INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

Enter here to explore ethical issues and discuss the meaning and source of morality.
Message
Author
Compassionist
Posts: 3590
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#1 Post by Compassionist » November 5th, 2009, 1:02 pm

The current estimated world population is 6.8 billion people and it is growing every second. Is there really such a thing called an optimum population for humans? What do you think? What is the evidence and reasoning behind your position? I am agnostic about it. It occurs to me that if all the resources on the planet were shared equally by all the people and everyone had an ecological footprint of 1.8 then we could have many billions of people living happily until they die.

Some relevant links:
Optimum Population Trust

Ecological Footprint Calculator

World Mapper

Duggar Family Website (they have 18 children and want even more)

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#2 Post by Lifelinking » November 5th, 2009, 2:16 pm

none
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#3 Post by Paolo » November 5th, 2009, 4:30 pm

Optimum for what? I'm in partial agreement with LL, as far as I'm concerned the optimum human population from the perspective of most species on the planet (except humans, domesticated breeds, rats, mice, foxes, pigeons, bedbugs, various lice and a range of endo parasites) is zero.

Compassionist
Posts: 3590
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#4 Post by Compassionist » November 5th, 2009, 4:31 pm

Lifelinking wrote:none
Do you seriously mean that 'none' is the optimum population of humans for this planet? :question:

Compassionist
Posts: 3590
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#5 Post by Compassionist » November 5th, 2009, 4:33 pm

Paolo wrote:Optimum for what? I'm in partial agreement with LL, as far as I'm concerned the optimum human population from the perspective of most species on the planet (except humans, domesticated breeds, rats, mice, foxes, pigeons, bedbugs, various lice and a range of endo parasites) is zero.
I see your point. What about the point of view of humans? What about the point of view of Humanists?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#6 Post by Nick » November 5th, 2009, 5:48 pm

Though I am not one to trumpet "human rights", not least because of the reasons LL & Paolo imply (I think..) I do not think compulsion is reasonable. However, I am convinced that the best way forward is to curtail the growth in the human population. Ans the way is to educate girls and enable them to control their own fertility. If any religions stand in the way, run 'em over with reason.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#7 Post by Nick » November 5th, 2009, 6:55 pm


Hundovir
Posts: 806
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 3:23 pm

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#8 Post by Hundovir » November 5th, 2009, 7:38 pm

Regarding footprints etc.:

I only learned to drive in 2006 age 46, always used public transport or walked before that. (Still, don't own a car, but do have a motorcycle.) Never have the heating turned up enough to sit around in my undies - what are woolly jumpers for? Etc. etc.

Now I know that, as a member of an industrialised Western nation, my footprint is huge compared with people in the "developing" (hate that term) world, and I'm far too easily complacent.

But, it ALWAYS makes me laugh when I hear middle class, right-on climate campaigners whining on about this sort of thing - with their three kids in tow.

Honestly, I don't think if I rode my motorcycle at 100mph everywhere for the rest of my life, turned my heating up to 11 ("Spinal Tap" reference for the cognoscenti) etc. I'd have as much impact as I would by producing 3 sprogs.

You may conclude that I do not have any children. Any longings for such have been thoroughly and satisfactorily sublimated by a previous career in teaching and a current one in animal care.

User avatar
grammar king
Posts: 869
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 2:42 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#9 Post by grammar king » November 5th, 2009, 9:46 pm

Excellent point, Hundovir. I never thought about it that way.

Compassionist
Posts: 3590
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#10 Post by Compassionist » November 6th, 2009, 8:28 am

:)

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#11 Post by Paolo » November 6th, 2009, 10:39 am

Compassionist wrote:What about the point of view of humans? What about the point of view of Humanists?
I think the difficulty with this question is the term "optimum". For me, as a biologist, I tend to think of the term as meaning between the minimum and maximum number required to maintain a genetically viable population, capable of being sustained within an ecosystem in which all other organisms can also maintain genetically viable populations.

For humans it would probably be in the region of hundreds of thousand or low millions distributed across the globe. However, if we start looking at other interpretations of optimum then this ball-park figure becomes utterly meaningless and a totally different figure would need to be arrived at, based on that interpretation.

As to the human perspective, it would depend on the human you asked. For some optimum would be where everyone had enough food, a roof over their head, fresh running water and a working sewer. Others might require 4x4 trucks, air-conditioning and a 42" plasma screen TV. What's optimum - being able to survive or being able to survive in confort? I can't make that choice for other people and neither can any other Humanist.

