The moral issue of population growth

Quintessence said:

In the meantime, there are plenty of things a regular human can do to help that aren't particularly onerous. Simple things like supporting women's rights, lobbying to tear down the red tape for adopting, or simply speaking out as pro-childless in a world were people are still stigmatized for refusing to be breeders.

Click to expand...

Now you are talking. To solve the problem you have to focus on what people are doing right and do more of it. Educating women decreases the birthrate.

I don't think anybody is going to have any long-term success trying to enforce a lower birth rate with blue laws. You might have some success for 10 or 20 years at a time but not in a stable fashion. China is trying it, but I don't think they are able to hold it steady. Its like a slippery melon seed.

Good luck with making women want to be childless. That is highly unlikely. You might have some success in reintegrating the larger family structure so that its not a choice between absolute loneliness or coupling.

Wild Fox said:

Malthus wrote "Essay on the Principle of Population" in 1798. He predicted that population growth would lead to starvation and that increasing food production would only increase the population growth until it again reaches to the issue of starvation. Poverty is inescapable and related directly to population growth.

In early 2000 a professor of the University of Texas predicted humans had already reached the carrying capacity of the earth and increasing problems related to population and signs of the stress were already developing. He was then condemned as an abortion proponent when all he was saying was something had to be done to slow down population growth without mentioning abortion.

The city of San Antonio is reaching the limits of the gigantic underground Edwards aquifer that supplies the city with water. They are now considering pumping water from lakes to the north.

Despite what we know will eventually happen the population of the world is growing faster with only disaster ahead. Despite this we are advancing medicine to save lives and let people grow older and increasing the demand on the earth for more food and water.

Is uncontrolled population growth a moral issue and if so how can we respond?

Click to expand...

The human colonization of Mars, increasing living space, is the ultimate solution for getting rid of over-crowded places here on Earth.

There should be no worries about high levels of atmospheric CH4 and C02 due to industrialization or overpopulation, because these greenhouse gases could be sent away to Mars where they'd transform Mars into a warmer planet; this methane and carbon dioxide would help transform Mars into a way more comfortable place for sustaining life from Earth. Any excessive levels of these green house gases could simply be transported via the Space X interplanetary transport system from Earth to Mars.

The first step towards forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere around Mars as well as on the surface of Mars ( terraforrming ) is the deployment of a magnetic shield that protects Mars against the solar wind stripping of its atmosphere. This magnetic shielding would subsequently allow the planet's atmosphere to reacquire its former density that'd be high enough to allow for sustainable surface liquid water.




Reference: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magne...phere.html

An effective artificial magnetosphere placed at Langrangian point 1 from Mars is very achievable with foreseeable technology. This magnetic shielding apparatus could weigh less than a few hundred tonnes which is within the load capacity of a big Falcon 9 rocket. I'm guessing the cost of protecting the Martian atmosphere with an artificial magnetosphere would probably be similar to the cost of a small nuclear reactor.




In addition to CH4 (methane) and C02 (carbon dioxide), some few billion tonnes of sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6) could increase Martian atmospheric surface temperatures by over 20 degrees Celsius. Sulfur hexafluoride - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SpaceX interplanetary transport system could deliver this super greenhouse gas to Mars at a cost of less than $2,000/kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mar...astructure

A few hundred thousand tonnes of SF6 delivered annually to Mars would cost just approximately $500 billion yearly. This is less than a fraction of a percent of the global economic output value. An accumulation of a few billion tonnes of SF6 at an annual rate of a few hundred thousand tonnes would take less than ten thousand years. The annual cost of less than $100 per person per year on Earth would be totally worth transforming Mars into a world with triple its current atmospheric pressure and a warmer Mars with average surface temperatures greater than typical summer Antarctic temperatures.

The forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere around Mars as well as on the surface of Mars ( terraforrming ) would create many high tech jobs, and save planet Earth by way of transferring away its harmful global warming green house gases to Mars where these gases would be beneficial as they'd contribute to forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparble to Earth's biosphere. This project ( terraforming ) to make Mars a better place for human colonization there should be dubbed the "Green New Deal for Earth and Mars". I'd favor the "Green New Deal for Earth and Mars" instead of the Green New Deal that'd only be focused on Earth alone.

