Overpopulation

How do we combat it and control it? If we truly want a free and socialist society it is our duty to remedy this bourgeois problem. We have to realize that ever since the rebellion of the Third Estate and the bourgeois mode of production came into being, people could afford to raise much larger families. Along with other problems caused by the bourgeois world, overpopulation is one of them. If the current fertility trends stay the same as they are now, it is estimated in 150 years the population could reach 296 billion. This is obviously a serious problem if we are looking the raise living standards for the working class as well as maintain the environment.

What are some socialist solutions? Family planning? One or two children per family?

Pantheon Rising wrote:How do we combat it and control it? If we truly want a free and socialist society it is our duty to remedy this bourgeois problem. We have to realize that ever since the rebellion of the Third Estate and the bourgeois mode of production came into being, people could afford to raise much larger families. Along with other problems caused by the bourgeois world, overpopulation is one of them. If the current fertility trends stay the same as they are now, it is estimated in 150 years the population could reach 296 billion. This is obviously a serious problem if we are looking the raise living stands for the working class as well as maintain the environment.

What are some socialist solutions? Family planning? One or two children per family?

A good question comrade and one I have often pondered myself but I have feeling that Mother Earth will probably sort this little problem out herself and it probably wont be nice but will no doubt be crucial to our planets survival.

Empirical data suggests that economic development and a corresponding rise in living standards reduces the aggregate size of a population in the long term. Large families tend to be an economic necessity in underdeveloped nations, for a number of reasons — such as the significant role agricultural production plays in those societies and the substantially higher mortality rates amongst the populations.

What makes the situations in China and India unique is the fact that they are both transitioning into developed countries. Their current stage(s) of development therefore leave vast portions of their populations in areas outside of their respective industrial epicenters; thus maintaining many of the material preconditions that foster higher population growth levels.

However, I think we need to be clear on the fact that population size, in and of itself, does not necessarily cause a proportional level of environmental degradation. Take the following chart—which displays global CO2 emissions by country—for example:


Juxtapose this to the relevant population levels:


Clearly, you can see that the emission levels are not strictly proportional to population size. This is also the case in terms of resource consumption. Take the following figures for example:


Given these facts, I think we should be sure to avoid being too Malthusian in our approach to this question. Instead, these issues have to be addressed in a manner which takes into account all of the known factors that are involved in the earth's current environmental and ecological plight.

Overpopulation seems to be a problem only in Third World ( and some Second World) countries. No First World country is in danger of it. In fact in many European countries a shrinking population is a problem. So I say let the countries that face it deal it with it themselves the best way they can.

Admin wrote:Given these facts, I think we should be sure to avoid being too Malthusian in our approach to this question. Instead, these issues have to be addressed in a manner which takes into account all of the known factors that are involved in the earth's current environmental and ecological plight.

Well, we are not simply worried about CO2 emissions here we are also worried about 1.) energy. With a growing population earth's natural resources such as fossil fuels will be used up faster. They simply can not last forever. 2.) The destruction of woodland to house more people. Statistics show that the rural populations are decreasing while urban populations are exploding. Imagine in hundreds of years the entire face of the earth covered with houses and a big urban area.

There is really a need to control population. It simply can not keep multiplying like it is; or our future generations will end up with a torn; ugly, resource barren world.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: Overpopulation seems to be a problem only in Third World ( and some Second World) countries. No First World country is in danger of it. In fact in many European countries a shrinking population is a problem. So I say let the countries that face it deal it with it themselves the best way they can.

Not in the first world yet, but our problem here in the first world is that the population is indeed exploding. The indigenous is shrinking while migrant populations are exploding at a faster rate.

Not to mention trash disposal. More people = more trash. We'll run out of places to just toss our plastic in the ground eventually.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Well, we are not simply worried about CO2 emissions here we are also worried about 1.) energy. With a growing population earth's natural resources such as fossil fuels will be used up faster. They simply can not last forever. 2.) The destruction of woodland to house more people. Statistics show that the rural populations are decreasing while urban populations are exploding. Imagine in hundreds of years the entire face of the earth covered with houses and a big urban area.