Compassionist
Posts: 3590
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#12 Post by Compassionist » November 6th, 2009, 10:48 am

:)

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#13 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » November 6th, 2009, 11:42 am

Compassionist wrote:Right now we have a global mess where around 10% of humanity live a life of luxury and comfort while controlling 90% of the wealth while 90% of humanity struggle to survive. I would like 100% of humanity to control 100% of the wealth because that would make it truly democratical and even handed. Unfortunately, I don't know how this can be achieved legally. No Fair Share laws exist on this planet when it comes to ownership of resources.
This is such an interesting issue. I, too, think there should be some kind of principle of fair sharing of resources, including land, and also fair sharing of sinks, for absorbing greenhouse gases and pollutants, but to be truly fair that would have to go hand in hand with some kind of check on population. It wouldn't be "fair" to increase one's family's (or community's, or nation's) share of resources by having more children. But I don't think coercion is the answer. A global one-child policy is unthinkable and unworkable, as are the sorts of ideas that Paul Ehrlich came up with in The Population Bomb (putting temporary sterilants in the water supply, etc.). I do agree with Nick about the importance of education, especially the education of girls and women. But I think that the problem of overpopulation should be considered alongside the problem of overconsumption (and overproduction of greenhouse gases). Perhaps Paolo's right, and we shouldn't make choices for other people about how they live their lives. And that would apply to the number of children they have, too. But we can surely express disapproval, or experience guilt, when they/we consume significantly more than their/our fair share, given the population the world currently has. It may be too big right now, and it may be set to carry on growing until around 2050, but unless we want to advocate genocide, it's what we've got to work with. Incidentally, I certainly don't feel that I can take the moral high ground here, despite being childless, carless and a vegan! I know I'm still using much more than my fair share of resources. (The irony is, of course, that if I suddenly and miraculously produced a couple of offspring, my own ecological and carbon footprints as normally calculated would be reduced to very low levels for the UK.) Still, in the context of my immediate community, my lifestyle is fairly frugal, and when it comes to perceptions of fairness, we tend to look around at our own friends and neighbours, and not to developing countries thousands of miles away. Especially when we live in very unequal societies.

Anyway, I do agree that we should focus on the idea of fairness: both in sharing the world's resources and sinks, and in exercising the right to reproduce. I'm attracted to the idea of Contraction and Convergence:
The "contraction" part of Contraction and Convergence concentrates on the total amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere. This lays down an annual fall of global emissions - how great that fall would be would depend on the final level of atmospheric carbon considered safe. The "convergence" part lays down how the entitlements to emit carbon are distributed between the countries of the world. Initially these entitlements would reflect current emissions to reflect the difficulty in making the transition. However these initial entitlements will converge towards equal per capita emissions across the planet. The year when entitlements reach equality would be subject to negotiation. An early date would mean that initially countries that currently have low per capita emissions (which as a rule are poorer countries) would see their entitlements rise. A late date for full convergence would risk curtailing poorer countries' chances of development. Once convergence had reached then all countries entitlements would continue to fall, that is to say contract. The per capita element risks giving an incentive to countries to increase their population to "earn" more entitlements. Hence there it is desirable to set maximum populations beyond which no further entitlements would be gained and indeed the Global Commons Institute advocates this.
Emma

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#14 Post by Paolo » November 6th, 2009, 12:25 pm

Compassionist wrote:I see your points. Do you agree with China's one child policy? In Bangladesh they have a two-child policy but it is not enforced with penalties unlike China.
Education of women is the most important factor that needs to be dealt with. However, I personally think that until women have access to that education, policies restricting numbers of children are needed in areas where infant mortality is rapidly falling but birth rate is still high (and by areas I mean that such policies need to account for socioeconomic situations to some extent when it comes to imposing penalties). Obviously there are cultural issues that make such policies difficult to implement without leading to some pretty severe social problems (like the murder of infant females, dangerous back-street abortions, etc.), but without meaning to sound heartless, there are hard choices that need to be made for the wider long term benefit of the societies we are discussing and for the state of the planet as a whole. Reducing birth rate is the only reasonable option available, unless anyone is willing to allow the death rate to increase by restricting access to effective medicine (which might explain the support of homeopathy by the governments of developing countries with rapidly growing populations…).
Compassionist wrote:Right now we have a global mess where around 10% of humanity live a life of luxury and comfort while controlling 90% of the wealth while 90% of humanity struggle to survive. I would like 100% of humanity to control 100% of the wealth because that would make it truly democratical and even handed. Unfortunately, I don't know how this can be achieved legally. No Fair Share laws exist on this planet when it comes to ownership of resources.
I feel I have to point out that currently 100% of humanity does control 100% of the wealth, it's just that the control is not evenly distributed. Without meaning to sound heartless (again), life is not fair and no stable society is, or ever has been, structured around an even distribution of resources. People may be ubiquitous but they are not uniform, so there will always be a few who manage to out-compete other members of society – for whatever reason. This is neither fair nor ideal, but the realities of the world are unfair and far from ideal, and although we endeavour to make the world a fairer place within our societies, we need to be pragmatic about how we go about it. That’s not to say that I agree with the dichotomy in wealth seen between developing and developed nations – I believe that no-one should have to live in poverty, regardless of where they live.

