Not enough food in the World, or too many people ?

[Badbeams3]

One of the problems, as I see it, in the UK, is that you get Child Benefit payments for each child, I'd limit that to first two children only.

I agree. Perhaps governments should require a a person to show proof of their ability to pay for the raising of children....schooling, food. Say...$300,000 in savings that would be put into a government controlled fund. They then would be allowed one child...$600,000 gets them 2 kids. Maybe some of the money could be given to those who adopt children who otherwise would have no home/family.


This would keep the burden off of those who don`t have children. And restore balance to the planet in terms of food/ population.

 

[ledlurker]

and the above post in out politically correct society just closed the thread.


Thanks a lot bub!

 

[eprom]

Interesting Thread!!!

Lots of people thinking/wishing a virus or disaster will clean this over-population problem and we will turn back to the comfortable days.

Q) If this disaster/virus hit you or your family? Is this good for population, planet problems, food prices, oil prices.......

A) Nothing is important over you and your family and their health. Please do not wish/think bad things for SOLUTION :shakehead

 

[LowBat]

and the above post in out politically correct society just closed the thread.

I don't think it should close this thread. It's a viewpoint for responsible growth, although I don't think it's enforceable nor do I agree with the proposed consequences.

 

[LowBat]

Japan I think is pretty close to reaching negative population growth, if not already there. The US and EU wouldn't be far behind if not for immigration.

Good for Japan! Almost makes me want to move to such a place except then I'd be ruining it for them. If only we here in the U.S. had a better say in limiting our numbers.

 

[jzmtl]

One of the problems, as I see it, in the UK, is that you get Child Benefit payments for each child, I'd limit that to first two children only.

Same here, there are people making comfortable living by just keep popping out kids. You see their family coming out you'd swear it's a kindergarten class outing. :shakehead

 

[Badbeams3]

Good for Japan! Almost makes me want to move to such a place except then I'd be ruining it for them.

LOL ...I wonder...what will happen to the price of housing in a declining population. Hmm...anybody want to buy a house...cheap.

 

[jtr1962]

LOL ...I wonder...what will happen to the price of housing in a declining population. Hmm...anybody want to buy a house...cheap.

You know something-your post just got me thinking about another possibility-cyclical populations. I could smack myself for not thinking of it sooner. Population grows until the opportunity cost of having children (in terms of money or lost opportunities in an interesting world) makes it go down. Once it does, eventually you have empty housing and infrastructure, and also less and less interesting things to do. This makes having children both possible and more desireable. The population then goes up until you reach the tipping point. The cycle then repeats indefinitely. Length of the cycle? I'd guess at least a few hundred years. The cycle didn't (indeed couldn't) exist without modern civilization. Prior to that external factors (disease, famine) kept population in check. Once those problems are solved, as is the case with First World nations, economics enters the picture.

 

[LukeA]

You know something-your post just got me thinking about another possibility-cyclical populations. I could smack myself for not thinking of it sooner. Population grows until the opportunity cost of having children (in terms of money or lost opportunities in an interesting world) makes it go down. Once it does, eventually you have empty housing and infrastructure, and also less and less interesting things to do. This makes having children both possible and more desireable. The population then goes up until you reach the tipping point. The cycle then repeats indefinitely. Length of the cycle? I'd guess at least a few hundred years. The cycle didn't (indeed couldn't) exist without modern civilization. Prior to that external factors (disease, famine) kept population in check. Once those problems are solved, as is the case with First World nations, economics enters the picture.

I don't think it will be cyclical. Population growth is so long term and stable that a ceiling will be reached.

 

[LukeA]

I agree. Perhaps governments should require a a person to show proof of their ability to pay for the raising of children....schooling, food. Say...$300,000 in savings that would be put into a government controlled fund. They then would be allowed one child...$600,000 gets them 2 kids. Maybe some of the money could be given to those who adopt children who otherwise would have no home/family.


This would keep the burden off of those who don`t have children. And restore balance to the planet in terms of food/ population.

Are you kidding? That's so horribly statist and communist and would utterly destroy the humanity of existence.

 

[B@rt]

There is a critical mass for everything, also for humanity...
Although it might be possible to sustain more human life, problems will rise exponentially. In our search for raw materials we are already overtaxing our natural resources, and the efeect of human critical mass is easily observed just by looking at the current population centra, just do a comparision between a small village and a big city...

Since humans are incapable of moderation imho, we are heading towards oblivion, the only question is what we will destroy along the way. :sigh:

 

[Black Rose]

Same here, there are people making comfortable living by just keep popping out kids. You see their family coming out you'd swear it's a kindergarten class outing. :shakehead

Ah, so you've seen my neighbours a.k.a. the human herd :sigh:

 

[Badbeams3]

Are you kidding? That's so horribly statist and communist and would utterly destroy the humanity of existence.