There is really a need to control population. It simply can not keep multiplying like it is; or our future generations will end up with a torn; ugly, resource barren world.

I already demonstrated how population size and resource consumption do not coincide on a proportional basis. Your argument to that effect is therefore invalid.

Taking the example of China and India into account, one can conclude that most of the former's significantly larger levels of resource consumption are based upon its far greater level of industrial output — itself being disproportionately utilized for trade with the West. Of course, this does not discount the fact that population density is a drain on resources. But, again, this only can account for such up to a certain point. The United States' levels of consumption of fossil fuels, relative to those of China and India, serve as a perfect example.


As you can see, India hardly factors into the picture despite the fact that it has a population of over 1.2 billion people.

Not in the first world yet, but our problem here in the first world is that the population is indeed exploding. The indigenous is shrinking while migrant populations are exploding at a faster rate.

Migrant populations tend to be larger simply because they primarily come from parts of the Global South — the material conditions of which favor larger family sizes.

Admin wrote:I already demonstrated how population size and resource consumption do not coincide on a proportional basis. Your argument to that effect is therefore invalid.

Taking the example of China and India into account, one can conclude that most of the former's disproportionately larger levels of resource consumption are based upon its far greater level of industrial output — itself being disproportionately utilized for trade with the West. Of course, this does not discount the fact that population density is a drain on resources. But, again, this only can account for such up to a certain point. The United States' levels of consumption of fossil fuels, relative to those of China and India, serve as a perfect example.

As you can see, India hardly factors into the picture despite the fact that it has a population of over 1.2 billion people.

I think we can say India hardly factors in due to its lack of infrastructure and its limited need for fossil fuels. I don't see why fossil fuel consumption matters in a given nation or given area. The fact of the matter is in first world countries you have an increase in population, they will need cars and energy, and thus more fossil fuels. Population explosions WILL result in more uses of fossil fuels. It is common sense. Of course, a given's population NEED for fossil fuels always has its effect, but overpopulation is a global problem not just something that happens in a couple nations.

Migrant populations tend to be larger simply because they primarily come from parts of the Global South — the material conditions of which favor larger family sizes.

Not really, they are actually much poorer countries than us in the West. Our populations are decreasing because the cost of living has skyrocketed so far families have been broken up, and couples both need to work jobs. Thus limiting the amount of children they can care for. Not the only factor, but a big one.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I think we can say India hardly factors in due to its lack of infrastructure and its limited need for fossil fuels. I don't see why fossil fuel consumption matters in a given nation or given area. The fact of the matter is no matter where in the world you have an increase in population, they will need cars and energy, and thus more fossil fuels. Population explosions WILL result in more uses of fossil fuels. It is common sense. Of course, a given's population NEED for fossil fuels always has its effect, but overpopulation is a global problem not just something that happens in a couple nations.

Pay attention to what Admin has stated. Population size influences energy consumption to an extent, and it is therefore a limited variable (quite limited, as the data demonstrates). It is also "common sense" that highly industrialized countries with a monopoly on capital stock will deplete global resources at an exceedingly disproportional rate.

The word fertility rate has consistently declined since the 1970s, when it was 4.45, to 2.45 today (see United Nations World Fertility Report 2009). What we have is a consumption problem, not a population problem per se. This global dilemma is principally the result of the enduring practices of the Global North.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: Overpopulation seems to be a problem only in Third World ( and some Second World) countries. No First World country is in danger of it. In fact in many European countries a shrinking population is a problem. So I say let the countries that face it deal it with it themselves the best way they can.

I cant speak for the rest of Europe but my island has 62,218,761 people on it,we are overcrowded we have massive houseing issues and we keep building new houses on our ever shrinking green belt,we cannot self sustain at most the land could support between 5-10 million and unless we start some sort of "Dig For Victory" style movement on a vast national scale we will no doubt starve when capitalism collapses (unless we secure a social nationalist victory first).

