowances after the 2nd child - seems fairly obvious.

Howabout - as part of our remake of the new normal - bringing back national service, not contributing to military might, but to planetary wellbeing. One year spent planting trees or cleaning up on pollution. And if the 3rd child arrives - double the efforts of all three offspring - firstly to make the necessary contribution, but also to raise consciousness - dramatically.

Unless we come up with valid and logical ways of educating and motivating this issue - others will insidisusly justify less palatable mechanisms.

I'm not convinced that population control is a pressing issue in most western countries, more of a global issue that results in increased international inequality, with consequent (and understandable) desire for migration.

But were it to be a problem in search of a solution in the UK, your talk is of incentivising and yet your suggestions all appear to be penalising. Perhaps a carrot would feel more 'motivating' than a stick?

That sounds fair to me. I assume you mean all those now retired who’ve benefited from the last 40 years of global destruction? 

There isn't really any need for this, average no of children per woman in England and Wales is 1.7, it has been falling for a while and continues to do so.

The notion that there is a developed/developing world divide here is erroneous. Lots of countries that we might think of as developing have been very successful at reducing birth rates.

In fact the whole developed/developing world distinction is rather outmoded and unhelpful these days.

Want to reduce the population explosion?

Ban religion, or educate people, which is pretty much the same thing but takes longer.

CB

edit> Population growth in developed societies, where it still happens, is not primarily driven by birth rates but by increasing life span.

To be fair a lot of retirees round here are quite involved in volunteering and conservation. 

UK population has increased by 5 million over ten years.

Should we not set an example and limit our population density ?    It is one of the highest in the world.

World population has increased by 1000 million over ten years.

Hmm, I wonder what Bill and Melinda would have anything to say about that? Oh wait - why yes they do.

They've identified the problem - large families, over population - and blow me they've identified solutions - reduce infant mortality (so parents don't feel the need to have so many to look after them in their old age),  provide contraception, (yes, even Catholic Melinda, I never understand that but credit where it's due), and empower women - the biggest single factor worldwide to reduce population growth. 

Blow me, that's what they're shovelling their billions into - not vaccines for the sake of it, Lee, or even 'Incredible Journey' microchips -  and it's bl**dy working. No need for eugenics, culls, plagues or anything else. Just a fairer distribution of resources, intelligently applied.  

How about starting with a few facts?

youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E&

Why do people think that we should each keep consuming the same amount, but reduce the number of people? Surely it's an immeasurably more realistic and humane plan to allow the population to plateau - as health and education outcomes improve globally - and to reduce the consumption of each person by an order of magnitude or more?

We should stop increasing the population.

That's not an argument. What do you mean "we"? How should we stop? Why should we focus on reducing the number of people not the impact per person.

I can't see any meaning in your comment. 

Rather than watching films by partisan liars like Michael Moore you'd do better to read about the stuff that is being done by Unicef, Bill Gates foundation etc.

No one is who is rich is going to give up the things that make life comfortable. What we can do is make those things less damaging. Heading towards a carbon neutral world by 2050 if the most obvious example of the sort of thing that is being done.

This talk by Hand Rosling explains how the world population has grown and how it will stop growing, probably at about 9 billion. One of the most effective ways of achieving this is to make sure girls get sent to school.

https://www.gapminder.org/videos/population-growth-explained-with-ikea-boxe...

Planet of the Humans is by Jeff Gibbs, Michael Moore just leant his name to it for promotional purposes. The film does a good job of exposing greed, dishonesty and hypocrisy within the green energy sector.

It doesn't make the important arguments about whether and how we can get out of the mess we've got ourselves into, it just pessimistically assumes we can't. I'm more convinced by Steven Pinker's evidence-based optimism, personally (although I intuitively found his bit on climate engineering fairly preposterous).

No.   It's a statement.

We are individuals on a planet being destroyed by overpopulation.

Anybody increasing that population adds to the problem.

Are people just bad intrinsically, so, the fewer the better? So it would be the right thing for us all to kill ourselves?

Do we want to save the planet, for the sake of the planet, or do we want to have a nice planet to live on? If we want to have a nice planet to live on, who gets to have children to populate it?

What is the ultimate goal you think would be achieved by stopping population increase?

How do you decide who is just responsibly continuing the existence of the human race and who is being "wrong" by increasing the population?

There's still no meaning in what you're saying.

