# I Believe Global Population Is Reaching An Unsustainable Level



## Bretrick

Consider these figures.
1970 Population 3.68 Billion
1980 Population 4.44 Billion
2000 Population 6.12 Billion
2020 Population 7.61 Billion 
2050 Population 9.60 billion est.
Surely serious birth control should be implemented at some stage soon? 
Of course people will say it is a violation of my Human Rights to stop me having children.
Well how are Human Rights for every person going to be maintained when the population reaches 10 Billion?
We are not feeding the 7 1/2 Billion people now.
The inevitable outcome of unfettered Population growth?


----------



## Aunt Bea

_*“If the world is to save any part of its resources for the future, it must reduce not only consumption but the number of consumers.”*_* - B.F. Skinner*​


----------



## David777

Insanity of dominant wealthy,  wealth seekers, and their corporate world of myopic endless growth and development.  Already way past a human population for sustainability and environmental health.  Ultimate pyramid scheme of human doom.

https://overpopulation-project.com/...man-population-an-eminent-economist-weighs-in

snippet:

_But not complete uncertainty! Within a range of plausible answers to these questions, Dasgupta delivers a range of optimal global populations between_* 0.5 and 5 billion*_. Like his earlier paper, this more rigorous effort suggests that humanity is already grossly overpopulated relative to global ecological carrying capacity and relative to the per capita consumption reductions that people are likely willing to undertake to remain within it. So does a revision of the earlier “Socially Embedded Preferences” paper, “Population Overshoot,” in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Population Ethics. This new effort defines per capita environmental impact in terms of average production, rather than average consumption, as in the earlier version. It sets an optimal sustainable global population at _*1.8 billion people.*


----------



## Pepper

@David777 
Fascinating.  Thanks.


----------



## Packerjohn

The world is killing itself due to over population.  The future wars will be about food and water.  However, business people love more people because they are consumer.  This is definitely a good example where more is bad while less is better.


----------



## Tish

David777 said:


> Insanity of dominant wealthy,  wealth seekers, and their corporate world of myopic endless growth and development.  Already way past a human population for sustainability and environmental health.  Ultimate pyramid scheme of human doom.
> 
> https://overpopulation-project.com/...man-population-an-eminent-economist-weighs-in
> 
> snippet:
> 
> _But not complete uncertainty! Within a range of plausible answers to these questions, Dasgupta delivers a range of optimal global populations between_* 0.5 and 5 billion*_. Like his earlier paper, this more rigorous effort suggests that humanity is already grossly overpopulated relative to global ecological carrying capacity and relative to the per capita consumption reductions that people are likely willing to undertake to remain within it. So does a revision of the earlier “Socially Embedded Preferences” paper, “Population Overshoot,” in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Population Ethics. This new effort defines per capita environmental impact in terms of average production, rather than average consumption, as in the earlier version. It sets an optimal sustainable global population at _*1.8 billion people.*


Wow, the Wild  Animals shrinking to 1% is really scary.


----------



## ElCastor

Bretrick said:


> Consider these figures.
> 1970 Population 3.68 Billion
> 1980 Population 4.44 Billion
> 2000 Population 6.12 Billion
> 2020 Population 7.61 Billion
> 2050 Population 9.60 billion est.
> Surely serious birth control should be implemented at some stage soon?
> Of course people will say it is a violation of my Human Rights to stop me having children.
> Well how are Human Rights for every person going to be maintained when the population reaches 10 Billion?
> We are not feeding the 7 1/2 Billion people now.
> The inevitable outcome of unfettered Population growth?


Time to get real about world population growth. For a country to sustain its population (let alone grow it) a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman must be maintained. Here are the Numbers:
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility-rate/country-comparison
Oops! The United States is 1.84.
Don't believe me? How about CNN? "US fertility rate is below level needed to replace population, study says"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/10/health/us-fertility-rate-replacement-cdc-study/index.html

In fact, what we think of as the "First World", Europe, North America, and East Asia is well under replacement rate. Japan is desperate. Have you read about the deserted villages of Italy or the empty cities of China? So where are all the babies being produced? Almost entirely in the so called third world -- Africa, South and Central America, the Middle East and South Asia. Look at the numbers for yourself.  If populations are growing in low birth rate countries, it's a product of uncontrolled migration.

So what to do about it? First place to start is to accept the truth of what is happening, and why.


----------



## fmdog44

While Texas bans abortions!


----------



## HoneyNut

Bretrick said:


> Surely serious birth control should be implemented at some stage soon?



