Population Control

[Bahama Mama]

The world's population has tripled in the last century alone. Some experts in the field of population growth believe that we are steadily approaching a period where the demands of the earth's population will outpace the resources of the earth itself. See Malthusian Catastrophe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus_theory)

Do you think that a one-child policy (like it is in China) should be introduced to Western societies to slow global population growth, particularly since Western societies are largely consumer rather than producing societies? Would any of you personally adhere to a one child policy in your own societies?

[bernie]

folks with too much time on their hands tend to breed alot.
give them something to do...dagnamit!!!
folks that have to work or is always busy don't have to be making
a lot of babies.
there was this woman on the news the other day seeking help for her 16
children...SICK!!! too much time pon har hands man...mus be chicken fi deh hatch suh!!!
ummm...sorry, i may not have answered the question...:)

[Bahama Mama]

folks with too much time on their hands tend to breed alot.
give them something to do...dagnamit!!!
folks that have to work or is always busy don't have to be making
a lot of babies.
there was this woman on the news the other day seeking help for her 16
children...SICK!!! too much time pon har hands man...mus be chicken fi deh hatch suh!!!
ummm...sorry, i may not have answered the question...:)


No you didnt...directly that is. So go back and redeem yourself :D

[Manu]

I'm not sure the measure is feasable. It does make a whole lot of sense though. We need another plague or something. Nature has a way of curving the growth still. give it time. Another disaster will soon prevail.

[acidblade]

nature/god .

[Brownsugar]

MAN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Bahama Mama]

I'm not sure the measure is feasable. It does make a whole lot of sense though. We need another plague or something. Nature has a way of curving the growth still. give it time. Another disaster will soon prevail.

I think advancements in medecine and stricter public health initiatives will ensure that we do not experience a human plague the magnitude and severity of the Bubonic plague. If remember my history that plague took out a quarter of Europe's people in a relatively short period of time.

Infrastructural advancements are also ensuring that human tradegy from natural disasters are lower when compared to pre-20th century periods in time.

Nature is continually helping to curve population growth, but extreme population growth is still occuring. Do we want to wait until we reach a threshold of planetary sustinance, if there is such a thing?

No one still has answered the question directly though. Would you guys adhere to a one-child rule? Why or why not?

[Manu]

You want to bet your life on that BM? Wait until the AIDS virus takes another drastic step in it's mutation and start killing people within 2 days of contraction. You have people still dieing of cholera so we are still susceptible. Remember the poorer countries outnumber the more developed ones.

[Xenocrates]

Do you think that a one-child policy (like it is in China) should be introduced to Western societies to slow global population growth, particularly since Western societies are largely consumer rather than producing societies?
- What would you do for people who are uneducated who have more than one kid anyway? Fine them? The population problem is only prevalent in third world nations and in certain minority communities in first world nations - populated by mostly poor, uneducated peeps. The Chinese have something that westerners don't: Discipline & Communism. So no matter how uneducated they tend to be, that's something that's deeply ingrained in their culture.

The major drawback is you're gonna have a lotta kids being given up for adoption in the west as it is in the east. Who's gonna adopt all those kids? The west is already alleviating the unwanted children of the East. Who's gonna adopt ours? This is exacerbated by the feminist, super-selfish types of western cultures we live in where there is a growing number of people who don't want children. In my view, it's neither here nor there without education.


Would any of you personally adhere to a one child policy in your own societies?
- Probably not. I man want a football team. :eusa_shif Just kidding... But realistically? No. The East exists as a support structure for the west. That's why such a policy will work in the east, but not in the west.

[ramesh]

What about the notion of Zero Population Growth? If you guys have the time, try obtaining this movie from the video store called "ZPG". You will then realise what stress population control can put on the ordinary person or couple. :)

[Bahama Mama]

So in other words Western societies should not be made to bear the brunt of such policies, since it is mostly non-Western societies with excessive population growth? Okay fair enough.

Many ethicists would probably also question the right for multiple reproduction. Western societies are famous for advocating for the right of the individual.