Rev Scare wrote:Pay attention to what Admin has stated. Population size influences energy consumption to an extent, and it is therefore a limited variable (quite limited, as the data demonstrates). It is also "common sense" that highly industrialized countries with a monopoly on capital stock will deplete global resources at an exceedingly disproportional rate.

I was paying attention, and I understand where he is coming from. It is true highly industrialized countries deplete resources faster, and even more so when they have higher populations and a highly militarized state (like the U.S.). I was merely pointing out that fossil fuel consumption will indeed rise when the population grows.

The word fertility rate has consistently declined since the 1970s, when it was 4.45, to 2.45 today (see United Nations World Fertility Report 2009). What we have is a consumption problem, not a population problem per se. This global dilemma is principally the result of the enduring practices of the Global North.

Aye, and the same organization the United Nations predicted that if the fertility levels were to stay the same as the 1995-2000 levels the populations would be 244 billion in the next 150 years or so. Since 1960 the world's population has doubled, and by 2050 it will rise by another 50%. Consumption may be a problem when it comes to consuming resources (as shown by uneven development of consumption compared to population) however, I think we can say that beyond finding uneven consumption to population ratios there is no use in denying that overpopulation could threaten a socialist society, especially one in which we are trying to preserve the environment. The bourgeois mode of production may have been 200x better than feudalism, at the time no one could have thought that it could lead to an overcrowding of the earth though. China has population levels in the billions, and family planning is honestly one of the most responsible actions they could take.

Pantheon Rising wrote:What are some socialist solutions? Family planning? One or two children per family?

As the Admin has pointed out, economic development corresponds quite strongly with reductions in birthrates. However, economic development within the context of the capitalist mode of production has been extremely harmful to our ecosystem due to the pollution and resource depletion which has accompanied said development. These are pervasive effects which stem from the inability of markets to adequately account for the social costs borne by individual transactions. This immense market failure can only be remedied by a system of economic planning whereby prices for goods and services accurately reflect ecological costs.

Family planning should also be encouraged. I'm not sure if a one- or two- child policy à la China is practical, but easy access to contraceptives and abortions, and, of course, education on the issue, is certainly advisable.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Not in the first world yet, but our problem here in the first world is that the population is indeed exploding. The indigenous is shrinking while migrant populations are exploding at a faster rate.

Well yes your right that in many First World countries the population is increasing due to immigration but still I know of no proof that any First World country is overpopulating. In fact some First World countries ( especially ones in Eastern Europe) have shrinking populations. Im definitely not pro immigration but more immigrants doesnt necessarily equal overpopulation.

Those post apocalyptic highway warrior movies come to mind when I think of overpopulation.
Cannibal marauders riding around on bikes and ATVs wearing armor maid of tires and various body parts.
All joking aside I understand the urgency of what you say, overpopulation is a issue that I personally fell is often left untouched.

I would advocate mass sterilization and even euthanasia. A more moderate thing to do would be to have the 1 child policy worldwide. It has failed China because people have been having more males then females. They have been abortion countless female babies. To counter this abortion should be have a heavy tax on it, if not outright criminalized. I have read countless horror stories about abortion. I would say it should only be legal if the women is raped, the child is malformed/retarded/disabled or the pregnancy is dangerous to her health. If something is not done about overpopulation there will be heavy consequences. I can see people dieing in their tens of billions a few decades from now.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:I would advocate mass sterilization and even euthanasia. A more moderate thing to do would be to have the 1 child policy worldwide. It has failed China because people have been having more males then females. They have been abortion countless female babies. To counter this abortion should be have a heavy tax on it, if not outright criminalized. I have read countless horror stories about abortion. I would say it should only be legal if the women is raped, the child is malformed/retarded/disabled or the pregnancy is dangerous to her health. If something is not done about overpopulation there will be heavy consequences. I can see people dieing in their tens of billions a few decades from now.