We Never Know said:

On the bright side of things, over population is helping push advancements in science.

Click to expand...

Why would you think such a thing?

If anything, it creates social problems that are a very unwelcome distraction from scientific research.

Wild Fox said:

Is uncontrolled population growth a moral issue and if so how can we respond?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a serious, serious problem, and a moral one at that.

I've turned this issue over my entire life. The truth is that asking for voluntary limitations on children will never work. Government enforcement is draconian, and you would still have people disobeying. The easiest way to decrease the population to an appropriate level would be a world wide deadly pandemic. If we did this on purpose, it would be highly immoral at face value -- no can do. All we can do, I'm afraid, is hope and pray that a natural pandemic will it before it's too late.

Wild Fox said:

Malthus wrote "Essay on the Principle of Population" in 1798. He predicted that population growth would lead to starvation and that increasing food production would only increase the population growth until it again reaches to the issue of starvation. Poverty is inescapable and related directly to population growth.

In early 2000 a professor of the University of Texas predicted humans had already reached the carrying capacity of the earth and increasing problems related to population and signs of the stress were already developing. He was then condemned as an abortion proponent when all he was saying was something had to be done to slow down population growth without mentioning abortion.

The city of San Antonio is reaching the limits of the gigantic underground Edwards aquifer that supplies the city with water. They are now considering pumping water from lakes to the north.

Despite what we know will eventually happen the population of the world is growing faster with only disaster ahead. Despite this we are advancing medicine to save lives and let people grow older and increasing the demand on the earth for more food and water.

Is uncontrolled population growth a moral issue and if so how can we respond?

Click to expand...

Easy. Tell the Democrats to stop it with the nanny State garbage and bring back the good things in life like they were in the 50s and 60s. Lower the smoking age, put that wonderful fatty grease back into Foods that made it taste so so much better then than it is now. Let people smoke again wherever they want, eliminate all seatbelt and helmet laws, maybe even allow them to have a brewski while driving in rural unpopulated areas like the old days. Put asbestos back into brake drums to make them much more better than they are now.

Nature will take care of the rest.

Brickjectivity said:

Currently we reproduce at slightly more than replacement levels, but when the population reaches a certain amount the replacement will again equal the death rate. Only then will we know for sure what limitations we must all accept on food, water, manufacturing, energy and transportation.

Click to expand...

This is nonsense. We (most western countries that have swallowed this crap) currently average at 1.2 population growth. Replacement is 2.0 meaning in one generation our population will half. Further, the so called overpopulation, in America at least, is masked by old people. The boomer generation are six kids or whatever. Their kids have 3 kids. Their kids one kid or less, and tend to also believe in abortions. My family was raised Christian. My siblings each have 2 kids. I have none, because the one I love doesn't want to date or marry, she just wants to be friends. And I don't want to love another.

When the last boomer dies, we will be underpopulated, and then people will talk about importing people. How about you just have sex like normal people?

sun rise said:

Population growth includes immigration. The number I care about for this thread is birth rate. U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

Click to expand...

There's always a REASON for low population growth.

Wild Fox said:

Is uncontrolled population growth a moral issue and if so how can we respond?

Click to expand...

Watch >this, the World Population Clock< and see in real time what we're talking about. Its implications are as terrifying as its sense of being inexorable.

Wild Fox said:

Is uncontrolled population growth a moral issue and if so how can we respond?

Click to expand...

I would describe it as an ethical issue. If people who would/will be horrible parents didn't have children all would be solved.

Valjean said:

Only to humans? Are our numbers not affecting all other species; the whole ecosystem?

Animals and plants rarely have unlimited growth. There are checks and balances, but when the checks and balances are interrupted, as in the case of invasive species or eutrification of waterways, things go South fast.

Something will fix overpopulation? Sounds like pie-in-the-sky thinking to me.
We may already have passed the tipping point, so even if growth stopped today there would be no stopping the ecological collapse.
We've already been living beyond the planet's carrying capacity for some time. Consumption has long outstripped replacement rates. All natural systems are in decline.

Click to expand...

All animals and plants will eventually die out if they don't adapt. Humans are just apart of the evolution system as were Dinosaurs. Just because humans are better at killing things off doesn't make them different from the other animals. My parents home town had to boil and import water because of an over population of beavers. There excrement was poisoning the cities reservoir.