I like this old YouTube presentation, it uses cute ways to demonstrate that the number of children already plateaued and the growth is from increased lifespan.  It also has a few funny survey results that indicate most people still think (incorrectly) that the rates of birthrate, poverty rate, literacy rate are all the same as when us boomers were in elementary school.  And that things have changed vastly for the better, but still has a way to go.

Unfortunately the presentation is an hour long, but has enough humor and interesting personal stories to make it very watchable:


----------



## HoneyNut

ElCastor said:


> under replacement rate. Japan is desperate. Have you read about the deserted villages of Italy or the empty cities of China?


I have trouble understanding why a country of a billion would limit family size to avoid growing and then when they stagnate at one and a half billion they are anxious not to reduce to a billion.
Maybe when I retire (80 days! or sooner if they force me to work at the office) I'll have time to read about economics.


----------



## Chet

Nature has a way of controlling population. I present covid-19 as evidence.


----------



## AnnieA

Chet said:


> Nature has a way of controlling population. I present covid-19 as evidence.



Not a drop in the bucket compared to babies born during this year.  So far, we're at a global net population gain of over 77 million for 2021 and most Covid deaths are in people beyond reproductive age.  Planet Earth needs a pandemic with a mortality rate far beyond Covid's IFR of less than 2% in most countries.


----------



## Bretrick

AnnieA said:


> Not a drop in the bucket compared to babies born during this year.  So far, we're at a global net population rate of over 77 million for 2021 and most Covid deaths are in people beyond reproductive age.  Planet Earth needs a pandemic with a mortality rate far beyond Covid's IFR of less than 2% in most countries.


I spoke about this very issue on another forum and was met with hatred and vitriol.
I was called callous in the extreme.
But to my way of thinking we need to lose at least half the population.


----------



## SmoothSeas

If I'm rembering correctly from a college evolution class, of all the species that have ever existed, 99% are now extinct, and only 1% are extant.

One of Darwinian principles for a species survival to remain extant is it has to continue to grow in geometric proportion.  We're currently violating that...


----------



## Don M.

Back in the late 90's, the UN released a report which said that the maximum sustainable human population would be no more than 6 billion.  We are well beyond that, and could reach 12 billion by the end of this century....at present birth rates.  

Most of the excessive births are occurring in the poorer nations, and among the most disadvantaged, and the developed nations are seeing the effects as illegal immigration continues to soar.  These poorer people have little choice but to try to move North into N. America and Europe, in an attempt to escape the crime and poverty in their nations.  

Sometime in the latter half of this century, there will be a huge war.  It will Not be nation vs. nation, but instead the Haves against the Have Nots.  The result will be a reduction in population in the billions.  If the Haves win, the world will begin to unite under a common language and government, and mankind will begin a serious reach for the stars.  If the Have Nots prevail, humanity will revert back to the Dark Ages, and it will be every man for himself.


----------



## Nathan

Bretrick said:


> I spoke about this very issue on another forum and was met with hatred and vitriol.
> I was called callous in the extreme.
> But to my way of thinking we need to lose at least half the population.


Yeah I would call that forum _the wrong place to be_, for sure.


----------



## Aunt Bea

The importing and exporting of food has become a political weapon.

In order to survive every nation needs the ability to feed its people or ultimately control its population.

_"If the farmer is rich, then so is the nation."_


----------



## Nathan

fmdog44 said:


> While Texas bans abortions!


Yup, bunch of real forward thinkers there....


----------



## David777

News media with strings pulled from their corporate masters, has for years been peppering us with stories like the below whining about too low a birth rate and a need for greater immigration.  This is all about the wealth seeking greedy wanting more during their short term existence without concern for the future of mankind or the planet. And this is also a prime reason why since the 1986 immigration legislation, that facet of the issue is all much worse because for politicians and their masters, it was all talk and no action, monkeywrench anything that threatens the myopic status quo.  There are almost no politicians of either party interested in a sustainable world as they know where their money to be re-elected comes from.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-growth-is-still-the-key-to-america-s-success

_Last year I published a book titled “_*One Billion American*_,” recommending pretty much that. This week the Census made it official: There are _*only *_331,449,281 Americans. The argument of my book — the title, to be clear, is aspirational — is that the U.S. should aim for more rapid population growth so it can better compete internationally, especially with China. And while the Census data shows the U.S. had the slowest population growth rate since the 1930s, as fewer immigrants arrive and the birthrate continues nearly 30 years of steady decline, my thesis still holds...
It is in America’s best interests to get back to growth. That will require political leaders to support the families already here — and to win their backing for changes in U.S. immigration policy that will allow _*more people from around the world to come here *_to build families and livelihoods of their own. _

*...So all the rest of you can all live equally like sardines in a can... and we rich can retire to Palm Springs and Palm Beach to play golf!*


----------



## Irwin

Considering the problem with overpopulation, one would think it wouldn't be a good idea to force women to have children they can't afford or are unable to take care of, or that they just don't want, but that's what's happening. Just another thing that doesn't make any sense in the f*cked up world.


