links for fertility rates:
fertility
It's pretty obvious that even though as birth rates are lower in the first world, they're dropping in the third world as well. Bosnia at 1.22, Brunei at 2.22, Mexico at 2.42 and India at 2.73 are good geographic and economic samples as they're all very different. It's fairly evident as such that dropping birth rates is largely a product of birth control methods, contraceptives, abortion rights. Also since birth rates dropped fastest in the first world, it's evidence that The key difference - I think - between first and third world is the easier access to birth control.

The explosive growth of the past century was fuelled by rising life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates, but the recent decline which I believe will lead to an eventual clawback is fuelled by availability of contraceptives and financial concerns. Ask most North Americans why they don't have four kids, let's say, and a very common response is money. Family is more expensive these days, for example a bigger house in a nice neighbourhood is more expensive than it used to be, that's a direct consequence of population growth.

Draconian measures could only lead to disaster followed by backlash. The present method of disseminating birth control methods is working and will continue to work as birth rates have already fallen below 2 in most western countries and are now doing so in third world countries as well.

quote:

---

along with all the impact on the enviroment this will mean. How about Canada, we're at 33? million. Yes we ar4e a large country but our pop is draped along the southern border.

---

The bulk of Canada's population growth is due to immigration and as such the most effective means of reducing population growth is by lowering immigration. Unfortunately, I don't think it's politically feasible to analyze the immigration issue purely through a population control lens due to the cultural, racial and humanitarian issues necessarily raised.

[ 18 July 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Ecological Footprint Test.

And by the way, brown and black and FN people are already the majority on the planet now. And the numbers are only going to get larger. Tee hee.

If we want to seriously talk about resources and sustainability of sweet Mother Earth, then let's talk about the lavish Western lifestyle of Canada and the U.S., cultures of throw-away packaging, virtually unchecked vehicle / industrial pollution and "outdated" cellphones / computers that get dumped into landfills every 6 months, to name just 3 of our detrimental-to-the-earth habits.

I will not engage in a couched racist discussion about how many (brown/black) people are too many. Nor should babble, if that's where this thread is heading.

[ 18 July 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

Why do people in third world countries leave less of a footprint (per person) than we do? How many old VCR's, cassette tapes, diapers, fast food containers, etc. do they throw out? And how many Darfur tribesmen have flash frozen chicken 'nuggets' shipped across the country to the 7-11, where they can drive there in the SUV (most likely alone, and most likely 2 blocks away or less) to get them, throw them in the microwave, and eat them with plastic forks and styrofoam plates?

Point I am trying to make, most of the excesses that we generate through our habits are foisted off on us (and we are usually only to happy to run out and get the newest, coolest thing going) by a system that is actually DESIGNED to get us to never be happy with what we already have, throw away rather than repair, and consume consume consume.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Western Waffler:
A question? At what point in time do progressives begin asking how many people does this earth need to support? We're at 6 billion now, do we accept a planet of 10? 20? 50? 100 billion?

---

I would assume that rather than levelling off at 11 billion it will reach 11 billion and then begin to decrease for some time until reaching a new equilibrium. I don't think you'll ever see Toronto reach 15 million people... at very large sizes most cities become unlivable due to traffic congestion unless they were explicitly designed for these sizes. A recent article in New Scientist magazine, "Ecopolis", discussed the levelling off of populations in Sao Paulo, Calcutta, Mumbai, Jakarta, all cities which were predicted to go way north of 30 million people.

I'm wondering if people would be willing to accept the following things, to reduce Canada's footprint:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Western Waffler,
I'm wondering if people would be willing to accept the following things, to reduce Canada's footprint:

1) Immigration reductions
2) Genetically Modified foods which are more efficient
3) rations
4) consumption taxes

---

I wouldn't accept any, beyond well integrated and properly focused consumption taxes, plus stronger regulation of producers and suppliers, and greater redistribution of wealth to reduce the artificial demand for an ever growing economic 'pie'. If starvation directly threatens rationing may become a necessity, but until then they're a hopeless cause and probably counter productive. With a few small exceptions, perhaps, GM products are part of the problem not the solution. Bringing back more active but voluntary birth control campaigns maybe acceptable, but so far not terribly effective in traditional nations where there's little or no social welfare beyond the extended family. More intelligent foreign policy in the West could decrease demand for wasteful and destructive military spending.

IMO it's the West that needs a more focused strategy to develop and integrate alternative energy sources and reduce excess demand and waste, like better massive transit and more fuel efficent yet modest homes and apartments (smaller average size would help accomplish both), personal savings being redirected again into building more efficiently designed infrastructure and businesses that supply them. (would also help reduce conflict over oil supplies) Reducing domestic demand would also require a more intelligent and less corrupt land development process, more integrated recycling and sewage treatment, and very likely, mandatory water catchment systems and bans on excessive water use in already arid areas.

A cultural shift in our attitudes about conspicuous consumption and relative status would help most of this along immensely, but that's more sociology than science. Other countries could follow our lead with serious financial and technical assistance, and perhaps some carefully applied political/economic pressure in some cases, but none of this is likely to happen on a meaningful scale anytime soon. We like our conveniences, comforts and toys and prefer that others pay through poverty and war.

But that's just MO. 8)

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

The only reason so many can live on Earth now is that modern technology allows a lot of people to live away from the farmland. This is something Malthus didn't anticipate.

Unfortunately, the course of technology is hard to predict, but one shouldn't discount the possibility that the same people with the big footprint make it possible for there to be as many ppl as there are now.

Growth is always limited at some point as is space. Marginal savings account for very little, if most are then spent on further consumption or profit taking or enjoyed by one small section of the population. I'm not saying we should just give up on technology (we're not going to anyhow) but at this point I'm predicting that famine, plague, warfare and natural catastrophes will take care of our resource shortages for us.

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
. . . Cornucopean notions of wealth production are potentially more lethal than Malthusian fears and less well established. . . .

---

True, and well put, but you may be setting up a false dichotomy. I vaguely hope there is a most sensible approach between these two polar opposite outlooks. Having an active technology sector is not an all or nothing proposition, but whatever technology sector we, as a society, decide to allow, it will require a bigger-than-sustenance-level resources footprint.

ON EDIT:
Think about the kind of society that was necessary to develop the railroads and airplanes and printing presses and Internet and such that we rely on to survive as resource efficiently as a human species as we do now. Could these technolgies have developed in sustenance level societies? My initial guess is "no."

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/reproduction/2002jensenetal.htm

quote:

---

4) I got 3.3 Earths on the ecological footprint test. Never taken it before. I suspect however that virtually nobody gets below 1.0, and as such population control is arguably a long-term issue regardless of lavish lifestyles versus frugal lifestyles.

---

Virtually nobody??? That's the whole point. Most people in the world have a footprint far less than 1.0, otherwise we really would need more than one earth.