Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

From New Scientist on whether we should impose population control


From Daniel Cossins at New Scientist:

The ethics issue: Should we impose population controls?

Future generations risk inheriting an overcrowded, suffocating planet. Taking action may mean what was taboo is now common sense

Um, er, just a minute here. Who are the “we”? One sensse that the “we” are childless-by-choice types like most of Europe’s top leaders. So there must be a “they” somewhere out there. Who are the “they”? Africa?

Fears that we are too many are nothing new. As long ago as 1798, the English writer Thomas Malthus warned that a growing population would eat its way through the planet’s finite resources, condemning millions to die of starvation.

Fast forward. Thanks to visionary scientists like John “gene gun” Sanford, we are well on our way to becoming Planet Fat.

No seriously, obesity is a growing problem worldwide. Starvation is now common mainly in places plagued by toxic government.

As often happens in history, some groups choose low (or no) birthrates and others choose high ones. Over time, that changes the mix of humans.

The children of people who did have children must deal with the problems of their existence. Children who never existed do not. And people who choose not to have children have their nerve prophesying doom and threatening others with coercion.

Demographics is a game of last man standing, as Mark Steyn puts it, and someone will inherit the Earth. One rather hopes it’ll be the meek.

New Scientist offers to tell us more if we pay.

See also: Surprise, surprise, social psych tool for measuring racism doesn’t work