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#15 Post by Marian » November 6th, 2009, 12:49 pm

I probably shouldn't even start in this thread but it is only 7:47am so I can always blame what happens on not having had my tea yet. :D

I would like a few things:
a) in what way do children leave large ecological footprints. They don't: horde resources, cut down huge swaths of forest,
drive cars, fly planes, dig oil wells, decimate the fisheries, pollute the water supply by building golf courses, turn up the heat...shall I stop there?

b) verification of your opinions that children leave a large ecological footprint (and a larger one than adults)

c)Nick and Paolo, education and control of fertility (I am assuming you mean birth control and not sterilization) is a good thing for girls and boys. Last time I checked, barring infertility clinics, it requires a boy and a girl to make babies...of course, it's been a long time so maybe I'm outdated. :wink: That leaves the onus on both to be responsible for birth control,imo.

Not that I think you're going to be able to control the population, without force of some kind, especially where having a large number of children is seen as something of a guarantee of survival for the parents since so many offspring die at a very young age. (not that I am advocating force of any kind)

Is the issue merely population or does it fall back on how resources are distributed throughout the world, how we cultivate and manage our food supply? etc
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#16 Post by Paolo » November 6th, 2009, 2:09 pm

Marian wrote:I probably shouldn't even start in this thread but it is only 7:47am so I can always blame what happens on not having had my tea yet. :D

I would like a few things:
a) in what way do children leave large ecological footprints. They don't: horde resources, cut down huge swaths of forest,
drive cars, fly planes, dig oil wells, decimate the fisheries, pollute the water supply by building golf courses, turn up the heat...shall I stop there?
Children do all of these things when they grow into adults.
Marian wrote:b) verification of your opinions that children leave a large ecological footprint (and a larger one than adults)
Having children isn’t about having children – it’s about making more people. If people want children that’s just dandy, but they need to remember that children grow up and have more children, who grow up and have more children, etc. If a couple have more than two children then they are contributing to population growth, which means they are putting greater strain on resources. Even if a couple only have two children they are doing nothing to reduce population size. If a person really gave a damn about the problem of over-population and resource limitations they would have a maximum of one child or none at all – this is the only way (without increasing the death rate) by which the human population can be reduced in size.
Marian wrote:c)Nick and Paolo, education and control of fertility (I am assuming you mean birth control and not sterilization) is a good thing for girls and boys. Last time I checked, barring infertility clinics, it requires a boy and a girl to make babies...of course, it's been a long time so maybe I'm outdated. :wink: That leaves the onus on both to be responsible for birth control,imo.
Yes, but it is well established that female education plays the greatest role in reducing birth rate (seethis pdf for a study testing this and reviewing some of the existing literature).
Marian wrote:Not that I think you're going to be able to control the population, without force of some kind, especially where having a large number of children is seen as something of a guarantee of survival for the parents since so many offspring die at a very young age. (not that I am advocating force of any kind)
That’s the point though – fewer offspring die at a very young age. If they did there wouldn’t be a problem with population growth. People in the developing world grow up in a culture where large numbers of offspring are seen a necessity because of high mortality rates, so that same cultural approach is maintained to ensure enough surviving offspring.

However, as infant mortality drops due to improvements in sanitation and healthcare, this cultural approach to ensuring survivorship becomes a burden, because infants simply don’t die as frequently and each surviving child is an economic burden to its parents. Of course, this leads to greater depths of poverty, which results in vast numbers of impoverished people putting a strain on an infrastructure that might manage to keep everyone out of poverty if there were fewer people. To stop this requires education so that women can make informed decisions about birth control and health management.
Marian wrote:Is the issue merely population or does it fall back on how resources are distributed throughout the world, how we cultivate and manage our food supply? etc
The simple fact is that human population growth is too rapid to do anything but respond. Management of resources is a big issue, but we are struggling to keep up with demand, never mind worrying about how effectively resources are managed. If demand can be capped (and preferably reduced) it will provide greater scope for more effective and fair management of resources.