You don't think a more nuanced, subtle view might be more constructive? E.g. it is the profound driver of existence to reproduce - even amoeba bonk, and by the time you get to humans then however much it might be dressed up, the drive to procreate is as fundamental as breathing. And it is no coincidence the process of having and nurturing children is probably the most profound, ultimately satisfying trip most of us go on, it's what we have evolved to do. (Though it doesn't always seem like it at the time.)

Telling people 'don't do it' is telling them 'don't be human.' And, in the right circumstances most people are happy with 2 kids, which very quickly translates to a falling population, which is fine That's where we're headed.

How do you propose that is done? What's your proposal?

Then we really are buggered - the ultra rich you reference travel around the world in private jets - sometimes the size of a whole passenger plane; their extravagence and carbon footprint is an outrage - while suggesting that UNICEF et al are bringing the white missionary truth to developing countries.

I'm not telling anybody to do anything.

The Amazon is being cut down, the CO2 is rising, habitats destroyed.  One way or another this is down to human population increase. 

I'm an engineer pointing out the obvious.  We have to stop the world population increasing.  It won't stop by itself.

First, set a target.

Who, the global government? 

Why is it down to the number of people, not the amount of consumption by each person?

Longer lifespans and immigration?

Which shall we control ie cull the old and infirm.or stop immigration. The first seems a non starter hence the furore about deaths from Covid-19 in care homes. Immigration makes up for the falling birthrate and some more but our service sector is highly reliant on it-again Covid-19 has made it apparent how our NHS depends on it.There aren't any easy answers but education and distribution of wealth seem to point the way. Steven Pinker made the point that wealth is not finite and that it isn't just created by the consumption of consumer goods and resources.

I am not referencing the ultra rich at all I am referring to those of us on level 4 incomes i.e. those earning more than $32 a day.

Why not watch the Hans Rosling video I linked to and then do some reading round on the subject. There are a lot of grown up people doing stuff stuff and advocating sensible policies that are making a difference to our world. It will brighten up your day.

'We have to stop the world population increasing.  It won't stop by itself.'

Yes we do. And we know how to do it. Reduce infant mortality; make contraception readily available; empower women. That's what we're doing. It's working.

World population has increased by 1000 million over ten years.

Many Catholic women  pragmatically realise that contraception is not a matter to be decided by a celibate man. 

It's a control thing.  In the days gone by you could attempt to prevent sex before marriage by making life hell for young women who got pregnant.  A past Pope tried to prevent sex before marriage by making contraception a sin. It didn't really work.

That's management speak.  

Have you got children and/or grandchildren?

And?

And what is it predicted to do over the next 10, 20, 50 years? Is it possible to control that growth - by what measures? What are the predicted consequences you care about? How might those consequences be mitigated?

Absolutely not.  Before you do anything, you have to decide what it is you want to do.

Who is 'you'?

Yes, dear Hans Rowling is much missed. The clarity of explanation and use of data was great. ( How we might have benefited from his analysis of the pandemic.) Education of girls is absolutely central to demographic change....the Indian state of Kerala demonstrates it very well.

If you had a look at the video I linked and read around on the subject you'll find that population growth is well understood.

Capable persons at both ends of the age spectrum should get involved. Older folk - esp as parents will want to correct what has been done for sake of the next generation - their children, while the younger ones will be motivated because it' is their future. We all need to pick up responsibility from where we are now.

The solutions do not pre-suppose population control OR reducing consumption - both are applicable, and both complex to tackle. From the footprint perspective it seems logical that curbing the populations which consume the most must be the priority.

Whether or not national service could tie in to motivation for population control - it alone would be a useful tool to better the environment we live in, either at home or abroad. Perhaps the model of BCTV work would be useful, but on a larger scale.

By a combination of Brexit and apparently encouraging covid-19 to spread through the population in March, it appears that the UK government is well onto a 'solution' to both aspects of the population 'problem'.

The big dilemma it's left with is how to make the country function to pay for their lifestyles now that it has so little by way of foreign labour.

Back in the 80s & 90s I worked both with volunteers (BTCV, NTS, SCV) and job creation schemes. The later were occasionally good but often a waste of time as they didn't want to be there, worked slowly & badly & needed constant supervision. The volunteers often lacked skills, but were keen & hard working. Presumably had they been volunteering for long periods they would aquire skills. Clearly thats simplified but I think I saw enough to suggest that 'volunteers' are more motivated than 'conscripts'.  Another point is that this group will be doing jobs that others do as work - often the volunteer groups were viewed with much suspicion by local forestry & agricultural workers who saw us putting up fences, planting trees etc as taking paid work from them

Apologies, I thought you would realise I was taking the piss.