I don't understand how you can support a policy as extreme as euthanasia on the one hand, and yet oppose abortion on the other. Surely early trimester abortions, wherein a fetus hasn't developed a central nervous system and obviously possesses no consciousness, is preferable to euthanasia or mass sterilization.

Of all the issues facing human survival at the moment, overpopulation, while undoubtedly important, is not the prime concern. Global climate change threatens human survival far more than overpopulation. Moreover, it must be stressed that resource depletion corresponds more to the relative level of economic development than it does to population size. What must be done is a scaling back of consumption in developed nations (which can be accomplished via an increase in leisure time and an ecologically sensitive pricing mechanism) and a gradual increase in consumption in the global south. Only the most utopian of minds could imagine that this can be accomplished within the context of capitalism, so a revolutionary transformation in economic relations is a requisite condition.

There is a debate in when life starts, some say it starts at contraception but I am not sure. I support the serialization and euthanasia of people that are more trouble then they are worth. Some fetuses are more trouble then they are worth but sterilization will stop such fetuses from being conceived. I do suppose a few fetuses will have to be aborted, especially during the early years of this program. Abortion is a big problem for China but it is not as much of a problem in many other nations. Anti-abortion as a weapon to be used against having a population that has to many people of a single gender. I personally say abortion is way down on the list for most other nations.

Overpopulation is a much greater concern then climate change. Developed nations need to scale back their consumption as well as reducing the population. The developing nations should do so as well.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:There is a debate in when life starts, some say it starts at contraception but I am not sure.

There is a fairly wide scientific consensus on the time required for a central nervous system and brain to develop in utero. The question then becomes what exactly defines human life. Personally, I believe that it is our consciousness which distinguishes us from other lifeforms. However, for those who value all lifeforms equally, the most important trait to consider is sentience. Early trimester abortions can offend no one who defines life according to those materialist criteria. Now, I realize that certain religions believe that life begins at conception, but they're reason for believing so is entirely scriptural. That's not to suggest that they shouldn't have the right to oppose the practice, but considering the irrational basis of their stance on the issue, a secular government cannot allow religious faith alone to influence civil rights legislation. Religious individuals obviously have a right to abstain from the practice themselves, and even attempt to convince others of the validity of their views on the matter, but that should be the extent of their actions on the issue, in my opinion.

I support the serialization and euthanasia of people that are more trouble then they are worth.

That's a pretty vague standard by which to decide life and death. Aside from the various problems which would inevitably arise when attempting to implement such policies, it should be mentioned that unintended consequences stem from every decision. If, for example, antiquated eugenic laws were maintained and practiced in the UK, it's possible that the world would have never known the scientific theories developed by Stephen Hawking.

I'm not entirely averse to policies which may advocate certain sterilizations or even instances of euthanasia, but they pertain to criminal justice. I do, however, oppose such practices for issues related to population control because I don't believe they would be politically feasible or ethically justifiable.

Overpopulation is a much greater concern then climate change.

I don't think you fully appreciate the magnitude of the problems global climate change will cause in the years ahead. For example, within our lifetime, we are going to experience famines related to temperature changes which will lead to mass starvation in certain parts of the world (to say nothing of the geopolitical tensions which will ensue as a result). Innumerable species are also going to go extinct, the ecological impact of which we cannot even being to measure. Unless radical changes are made soon, I shudder to think what obstacles subsequent generations will face.

Developed nations need to scale back their consumption as well as reducing the population. The developing nations should do so as well.

I agree.

More people = less resources/people

Less people + robots = paradise on earth

I'm in favor of population control, 4 billion people is pretty much awesome in my opinion, I do believe we can reach this goal, people just need to be free and have more confort, so they will naturally stop having so much babies, this plus some sort of population control plus robots helping humanity in manual labour, we all can live like little kings

>Mass Sterilization

You want to be the first one to sign up?