The Most Important Video you Will Ever See

[TithonusSyndrome]

They've been trying to educate the poor masses on that and similar issues for decades. Remember though, it's not enough to give them free condoms; you actually have to show them how to put them on, otherwise they wind up nailing them on the front door like a horseshoe.

I wasn't aware any effort had gone into making any concerted campaign to inform most third world nations about this problem. Condom-related efforts are to the best of my knowledge intended to curb the spread of AIDS and the like, with it being a contraceptive only being a nifty perk. I heard it was becoming popular among educated Indian circles to reduce births, but not really anything else.

[Traveller]

I found his presentation strongest when he focused on how math can show just what one, two, or three % annual growth really means. When I was a "kid" there were about 210 Million americans. Now, a little over two decades later, there are more than 300 million of them. Projections show I will most likely see within my lifetime, an america approaching 400 million people. Which will be of course, a disaster for this planet. I also like the way he de-constructs the numerous, "we have enough coal to last for 1000 years" claims that I have heard made over the years. These comments of course naturally never mention what the atmopshere would feel(not look-feel) like after a milenium of intesive coal burning, but thats another topic. I've always been skeptical of such claims, but was not exactly sure how or why they were suspect-not now. At least now we can rest assured that well probably run out of that crap long before 1000 years pass. All my life, I have mostly watch things get "bigger" but I would be hard pressed to find examples of how things have gotten "better", in any meaningful way. IOW, I have seen a lot growth simply for the sake of growth. The problem with the current system boils down to this, everyone wants (or claims) they want a stable population, but they just want it to "happen" on its own, without the mess or hassle of actually doing something to make that happen. Too controversial and all that. We also want unlimited growth economically, because that too, is un-questionably "good". No one has ever been handed any power when they advocate stable or even decreases in growth to my knowledge.

[tim31]

Sorry Tith, it was probably a bit much of a generalization.

I heard it was becoming popular among educated Indian circles to reduce births, but not really anything else.

This is all good and well in the educated circles, but what about everyone else? Every time there is even a small increase to the quality of life in India either on one level or across the board, it costs a shit-ton of money. Thus the people at the bottom don't fare so well, and are still having kids as a means of income*; refer to Sarevok's observations in this thread. The poor unwashed masses don't care about the bigger picture when they're fighting an uphill battle to keep themselves going. Hell, you don't even need to look in the slums for that mindset, you can find it in middle-class suburbia with regards to the environment.




*It should be pointed out that people do this in Australia too; but they don't need to send the kids out to beg. The government simply pays up.

[Korvan]

Can't say that I'm optimistic about the whole state of affairs. Even with the growing awareness of peak oil and climate change, people still freaked out the minute economic growth was threatened. It's like driving a car towards a cliff, blowing a tire and then scrambling to fix the flat as fast as possible to resume driving towards the cliff again.

[Darkdrium]

It just goes to show you just how much more important wealth and constant economic growth is to us than actually having a future.

[ray245]

It just goes to show you just how much more important wealth and constant economic growth is to us than actually having a future.

I don't think that many people even know that wealth/constant economic growth and having a sustainable future can be mutually exclusive.

[Winston Blake]

Here are some thoughts. As I see it, there are two things which must be done to achieve a stable, sustainable population:
1. Increase the population size which can be sustained (i.e. increase carrying capacity)
2. Match the birth rate to the death rate (i.e. reduce the birth rate)

For #1, people need food, energy, industry, etc, which leads right into Climate Change and Peak Oil. I do not know how these can be solved, but it largely all comes down to creating a cheap, low-emission energy supply.

For #2, increasing the death rate by war, disease, famine, culling or ROLLERBALL (the lesser-known 5th horse of the Apocalypse) is assumed to be undesirable. Further, since many developed countries have stable populations already, action has to take place in developing countries.

Now, to reduce the birth rate, you can:
1. Reduce the number of children per family
2. Increase the time between consecutive children within a family
3. Increase the average age of starting a family

China did #1, but probably should have done #2, and Japan is having trouble with #3.

Anyway, in many developing countries, there are reasons to do the opposite of all 3 things above.
1. A large family ensures there will be people to care for you in your old age
2. More children ASAP increases the total income of the family
3. Lack or under-use of birth control

Tentative solutions:
1. A robust superannuation scheme
2. More/better skilled jobs so kids are a long-term high-cost education investment instead of cheap labour
3. Family planning education and resources (i.e. speeches, booklets, and condoms)

Also, any reduction in birth rate will cause a brief period of having an 'aged population' in the future, which is another problem to be solved. This means a robust superannuation scheme is even more important.

#2 is a problem because you need skilled workers to create skilled job industries, and you need skilled jobs to encourage creation of skilled workers.

So yeah: superannuation, education, and family planning. If developed countries can help developing countries pin those down, and also somehow create cheap, low-emission energy (nuclear?), then maybe overpopulation can be solved.

[Samuel]

Or you could reduce resource usage per capita to almorate some of the problems.