Yes, I am kidding. It would be impossible to enforce.

Perhaps medical science will provide an answer someday. Simply take a pill and you won`t have children...to undo it take a different pill.

I don`t know if money or the lack of it changes things that much. Some of the poorest areas have the highest child birth rates. As well as aids and other std`s. Guess they have to much free time on thier hands.

I think, as others have pointed out...sickness, wars, natural disasters, man made disasters are more a regulating force. Education also helps.

 

[Badbeams3]

Here`s a thought if food were to rise in price far enough...the gift food shipments to some of the poorer countries would likely be reduced. Millions would starve and die. This would bring the cost of food back in line. Supply/ demand. Food prices would have to get really high for that to happen...far higher than they are today. Oil prices have come way off there highs...for the moment.

My guess is we are not even close to a sateration point regarding food/population...the planet could support far more. And with many countries attempting to control births, like China, we may never hit a breaking point.

 

[ledlurker]

2002 or 2003 stats stated that the birth rate needed to be 2.11 births for that time frames life expectancy. The actual birth rate was 2.07 and the country still grew by about 20 million people. Hmmmm we are still growing

Recent data has shown that HIV/AIDS is starting to excelerate in infection rates. Also people here in North America who have it are not taking their medication properly. This is one disease I think that if it gets bad enough we as a community will be permantely tagging people in a way to identify them. Here come the Scarlet Letter again.

 

[KC2IXE]

It's not the food or the people. It's a distribution problem.

That was what I was going to say, but saw your reply first. We have ways to raise plenty of food. Most starvation is not only a distribution problem, but is a DELIBERATE distribution problem. basiclly, in much of the 3rd world, food is used as a weapon to punish your enemies, and reward your friends

 

[Lane]

It's not the food or the people. It's a distribution problem.

X's 2!:thumbsup:

My simple thoughts exactly. BUT distribution can mean many things...

 

[Hooked on Fenix]

I agree. Perhaps governments should require a a person to show proof of their ability to pay for the raising of children....schooling, food. Say...$300,000 in savings that would be put into a government controlled fund. They then would be allowed one child...$600,000 gets them 2 kids. Maybe some of the money could be given to those who adopt children who otherwise would have no home/family.


This would keep the burden off of those who don`t have children. And restore balance to the planet in terms of food/ population.

In the U.S., I know that Social Security won't last. What makes you think I would entrust the government with the money to raise my and other people's children as well? The future generations would loose twice. It's better for you to keep your own money to raise your own kids than to trust your children's welfare to any government or organization. If you aren't smart enough to raise your own kids with the money you have, then don't have kids. But don't give your money to someone else thinking they will do better. They'll want something out of it for themselves. Also, most parents don't have all the money to raise their children all at once. They earn it as they get older with their kids. You'd have all parents 40+ years old when they have their first kid. They won't have enough energy left to raise them. A lot of the things parents teach their kids have nothing to do with money. Many poor parents raise their kids better than rich parents. By not having everything handed to them on a silver platter, poor kids know what it's like to work for everything they need and are better for it. Since they have to work hard for everything they get, they won't waste anything. Food, electricity, tools, toys, and gas all cost money. Poor people are less likely to waste any off it or buy what they don't need. Rich people tend to waste more because they can afford to. If every kid born had everything they ever needed from birth, we would have fewer resources available and more waste in landfills. If the world was full of poor people, they'd all walk to work (no fuel shortages), they wouldn't throw out any food (fewer food shortages), and they'd turn off the lights when leaving a room and unplug the clocks at night (no electricity shortages). I think there is still enough food in the world for everyone. It's just how it's used. Using it to make fuel decreases the supply. Paying farmers not to plant on some of their land decreases supplies. Covering up good farming land with freeways or homes decreases supplies (especially when using emminant domain to do it) . And in California, cutting off half the state's water supply to save an endangered fish decreases supplies (plants need water to grow).

Moderators, if my post seems in any way too political, feel free to delete it. I just feel that relying on the government or anyone else to solve problems we can solve ourselves won't deliver positive results.

 

[TONY M]

One of the problems, as I see it, in the UK, is that you get Child Benefit payments for each child, I'd limit that to first two children only.

+1
But benefits for the first child only, however the politicians won't let that happen too easily...

 

[Badbeams3]

Moderators, if my post seems in any way too political, feel free to delete it. I just feel that relying on the government or anyone else to solve problems we can solve ourselves won't deliver positive results.

:banned::banned::banned:Lol, you bring up many great points. :thumbsup: Thanks for shareing your thoughts...I surely would not expect everyone to agree with my thought...in fact, maybe no one at all