No species can physically overpopulate the earth with out disaster happening but the earth will survive and certain species will thrive. Will there be suffering yes. Will it be deserved yes. We are not going to exist to the end of time and nor will any of the species surrounding us. You are worried about a future that doesn't matter. Live for today.

Wild Fox said:

Malthus wrote "Essay on the Principle of Population" in 1798. He predicted that population growth would lead to starvation and that increasing food production would only increase the population growth until it again reaches to the issue of starvation. Poverty is inescapable and related directly to population growth.

In early 2000 a professor of the University of Texas predicted humans had already reached the carrying capacity of the earth and increasing problems related to population and signs of the stress were already developing. He was then condemned as an abortion proponent when all he was saying was something had to be done to slow down population growth without mentioning abortion.

The city of San Antonio is reaching the limits of the gigantic underground Edwards aquifer that supplies the city with water. They are now considering pumping water from lakes to the north.

Despite what we know will eventually happen the population of the world is growing faster with only disaster ahead. Despite this we are advancing medicine to save lives and let people grow older and increasing the demand on the earth for more food and water.

Is uncontrolled population growth a moral issue and if so how can we respond?

Click to expand...

In the short term, people electing to have fewer children overall -and campaigns to show that such is necessary and beneficial -would be the best way to address such a problem where it exists -whether locally, or eventually globally.
Doing so is as "green" as anything else people might do for the benefit of all.

From a biblical perspective, it will not be a local issue for long -and things will change before it becomes an extreme global problem.

Unfortunately, the first change is a decimation of population due to war, famine, disease, natural disaster -and even, toward the end, the returning Christ defeating those who attempt to war against him at his return (search: "Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against those nations", "shall destroy those who destroy the Earth" and "these shall make war with the Lamb") -and various "last plagues".

Fortunately, "the slain of the Lord" will all be resurrected, have the opportunity to live forever -and be given a "glorious" spirit "body" with extreme creative power similar to that which allows the Word who became Chrst to "subdue all things into himself".

"Science" is beginning to realize that we can not practically go out into the universe as humans -but such a body will allow for it.

It is written that "the heavens" we're not made "in vain" but "formed to be inhabited."

Remté said:

I would describe it as an ethical issue. If people who would/will be horrible parents didn't have children all would be solved.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to derail the thread.

But I see one of the biggest disasters of RoevWade as the number of Americans being raised by incompetent parents. People who were in no way "willing and able" to raise children in a loving and secure home. They just thought that they were entitled to sex, even though they were insufficiently responsible to use adequate birth control measures.
Tom

columbus said:

I don't mean to derail the thread.

But I see one of the biggest disasters of RoevWade as the number of Americans being raised by incompetent parents.

Click to expand...

Au contraire.
Another view.
Electing to abort means that a mother didn't want the kid.
If forced to have the kid anyway, she's less likely to be a good parent.
Tis best if children are born to parents who really want them.

Besides, now you have the right to not get an abortion if you so choose.

Revoltingest said:

Au contraire.
Another view.
Electing to abort means that a mother didn't want the kid.
If forced to have the kid anyway, she's less likely to be a good parent.
Tis best if children are born to parents who really want them.

Click to expand...

It's one of those unintended consequences.

People who feel entitled to sex, because it isn't connected to procreation in a post RvW world, don't get abortions either. So, a bunch of kids are stuck with parents who's only credentials are "too irresponsible to use adequate birth control and too irresponsible to raise a child properly".
And they don't even get an abortion.

The problem I see is irresponsible people feeling entitled to potentially fertile sex.

Have I mentioned that I see homosex as rather more moral than irresponsible potential parents having sex that is "open to life"? If not, I will say it now. Homosex is way more moral than breeders doing it when they aren't prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood.
Tom

Wild Fox said:

Malthus wrote "Essay on the Principle of Population" in 1798. He predicted that population growth would lead to starvation and that increasing food production would only increase the population growth until it again reaches to the issue of starvation. Poverty is inescapable and related directly to population growth.

In early 2000 a professor of the University of Texas predicted humans had already reached the carrying capacity of the earth and increasing problems related to population and signs of the stress were already developing. He was then condemned as an abortion proponent when all he was saying was something had to be done to slow down population growth without mentioning abortion.