In answer to your question. No, national service should not be brought back. Why should I be forced to give up my time by a government I didn’t elect to repair the damage caused by others. Just not happening.

The problem with cutting family allowance after the second child, is that an exception needs to be made for where that child is the result of rape (and can be proven to be which is tricky), which given the nature of playgrounds, can lead to the third child being bullied for being 'a rape child'. Something which any children involved in would look at themselves with horror about once into adulthood, I am sure, but that's the danger. 

This is a complicated problem. There are those with influence who will not willing give even a little of what they have, but the world cannot continue to have increasing population without a detrimental effect.

I don't know where Worldometer get their figures from but if this page is correct in general direction only it is worrying -

https://www.worldometers.info/

Dave

Yes, it is worrying. As one of three boys, between the three of us only three of the next generation has emerged, so that's something at least on a macro level. 

I wouldn't know where to begin in encouraging people to have fewer children, but a financial penalty from the government down seems (is?) wrong in a number of ways.

Thanks - I did listen to your recommended TED talk with the IKEA boxes. V entertaining. But it did leave me with some uncomfortable reflections, because the ppl who are badged as philanthropists often benefit more than the masses they set out to help.

This is the corporate merry-go-round - which starts with tax evasion in donating funds 'charitably' - and directing them into corporate spending which benefits the astute investments (stock-market shares) of the original donors.

The final proof is this: are the rich getting richer ?

And if the 3rd child arrives - double the efforts of all three offspring.

Off to the workhouse with the lot of them, planet wrecking scamps.

"Their billions" and "fairer distribution of resources" just one sentence apart? Quite the leap.

Thats one perspective. Maybe some couples would intentionally run themselves into poverty with 5th & 6th children in order to contribute manpower towards the taskforce needed for environmental reparation  !

{ If the 1yr of service doubles with the 3rd child (ie. 2yrs), by the 6th child it would require 16yrs total service for all 6 children ie. 96 man-years  }

NB. analysis heavy with speculation and 'humeur noir' !

I watched this, after seeing various reviews of it that seemed to imply population control was a central tenet of the movie.  I was a bit surprised to find that it was something like a 30s throw-away comment made towards the end of the doc, and only suggested as part of the solution.  It's almost as if reviewers hadn't actually watched it (perish the thought).  Still, they keep referring to it as "Michael Moore's" movie, when it's not, so what do you expect....

Why?

jk

Sounds great, but while you're at it why not just stop all the pointless wars and rename the army the 'peace brigade'?

How would we call this new army of youngsters ? Boris’ Youth ?

This is an issue we have to resolve - got any suggestions ? Must any attempt to propose solutions be written off as fascist ? What other means have we - or do you believe there is really no problem ?

If there were to be a name for any British initiative how about 'Attenborough' ?

Well given that the conservatives in this country have moved from free-market capitalism to an ethno-nationalist populist movement, it's not surprising that in this context such proposal are seen reminiscent of Hitler's youth.

It's a classic technique of nationalist authoritarian regimes, enrol the youth into some kind of programme where we have the opportunity to brainwash them, usually under the pretence of some good cause for the community.

BTW I am not saying this is your intent at all, but this is exactly how such a programme if it was mandated by the central government, would be ultimately used.

Good commentary! But it seems unlikely that Boris or the conservatives would ever find motivation to make any significant effort for the environment.

And it would be better if none of the measures we know - as necessary to correct world problems - were imposed. But that leaves us in this catch 22. V little happens these days - at government level - unless there is motive to profit.

Unless perhaps we vote in the Greens - but that IS unlikely for the same reason - people know that green policies will probably 'cost' us something - relative to present lifestyle.

How about National Citizen Service?

Give it a google - it’s not quite the Hitler Youth.

They might do but only as a gimmick to create fake jobs.

As someone currently serving, I'd really rather not do it with national servicemen... Rather a professional army of people who (mostly) want to be there!

If you want to limit population growth, you have to increase the chances of children living to adulthood across the globe. If you don't believe that, watch some Hans Rosling lectures.

You could start here:

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_growth_box_by_box

Because it was created by a Conservative party that was at the time a moderate right-wing pro-free market party.

But currently it is a radical ethno-nationalist populist movement. As such their intentions with such a scheme would be completely different.