[Xenocrates]

Many ethicists would probably also question the right for multiple reproduction. Western societies are famous for advocating for the right of the individual.
- Well look at it this way: China and India together have power in numbers, something they did all on their own. These two countries have ONE THIRD of the world's population!!! :icon_eek: The reason why there's so much poverty in India is because the population has expanded beyond the resources available in the land itself! That's how these countries have become relegated to becoming support structures (read: cheap labour) for more socioligcally advanced societies. Thus, these more advanced first world societies don't have to become producer nations anymore, since that task is already being taken care of in the countries with exploding populations, at more cost-effective rates.

Think about it:

It is not economically viable for first world nations to become producer societies because it is far more expensive for them to do so. Furthermore the social expectation in first world nations is now much higher than those of third world countries with oppressive populations. You're not going to find many Americans or even Trinis who want to grow up to be a factor worker. Everybody wants to get their degrees and get a big job. Similar expectations are not prevalent in China and India.

Thus, because of this phenomenon, the brighter minds spawned throughout the world will gravitate towards these first world nations. Their talents would be better used in consumer societies than producer nations, because nations which provide support structures to first world nations do not have sociological constructs advanced enough to take advantage of them. That's why these countries are better served to provide accelerated technological growth for the rest of the world through these first world nations.

Population control should therefore remain with countries that have serious population problems.

Ethicists who have a problem with that should travel back in time and prevent the exploding population growth in India and China - which is impossible - not because of the time travel, but because these problems are borne out of things that are deeply ingrained in the culture of India and China. If they'd like to, I have a flux capacitor for sale. ;)

[Bahama Mama]

In terms of alleviating strain on planetary resources, Western first world nations of whom have a particularly high demand for resources like oil, need to decrease their consumption. If this cant be done through limiting population growth, then it most definetely needs to occur through a modification in lifestyle. A westerner consumes far more resources than someone from a third world nation, when you look at it on a per person basis. Unfortunately excess is one of factors that drives Western societies, and we have become so conditioned to it, that any drastic move to limit our consumption would probably be met with harsh criticism.

[ramesh]

What drives increased consumerism in Western Countries? Is it larger salaries or cheaper commodities?

[Xenocrates]

:icon_arro Bahama Mama

Decreasing consumption in the West can be achieved without population control. Most western societies do NOT have a population problem. What they have is a lifestyle problem. Reduce the American population by ½, and leave all of the rich people intact, and you will still have an overconsumption problem. Overconsumption is a crime committed by the overtly rich and affluent. Furthermore, it is more a problem of cultural rather than social design.

The Problem is:

The rich amass such a massive reserve of wealth that it far exceeds any of their needs. Thus, they will continue to consume even when they don't need to. The consumption in rich nations is born out of psycho-social needs, and not physiolgical ones. Thus, the inverse of being unemployed occurs: Over consumption.

Differentiation

While population growth is inversely proportional to wealth, consumption is directly proportional to the wealth of the population. Therefore, population and consumption become constants of each other once the wealth variable falls below the poverty line. That's the only time where population growth = consumption. Otherwise, where wealth per capita exceeds the poverty line, consumption becomes a multiple of population. This is why in rich nations, population control will not stop over-consumption and is thus unnecessary. The two variables are both products of lifestyle, not factors of each other.


What drives increased consumerism in Western Countries? Is it larger salaries or cheaper commodities?
- Larger salaries. Commodities are cheaper still in the third world nations. Increased consumerism is only made possible through changes in lifestyle, which are only possible through changes in salary - where we no longer work to survive, but to enjoy life. People in producer nations don't make the salary capable of buying the digital cameras they assemle in the sweatshops at work. Even though the camera is cheaper in those producer countries, the factory workers still cannot afford to buy it in most cases because of their salaries.

The larger salaries are only possible in consumer societies because another society has already become the producer, thus affording the camera's merchants to make large markups on the cost of the camera, thus providing higher salaries for workers in consumer societies. That's how the support structure works.