If the bath is overflowing, the first thing you do is turn off the taps.

Hundovir
Posts: 806
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 3:23 pm

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#17 Post by Hundovir » November 6th, 2009, 6:12 pm

^ What Paolo said.

No matter how parsimonious (I do like that word) the use of resources by an individual, creating another 3, 4, whatever of them, is bound to add to the pressure. No?

I've got nothing against sprogs as such, I have rather a pleasant young nephew, but to produce a whole new human being is going to involve a whole new human being's life of resource consumption.

Compassionist
Posts: 3590
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#18 Post by Compassionist » November 8th, 2009, 2:45 am

:)

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#19 Post by Marian » November 8th, 2009, 4:06 am

Paolo wrote: Children do all of these things when they grow into adults.
Ah, so it's not the children but the adults. Not a mere technicality. :D Why is it assumed that those children are just going to repeat our mistakes. Can we not educate our children from very early to come up with some alternative ways of living?
So maybe we can be more specific when we talk about children having a huge ecological footprint when it's actually the adults.

Marian wrote:b) verification of your opinions that children leave a large ecological footprint (and a larger one than adults)
Paolo wrote:Having children isn’t about having children – it’s about making more people. If people want children that’s just dandy, but they need to remember that children grow up and have more children, who grow up and have more children, etc.
Yes, some children do grow up to have children and some don't; I haven't seen any stats that guarantee a child will grow up to automatically have more.
My mother and father came from families of 7 children and 5 kids respectively but they only had two of their own. My brother doesn't want kids and I can't have more. We are just one example.

Paolo wrote: If a couple have more than two children then they are contributing to population growth, which means they are putting greater strain on resources. Even if a couple only have two children they are doing nothing to reduce population size. If a person really gave a damn about the problem of over-population and resource limitations they would have a maximum of one child or none at all – this is the only way (without increasing the death rate) by which the human population can be reduced in size.
I take it that you think the world doesn't have enough resources for its current population, let alone more. How come there is no mention of the unequal distribution of resources as a bigger contributor to poverty and population growth.
Why is the name 'Malthus' coming to mind? Or Burgdoerfer. Or Ted Turner or gasp...Johnny Porritt...

Paolo wrote:Yes, but it is well established that female education plays the greatest role in reducing birth rate
I wasn't debating that. I was pointing out that men also have a responsibility for birth control, not only in a physical sense but also in encouraging and supporting women in obtaining education and opportunities for economic independence. If women feel the only way they can be considered important is through having children, then that's what they'll do. We have to get our girl children to understand the importance of critical thinking and being independent.

Paolo wrote:However, as infant mortality drops due to improvements in sanitation and healthcare, this cultural approach to ensuring survivorship becomes a burden, because infants simply don’t die as frequently and each surviving child is an economic burden to its parents. Of course, this leads to greater depths of poverty, which results in vast numbers of impoverished people putting a strain on an infrastructure that might manage to keep everyone out of poverty if there were fewer people. To stop this requires education so that women can make informed decisions about birth control and health management.
I think the large number of offspring is not just fewer offspring dying but also because of the parents needing help with farming(if in an agricultural setting) or earning extra income, or being supported by these children in old age. The issue is more complex than simply infant death rate. The children are not necessarily an economic burden since often these children play an important part of the family 'economy' so to speak, at least in the developing world.
Like I mentioned before, it's not merely about teaching women how to stop having babies that makes the birthrate decline; it's about getting them into the workforce.
If you were to increase the standard of living to close to middle class across the planet, you might find the population issue reversing itself since typically the more economically secure people are, the less children they tend to have (freak christian zealots aside)
Paolo wrote:The simple fact is that human population growth is too rapid to do anything but respond. Management of resources is a big issue, but we are struggling to keep up with demand, never mind worrying about how effectively resources are managed. If demand can be capped (and preferably reduced) it will provide greater scope for more effective and fair management of resources.
This whole paragraph sounds rather alarmist to me. Echoes of Paul Ehrlich are ringing in my ears. Please don't start talking about the water supply.
Since when is it prudent to become reactionary and ignore what is before us on the table, so to speak?
Paolo wrote:If the bath is overflowing, the first thing you do is turn off the taps.
Usually, I roll up my pant legs first. :wink:
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Optimum Population: what do YOU think?

#20 Post by Alan H » November 8th, 2009, 12:28 pm

Marian wrote:
Paolo wrote:If the bath is overflowing, the first thing you do is turn off the taps.
Usually, I roll up my pant legs first. :wink:
On this side of the pond, 'pants' has a completely different meaning!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply