General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums‘Population Bomb’ scientist: ‘Nobody’ has the right to ‘as many children as they want’
Stanford professor and author of the Population Bomb recently published a paper in a scientific journal re-emphasizing climate change and population growth pose existential threats to humanity and in an interview with Raw Story said that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is “a bad idea.”
“The only criticism we’ve had on the paper is that it’s too optimistic,” said Paul Ehrlich, Bing professor of population studies at Stanford University and president of the Center for Conservation Biology. “You can’t negotiate with nature.”
The study, published the Proceedings of the Royal Society B journal earlier this month says that climate change is “driven by overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens‘ aggregate consumption.”
“Overall, careful analysis of the prospects does not provide much confidence that technology will save us or that gross domestic product can be disengaged from resource use,” the paper continued. The way to stop this is to “stop treating population growth as a ‘given’ and consider the nutritional, health and social benefits of humanely ending growth well below nine billion and starting a slow decline. This would be a monumental task, considering the momentum of population growth. Monumental, but not impossible if the political will could be generated globally to give full rights, education and opportunities to women, and provide all sexually active human beings with modern contraception and backup abortion.”
“Giving people the right to have as many people as many children that they want is, I think, a bad idea,” Ehrlich told Raw Story. “It’s not giving people the right to have as many children as they want, it’s giving people the right to control their reproduction so that they don’t have so many children that their children’s and grandchildren’s lives are in danger.”
“Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins,” Ehrlich continued. “That may be a hard-nosed view, but if you look at the entire situation, it’s crystal clear if we keep the populations of the rich growing, then the poor aren’t going to have a chance, and eventually, the descendants of the rich aren’t going to have a chance either.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/22/population-bomb-scientist-nobody-has-the-right-to-as-many-children-as-they-want/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)...is prompted by a religious pressure to out-populate other religious groups.
Thus the resistance to any form of birth control and stigmatization of masturbation (wasting of seed).
Silly people!
get the red out
(13,462 posts)I completely agree.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)The more babies born and reared in the doctrine, the more will grow up to seek the blessing of the widow's pennies. The Church doesn't need rich believers as long as they are devout.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think much more of the pressure comes from a lack of education and entrenched poverty (e.g., Asia, Africa and Latin America).
The world cultures in which education is present and contains anti-poverty programs have seen a dramatic reduction of the number of children born per household over the past fifty years (Europe: a drop from 2.5 children per women down to 1.5 in fifty years, or America's dramatic reduction from 4 children to 1.75), yet in places such as the African Sub-Saharan regions or North Africa, while seeing a diminishing birthrate, is still in the area of 5 children to every one female (down from close to 7 fifty years ago).
(Hardin, Living Within Limits; Meadows, Limits to Growth)
But yes, regardless of reason... silly people. "And thus is my conclusion: That man is a giddy thing" W. Shakespeare
Taverner
(55,476 posts)
Joking...just kinda
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Is he advocating a law? Jailtime? Forced abortion? Sterlization?
If "my body, my choice" is applicable to abortion, it must also be applicable to the choice to have children.
ck4829
(35,067 posts)no jobs, pollution, lack of sanitation, etc.
Nature, the environment, and our own infrastructure will do much worse to overpopulation than any law we could make can.
There you go with the making sense and providing examples and such.
What's this world coming to?
-p
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Forced sterilization after two kids? Mandatory abortions for every pregnancy after two kids? What do you propose we should do?
ck4829
(35,067 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)But just as we got most Americans to quit smoking, stop using leaded gasoline and have smaller families, we should have a public health campaign that heavily discourages and vilifies those who have as many kids as they want.
The Duggar Family should be ostracized, shunned and hated, not given a TV show
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)The article talks about "rights," which is a vague term, in my opinion. For some readers, such as myself, some of the language used in the article seems to advocate for some sort of legal action to be taken.
I think that is kind of creepy. That behavior will transfer onto their children, and they haven't done anything wrong. If we're not going to treat each other nicely, then why bother trying to save our species? What's the point? Existence for the sake of existence?
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Think about anti-smoking ads - the smoker is the enemy. He or she lights up, and the smoke goes right to a sleeping baby. So smokers are baby-killers.
That's the kind of vilification I am talking about
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't know what the answer is but one needs to be found.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)However, we have a GOP congress along with GOP Gov's trying to Shut down Planned Parenthood everywhere. Women are being denied affordable health care, which includes Birth Control!
They are not helping the situation!
kooljerk666
(776 posts)That was easy. If u r rich rally get taxed shitless.
Seriously xtian freaks with 20 kids, they hate gvt & probably pay no taxes & get subsidized.
There are 8x more people on earth than it can feed, the population needs reduction before cannibalism breaks out.
librabear
(85 posts)All over the world there is an inverse relationship with income vs fertility. US included.
Just because the duggars are on TV doesn't make them normal.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)protect the planet for our heirs and the earth's flora and fauna.
dhol82
(9,352 posts)famine is nature's way of population control.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Their money is not going to save them forever.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)The Tragedy or the Commons: http://dieoff.org/page95.htm
Wind Dancer
(3,618 posts)Thanks for sharing.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Glad you enjoyed it. I've been using that paper to horrify my general ecology students for many years. It ALWAYS stimulates a lively discussion.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)is at the religious institutions around the world. They are the ones that advocate against birth control and cheer people on to have as many kids as they can.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The United States and Europe, which don't have any population growth issues if you factor out immigration, have clearly demonstrated that religions more idiotic tendencies can't gain much of a foothold among populations that are well fed and educated. Here in the United States, huge families are the rare exception, and they almost always occur among the hyper-religious (and typically poorly educated) minority. Most Americans have decent educations, aren't hyper-religious, and have the average two-point-something kids.
Most global population growth today is driven by poorer third world populations in Africa, Asia, and South America. Religion and tradition does play a large part there, but again, it's mostly traceable to a lack of education and economic opportunity. There is a direct relationship between family size and a families educational level and wealth across the entire third world.
Eliminate poverty and fund education, and population growth goes away. Population growth is a SYMPTOM of these other two problems. Religious zeal is another symptom.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Check out how big Mormon families can be. Unless it's a medical reason, there is no one child.
And yes I have perspective I've lived with them and been around them half my life +.
-p
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)mice do-- many die early. And the children are who will eventually take care of the parents. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, but until their wealth is at parity with ours it will stay that way. Of course, parity of wealth also means competition for resources...
I remember reading somewhere about a Caribbean town with a heavy birth rate. At some point television was introduced and the birth rate dropped like a stone because they had something else to do at night. I assume widely available birth control might have the same effect.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Teach young people the whole truth. Ridicule the romanticism and emphasize the biological and social realities of breeding.
Apropos to today's DU battle du jour, the key is religion. All of them make irresponsible breeding a requirement to getting the brass ring.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. do not.
It's Muslims, Baptists and Catholics that want babies, babies, babies.
Traditionally, the Jewish Bible emphasized fertility, but reformed Jews are not pushed to have big families from what I can tell.
Of course, some people just want kids because they love having a big family. But that is not common. You can do so much for 2 that you cannot do for 12.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Nearly everyone agrees on that. The problem is figuring out a solution that doesn't involve gross impositions on human rights.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)in 1972.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)*EGREGIOUS*
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)start a big campaign about what to do!
judesedit
(4,438 posts)s resources and making sure there is enough to supply us, then common sense tells you NOT to have a bunch of kids. There are many countries already with water shortages. And who knows what kind of human beings the children will grow up to be. It's a toss up. With parents that don't care....many times the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
It's funny, though. Don't want kids, but don't want abortions, even in the most necessary cases. Don't want kids, but don't even want birth control to be paid for by insurance...yet...viagra is. So much hypocracy, contradiction, conflict of interest. Ho hum.