How about the fact that 30% of the animal biomass on earth is made up of us humans, 67% are our domesticated animals, and only 3% is left for “wild” animals?
Do you have a source for that? AFAIK, this is way off. Unless you are talking about mammals only; then perhaps it's plausible. Edit: perhaps I'm replying to a spambot? :P daveS
We are 1850-2,865 times more populous today than 10,000 years ago at the start of the agricultural revolution when our ancestors were hunter-gatherers living in migratory clan social groups and in a balanced relationship with the rest of the biome. Is this not enough to suggest that we are massively overpopulated today? OK, then how about the 28,000,000 homeless migrants wandering the world today? How about the fact that "population density stress is killing us today and is becoming more potent by the day, as we bring 220,000 net new souls into this already overcrowded world daily? How about the fact that 30% of the animal biomass on earth is made up of us humans, 67% are our domesticated animals, and only 3% is left for "wild" animals? Have you noticed that US infertility rates have risen 100% in 34 years: 8% in 1982, but 16.7 in 2016, or that sperm counts in the West have fallen 60% over 43 years reviewed? Population density stress is a long evolved mechanism to reduce our overpopulation and re-balance the ecosystem. Since 1929, our population in the US has increased 2.7 times, but our medical costs have gone up 946 times. Why? Mother Nature is trying to rid Herself of a plague of humans. After having to do my english homework on overpopulation I understood if we don't voluntarily restrict our reproduction worldwide to one-child per family on average, we are headed for extinction, according to animal models that have been studied for over 70 years, but are NEVER published in the MSM. Read the newly published "Stress R Us" on Amazon Books for the details, or just stick your head in the sand and wait for the end. Stress R Us al33c
As a Christian protestant I am “pro-choice” when it comes to most forms of birth control (but not abortion.) But to really be pro-choice it has to be voluntary and free of government mandates. How ironic those pro-abortion advocates who use pro-choice as a euphemism, because they can’t admit without shame what they really are, have no problem when comes to forcing people to use birth control or to even have an abortion. It exposes the truth about their position. It has always been disingenuous and dishonest, not to mention hypocritical. This is nothing more than eugenics redux. Where did the eugenics movement lead? Read the history of the 1930’s and early 1940’s. Do we really want to revisit the holocaust? john_a_designer
harry @6, I'm simply stating the obvious. harry is correct about abundent resources. The most effective distributor of those food resources whenever disaster stikes Africa (as it invariably does), is the UN. The Red Cross, and other religious aid organisations are also excellent, but in disasters it is the UN that leads; why should/would this change? I realise the UN is unpopular in many parts of US society, but it is still the organisation that is first port of call in famine and disaster relief. When disaster strikes the US in the form of hurricanes and perhaps earthquakes it is the Federal government that leads the relief, not google, Ford, or any other private company; Churches of course offer wonderful support, but the role of Reliever in Chief, is the Fed.(Which begs the question: Why do so many Americans villify the too big Government, and then scream blue murder when they are slow to act? Don't they want the Fed out of their lives?) So harry here is my question; Why do you think diffused power to small organisations is the answer to the fair distribution of food? The task is far too big for the Churches, or even private charities. And corporations can't make a profit here. The only way (if governments worldwide could conceivably work as one) would be for a central committee, coordinating the armed forces. These armed forces from the various countries, have the equipment, manpower, and resources to distribute the excess food; not small organisations working at cross purposes, that was clearly seen in Haiti. chris haynes, discussions here on abortion are pointless. My point of view is well known. I supprt abortion as long as the woman and her doctor have consulted, it should be safe and free, and most certainly deserves no furter input from cranks, hotheads and third parties. You can call me any number of silly names, but in my country free and safe abortions have been available for over fifty years. Any poltician that even looks like trying to water this right down realises they are in for a hiding in the polls. I also note that in the US, despite the braying, of FOX, and the religious right, the vast majority of US women also support this fundamental right. The thing aboutbirth is that it is a neat line, the baby is outside the mother and we call it a person. Before that it is a zygote, embryo, fetus. Not a perfect distinction I'll grant, but an important one. rvb8
rvb8, The trend in recent history has been toward more centralized power. Concurrently, wealth is becoming increasingly consolidated. This is not a coincidence. Wealth follows power. Centralized power will always be useful to the wealthy who have the most access to it and the greatest ability to bend it to their own purposes. Redistribute the power and the wealth will follow. Phinehas
Dear RVB8 Abortion is the willful killing of an innocent and helpless human being, by somebody more powerful. And you say that should be legal. I assume you would support the killing of ANY weak and innocent human being by a more powerful person. If not, why not? chris haynes
rvb8 @5,
harry suggests there are enough resources to support double our population if we just adequately distributed it, and shared it. He is correct, but it would need collectivastion, world government, and central control,(UN decision making)
You couldn't be more wrong about what would be needed. What would be needed is a diffusion of power, not centralized power in a world government. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why the American Founders deliberately diffused power, and why Catholic Social Teaching insists on subsidiarity. harry
Now, we are talking about population control, this of course is essential if our planet is to survive. harry, suggests there are enough resources to support double our population if we just adequately distributed it, and shared it. He is correct, but it would need collectivastion, world government, and central control,(UN decision making) something I believe all the good Christians here might find ideologically unpallatable. Barry suggess the Chinese efforts have been a failure and they have relented from a 'One Child' policy to an official 'Two Child' policy today. This is true, I live there and can vouch for this change in ideology, but the change was made for practical, not humanitarian reasons; they need more tax payers to support an aging population. I have one more thing to say on gross overpopulation, and it is this; All of the morality police shaming, abortion, and contraception villifiers, are people living in wealthy countries with solid incomes, individual mobility, and freedom to do and say pretty much what they will. I suggest these reproductive 'snowflakes' take a moment of empathy, and imagine the life of a poor Chinese, African, Indian villager trapped in a world of meagre food, unsure futures, and despotic governments. Population control, and government support sounds very good to people with no future, they're the ones clinging to boats in the Mediterrainian sea. rvb8
Less than one percent of the adult population of the Earth possesses nearly half of its wealth. Nearly 75 percent of the adult population are attempting to provide for their families with their tiny share of less than 2.5 percent of the wealth of the Earth. See: Global Wealth Report 2016 and scroll down to Global Wealth Pyramid How did this happen? Well, the globalist elite have corrupted governments around the world such that they are basically subsidiaries of globalist multinational corporations, serving their agenda instead of the legitimate interests of their own citizens. This causes massive poverty. The globalist elite have a fix for this poverty they themselves have created: Coercive population control measures and "legal" baby killing, mandatory where possible. Basically, the globalists impoverish entire populations and then attempt to exterminate them. God isn't looking down upon planet Earth with a confused look on His face, scratching His head and saying to Himself, "Dang! I didn't make that sucker big enough!" There are enough resources on the planet for a much larger population. The problem is unbounded avarice, and then attempting to fix the horrible results of such avarice with diabolical social engineering. harry
Are they aware much of the West is in demographic collapse or heading that way? Or, what that means? kairosfocus
Just as China is acknowledging the abject failure of its experiment with forced population control, Western idiots come out with blitherings like this. Do they never learn? Barry Arrington

Leave a Reply