The city of San Antonio is reaching the limits of the gigantic underground Edwards aquifer that supplies the city with water. They are now considering pumping water from lakes to the north.

Despite what we know will eventually happen the population of the world is growing faster with only disaster ahead. Despite this we are advancing medicine to save lives and let people grow older and increasing the demand on the earth for more food and water.

Is uncontrolled population growth a moral issue and if so how can we respond?

Click to expand...

I would say, Yes it is a moral issue, for this reason...



How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
In 1960, nonmarital births were quite rare. Today, about two-fifths of all births are to unmarried women. This resulted from a complicated combination of moral and behavioral changes, and a new report from Senator Mike Lee’s Social Capital Project disentangles them.

Why Are So Many Millennials Having Children Out of Wedlock?
A new study shows that access to jobs and income inequality are shaping this generation’s decisions to start a family.

72% of black children are born out of wedlock... and counting.

If there was a reverse in people's view, and they lived according to the Bible's moral code, we could just imagine the significance reduction in population growth.
However, this is another glaring evidence of the results of mankind's choice to be independent of the creator, and their rejection of his wise and loving direction... in my view.

The problem will not go away - "the cat is out of the bag".
Only God's kingdom will solve this and all other problems... in my view.

columbus said:

It's one of those unintended consequences.

People who feel entitled to sex, because it isn't connected to procreation in a post RvW world, don't get abortions either. So, a bunch of kids are stuck with parents who's only credentials are "too irresponsible to use adequate birth control and too irresponsible to raise a child properly".
And they don't even get an abortion.

The problem I see is irresponsible people feeling entitled to potentially fertile sex.

Have I mentioned that I see homosex as rather more moral than irresponsible potential parents having sex that is "open to life"? If not, I will say it now. Homosex is way more moral than breeders doing it when they aren't prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood.
Tom

Click to expand...

The right to irresponsible sex is a strong one.
Abortion is an effective Plan B. I know that some believe
it's immoral, but this only their personal view, & not to be
imposed upon others. But in fairness, pro-abortion types
like me won't force them to get one.

Decades ago, when the AIDS epidemic first became known,
I heard a lesbian claim that they must be God's chosen people
because they had the lowest incidence of the disease.
I've no counter to that claim.

Revoltingest said:

Here's the problem....
The limit will be at a population level which sees far more denuding of the
land & oceans than now. Will our quality of life get better with more people,
or get worse with loss of natural environment, & mass extinctions?

Click to expand...

Quality of life will go down. The arrogant position we are so separate from our natural environment the we can fix everything ourselves is an incredible error. Just one example of many is utilization of water which has resulted is loss of ground water storage which increases draught and ultimately affects the availability of food in the long run. California which has tried to control its water by damming, pumping, aqueducts and every other form of control of water at the expense of the natural of its water control has increased its risk for fires erosion compounded with what we are doing to our climate is showing devastating results.

Wild Fox said:

Quality of life will go down. The arrogant position we are so separate from our natural environment the we can fix everything ourselves is an incredible error. Just one example of many is utilization of water which has resulted is loss of ground water storage which increases draught and ultimately affects the availability of food in the long run. California which has tried to control its water by damming, pumping, aqueducts and every other form of control of water at the expense of the natural of its water control has increased its risk for fires erosion compounded with what we are doing to our climate is showing devastating results.

Click to expand...

You're good!
You caught the double posting quickly.

Quintessence said:

Some recent news coverage related to the issue: Threat to food as biodiversity declines

Click to expand...

Excellent article. This concept was known as far back as when observed by Alexander Humboldt and yet 100's of years later an insufficient number of people understand this yet reveal in the glory of all of our amazing technology. The truth is humans cannot manage the world better than the natural forces that created our world. Until we learn to maintain the balance in favor of the non-human world and stop our rampant destruction of it, we are doomed. Ironically I was and optimist once but the rate of destruction with no evidence of slowing down despite some local heroic attempts has given me little to be optimistic about. The president of the United States does not help my pessimism either. Trying desperately to be optimistic again.

sun rise said:

Population growth includes immigration. The number I care about for this thread is birth rate. U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

Click to expand...

Go look at the actual numbers of the rate of population growth. Yes some countries have leveled off growth but the total world population continues to grow too fast.