these are empirical facts, son
you can't just look at the earth as a whole and be like "welp, guess we're over populated!" that's a gross oversimplification
Instead of population control, why don't we work on colonizing other planets or moons?
I know it's difficult for you to wrap your head around it, so I'll explain it a little clearer. Sure, if we all lived in caves as in prehistoric times, we would be fine because our standards are far lower, so the stress on the environment is far lower. Now, if we all lived in houses and first world standards, all 7 billion of us with TVs and fresh water, that is not fine because it is not possible. You have to look at how much we consume as a population and not just at the rate of population growth.
We can certainly pave the way for colonization, but it's a very long-term solution to a relatively short-term problem.
Anyways though, ever hear of a population crash? You let a population rise without limits (actually more like overshooting limits) for a while, it can tumble below the environments theoretical capacity instead of leveling out. Entire species can go extinct because of this if its bad enough.
Even though third-world countries have much higher birthrates we still consume much more resources than them. I don't think we need to do anything about population growth unless it actually becomes a serious problem.
Wars used to do a pretty good job at thinning the ranks.
Instead of killing people and crazy shit like that, set up moon/mars/jupiters moon bases and space stations for people to live in.
the wars themselves didn't keep population growth down until the 20th century (WWI and WWII).
They just killed a large amount of the young men which meant the next generation was smaller.
I think nature will balance us out one way or the other. We needn't worry
To all the people screaming "Colonize the moon an jupiter and build huge space stations :buddy: !".
Humanity can barely keep resources flowing and keep in check on a planetary scale. That along with the fact we are still divided into nations, corporations, and various other things.
We don't need a "Chinese moon crisis 2042"
I think your question is already being answered by the current situation. Famine, drought and AIDS account for millions of deaths. Perhaps it is the nature and means of population growth control which is in question, not it's existence. If people are already dying because they don't have access to food and water then this is sadly acting as a population control. War is another unfortunate form of population control which is efficient, killing two birds with one stone: limiting the population and freeing up new resources. Hence why we tend to fight in countries where we have other interests, as well as a 'moral' obligation.
Several people have stated that there are no problems or evidence of them. If you are of that opinion my friend, then you clearly don't want to be bothered by all this, your normal routine and way of thinking suits you fine and Google has identified that. Thus you are safely guided to search options which are tailored to suit your wilful or accidental ignorance. In all likelihood our corporate apathy towards intervention will perpetuate until we are beyond the window of opportunity to control matters on favourable terms.
Mother earth won't die. We are mother earth and we might die, but we are part of an ever-changing world and universe. We represent a portion of the universe that is conscious of its existence in the wider context and capable of rational thought; equally capable of being irrational.
Because that's, you know, wholly wrong, and I think you should check your definition of common sense
I think birth control to one per woman isn't that bad. It takes two people to make one child so the population of the world could easily be halved after 100 years.
Also it is pretty bad and a massive infringement of rights.
Any population control should be used in developing countries if at all.
At the very least, birth control should be promoted there.
I'm also cool with the one child per family rule that China had. I don't see why people would want more kids than that. I don't even want kids; they're overrated.
Maybe two children per family would work better and keep the population constant.
There is so much unused land all over the world.
So Malthusian in this thread.
I would say that the world would be able to support population growth like those on those charts if we manage to decrease the average standard of living. Not exactly caves, but poverty will probably creep up, and we'll have to ration our resources eventually. Nothing too lethal, people may start dying earlier.
I feel that there be some sort of intelligence test in order to be eligible to have children. Just like when an immigrant wishes to become a citizen in a country, they most likely need to take a test about the country.
You might not remember from your throne of perceived superiority over in the United States but WWII decimated the male population of tons of places. Russia for example? There was no baby boom in eastern Europe that's for sure. It was very different for the European countries as they were actually fighting on a much larger scale than the US and the ground campaigns were just massive. This is a war where the greatest tank battle in history occurred between the Germans and Russians where more than 3,600 tanks were involved. and 80% of the Russian male population born in 1923 didn't survive the war. Where 1.6 million people died in the battle for Stalingrad.
Next time please think before assuming someone else is wrong.
But the cultural construction that boys are better than girls isn't just in China, its almost world wide, sans a few matriarchal tribal societies. If we enacted worldwide population control, the man/woman sex ratio phenomenon that is occurring in China would occur worldwide to a point that there are too few women for the number of men. If population control was to work out, we'd have to upheave centuries or millenia of male-dominated society (not sayings that's a bad thing, just that it would be unrealistic.)
Another reason why people have many children is to help with work, especially in agricultural areas. People in rural India have multiple kids for just this reason. You can't exactly ask someone to stop having kids when if they don't, they'll end up starving. Unless of course you feel that that would be another way to reduce worldwide population.
On the other hand there are countries such as Japan that actually have negative birth rates, such that there are fewer and fewer young people to take care of an ever increasing elderly population. In these cases they actually need to increase the number of children being born.
That's another problem with worldwide population control, not every country is the same; not every country is expanding at the same rate, if at all. It's a really complicated issue since it encompasses cultural, economic, and social issues. The only way I'd say population control would work is not forced sterilization or forced one child laws. While entirely optimistic and somewhat unrealistic, I feel that the best way go about it is just to educate and help people, both in terms of sexual health and education, and general education.