[Bahama Mama]

- Larger salaries. Commodities are cheaper still in the third world nations. Increased consumerism is only made possible through changes in lifestyle, which are only possible through changes in salary - where we no longer work to survive, but to enjoy life. People in producer nations don't make the salary capable of buying the digital cameras they assemle in the sweatshops at work. Even though the camera is cheaper in those producer countries, the factory workers still cannot afford to buy it in most cases because of their salaries.

The larger salaries are only possible in consumer societies because another society has already become the producer, thus affording the camera's merchants to make large markups on the cost of the camera, thus providing higher salaries for workers in consumer societies. That's how the support structure works.

In one word capitalism.

[Bahama Mama]

:icon_arro Bahama Mama

Decreasing consumption in the West can be achieved without population control. Most western societies do NOT have a population problem. What they have is a lifestyle problem. Reduce the American population by ½, and leave all of the rich people intact, and you will still have an overconsumption problem. Overconsumption is a crime committed by the overtly rich and affluent. Furthermore, it is more a problem of cultural rather than social design.



Basically what I said and alluded to two posts back.

Hollywood is the posterchild for overconsumption and excess in America. That institution more than any perpetuates the gluttenous society of America.

[AngelsKiss]

I think advancements in medecine and stricter public health initiatives will ensure that we do not experience a human plague the magnitude and severity of the Bubonic plague. If remember my history that plague took out a quarter of Europe's people in a relatively short period of time.


I am not so sure this is true when you factor in:

1) Ease of travel now makes it easier to spread disease that much faster.

2) Even though we are technologically more advance, we never have enough vaccine to take care of everyone, especially when you are dealing with a new strain of virus.

In fact that is one of the fears of the bird flu. One of the risk that companies and governments are now investigating and trying to prepare fort is a possible bird flu pandemic.

HSBC for example is looking at ensuring that the offices are consistently cleaned.

Other companies are doing the same thing and also putting in place the capabilites for more ppl to work from home.

In todays world a pandemic is even more complecated from a business perspective.

[Twinkie]

Further to what a poster said earlier, Mother nature does have a natural way of cleaning up the eart. Tidal waves, Earth Quakes and Terrorists.

Let's see what next she has up her sleeves.

[Bahama Mama]

I am not so sure this is true when you factor in:

1) Ease of travel now makes it easier to spread disease that much faster.

2) Even though we are technologically more advance, we never have enough vaccine to take care of everyone, especially when you are dealing with a new strain of virus.

In fact that is one of the fears of the bird flu. One of the risk that companies and governments are now investigating and trying to prepare fort is a possible bird flu pandemic.

HSBC for example is looking at ensuring that the offices are consistently cleaned.

Other companies are doing the same thing and also putting in place the capabilites for more ppl to work from home.

In todays world a pandemic is even more complecated from a business perspective.

Well I am referring to the swiftness and efficiency in which a pandemic can take out large numbers of people in such a short period of time, like it did with the Bubonic plague. Certainly medical advancenments today can slow this to a point (soften the blow ) that some people can be treated adequately enough to survive, amd entire regions arent wiped out within months. When compared with the Bubonic plague, the ones that survived were the ones lucky enough to have developed a natural resistance to the disease carrying organism.

[AngelsKiss]

Well I am referring to the swiftness and efficiency in which a pandemic can take out large numbers of people in such a short period of time, like it did with the Bubonic plague. Certainly medical advancenments today can slow this to a point (soften the blow ) that some people can be treated adequately enough to survive, amd entire regions arent wiped out within months. When compared with the Bubonic plague, the ones that survived were the ones lucky enough to have developed a natural resistance to the disease carrying orgasm.

I understand what yuou are saying, however, I think it depends on the type of virus we are dealing with.

1) Is it a new strain of an existing virus and how much has it evolved? Has it evolved significantly to the point where existing vaccine cannot cure it?

2) Is it a new virus?

3) Is it easily detected and how rapidly does it destroy the body?

3) Are there obvious symptoms or does it only become obvious after it becomes fatal?

4) Does it affect humans as well as animals and is it airborne?

Those are just a few things to think about.