triplepoint
(431 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
Loudestlib
(980 posts)Population in most developed countries has been flat for some time. Given the current trends we will likely top out at 10 billion and then decline. If you do want to reduce births just educate women. Educated women on average have fewer children. We need to keep being very progressive about dealing with our problems.
leftstreet
(36,106 posts)People confuse overpopulation with overcrowding
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)[url=http://postimage.org/][img]
[/img][/url]
Sorry if I hurt anyone's eyes by posting a pick of the RMonies...but I wanted to make a point!
adieu
(1,009 posts)wrong for the past 40 years. There is absolutely no such thing as a population bomb. And there are clear evidence that the human population will top out at around 9 billion, in about 30 years or so.
Sorry, but that hack has no scientific credibility anymore.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)See how easy it is?
Silent3
(15,206 posts)...but your reasoning here is poor. If too many people decide to have big families, doing so can hurt everyone, even the people who have two or fewer children.
Family size is very personal, of course, like some other choices (gay marriage, abortion) where you might say "If you don't like X, don't do X!", but the decision to have many children directly impacts the whole world in tangible ways that go beyond the individual family, making it less than a purely personal choice.
It's good that there are non-coercive ways to solve the population problem -- education, improved rights for women, and a higher standard of living seem to be the best way to reduce population growth.
If those things weren't working, however, ugly as it might become, the solution would be a lot more complicated than "If you don't approve of families with more than 2 children, then don't have more than 2 children!"
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)But I was very young and ignorant of many things outside my own little world.
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)by not having any! My bro and sis didn't breed either. We are the end of the line!
bubbayugga
(222 posts)now picture that on a much larger scale. coming soon to a world near you.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Rights aren't always good ideas
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)possiblylogical
(18 posts)First, even in America there is a negative relationship between wealth and children. Poor people, by and large, have more people than rich. The countries with the highest population growth rates are generally developing countries. If we are going to control population we are generally going to do so by telling poor Americans and poor nations not to have so many children.
Second, we waste so much food and manage our farming resources so pitifully that starvation is not really an issue. If we were just concerned about making as many babies as possible, the earth could handle many times the current population.
Finally, much of the environmental degradation is a matter of policy. We could improve the environment and still have a decent standard of living if people really wanted to. The trade-off between economic output and the environment is greatly exaggerated by the people who are both strongly against improved environmental standards and people who are strongly for improved environmental standards.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)That may be more effective than simply telling poor people what to do.
However, I fully agree with your other points.
possiblylogical
(18 posts)But that is easier said than done...
dsc
(52,157 posts)I could go for that.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)I want in. Someone is more than welcome to my "child" allotment! 
dsc
(52,157 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Even with the freaks like the Duggers', almost all first world countries are not even have enough babies to replace the current population. These countries only grow through immigration. The issue is with the 2nd and 3rd world countries where many children is the norm.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)In a sense, rights are merely another imaginary man-made construct that humanity uses to more effectively interact with ourselves within the context of any human era.
Nature itself is neither aware of any rights, nor will it allow any special dispensation for those rights, as it rains on the just and the unjust alike.
If that is indeed the case, using imaginary legal or ethical rights to argue against inevitable and natural consequences is simply not relevant.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Back then there was fear the tipping point was past.
There is hope though: One woman, one child, one century, and back to one billion is possible still.
onenote
(42,700 posts)after all, it would help slow the growth of the Latino population in red states.
pnwest
(3,266 posts)As someone posted above, if we have the right to abort, we also have the right to have as many as we want.
Now, understand me here, I'm only arguing about the use of the word "right". I completely agree that it is a bad idea to have a quiverfull, I completely understand all the concerns and ramifications of overpopulation. But DO NOT take away my right. How outraged are we about the forced one-child-law in China, and the horrible results of that bad experiment?
Go on a campaign of education, but do not take away my right. Childbearing is as personal and intimate as my very own thoughts, NO ONE has the right to tell me how many children I CAN have or CAN NOT have. That's between me and God.