----------



## Aneeda72

Bretrick said:


> I spoke about this very issue on another forum and was met with hatred and vitriol.
> I was called callous in the extreme.
> But to my way of thinking we need to lose at least half the population.


You go first .  Just kidding.  I know someone else on the forum that I would volunteer to go first.  Just kidding, maybe, ok not really kidding, oh, wait, don’t want to be accused of being mean spirited so, just kidding.

Hmm, ok folks, who wants to start the ball of death rolling?  Volunteers?


----------



## Bretrick

Aneeda72 said:


> You go first .  Just kidding.  I know someone else on the forum that I would volunteer to go first.  Just kidding, maybe, ok not really kidding, oh, wait, don’t want to be accused of being mean spirited so, just kidding.
> 
> Hmm, ok folks, who wants to start the ball of death rolling?  Volunteers?


Trouble with volunteers, most would back out at the death.
So the first volunteers would have died without the desired result coming to fruition


----------



## ElCastor

HoneyNut said:


> I have trouble understanding why a country of a billion would limit family size to avoid growing and then when they stagnate at one and a half billion they are anxious not to reduce to a billion.
> Maybe when I retire (80 days! or sooner if they force me to work at the office) I'll have time to read about economics.


China? We are not privy to their motives, but here is probably as clear an explanation as we will get. No degree in economics required.
"Why China Is Ending Its One-Child Policy"
https://abcnews.go.com/International/china-ending-child-policy/story?id=34824002

As for world population growth, as I explained in a previous post, the First World is to blame but only indirectly. First World birth rates are below replacement rate. Were it up only to that First World we would be talking about the alarming decline in our population and how we might encourage women to have more children. Instead, as First World populations stabilize and then decline we open our borders to the swelling populations of Third World countries. The result, a continual net growth of the human population.


----------



## IFortuna

Have any of you had or have children?


----------



## Murrmurr

Irwin said:


> Considering the problem with overpopulation, one would think it wouldn't be a good idea to force women to have children they can't afford or are unable to take care of, or that they just don't want, but that's what's happening. Just another thing that doesn't make any sense in the f*cked up world.


Maybe sterilization should be mandatory. In certain cases, like, for women, after the second abortion, or, for both partners, after you've had your "replacement" child.


----------



## IFortuna

Murrmurr said:


> Maybe sterilization should be mandatory. In certain cases, like, for women, after the second abortion, or, for both partners, after you've had your "replacement" child.


Don't you think that is a tad draconian?


----------



## Irwin

The U.S. population grew at the record low rate of .1% in 2021, due in part to all the people dying from covid-19. The pandemic is natures way of saying, "Hold on there, world population — you're growing a bit too fast. I'm going to have to step in and do something about that."


----------



## Alligatorob

Bretrick said:


> I Believe Global Population Is Reaching An Unsustainable Level


We are way past that...  Just have to wait and see what happens next.  Hopefully long after I am gone..


----------



## Bretrick

Alligatorob said:


> We are way past that...  Just have to wait and see what happens next.  Hopefully long after I am gone..


True. We will never know how it all panned out. Though I can surmise that hunger will prevail for a large percentage of the population. Disease from lack of clean water, natural disasters (wild fires, tornadoes, floods,)


----------



## horseless carriage

In the last two hundred years the population, globally has gone from one billion to just shy of eight billion. Does that worry me? Not when I see the global spend annually on armaments stand at two thousand billion US dollars.

Strange old world, my wife and I thought about children and decided they were not for us. So, at twenty two, following a simple surgical procedure, I fired blanks. A word of advice to any younger lurkers here. Never admit you don't want children. Since becoming unleaded, I have read some serious vitriol about choosing that lifestyle. Not aimed at us, simply because we tell nobody, but choosing a life without children is, in the opinion of some, below contempt.


----------



## Alligatorob

Bretrick said:


> I can surmise that hunger will prevail for a large percentage of the population.


Perhaps, but I don't think people will starve in mass peacefully.


----------



## Uptosnuff

IFortuna said:


> Have any of you had or have children?


What is the point of your question?  Sounds like a no-win to me.


----------



## Alligatorob

IFortuna said:


> Don't you think that is a tad draconian?


Nothing in comparison to what's actually going to happen.


----------



## AnnieA

Irwin said:


> The U.S. population grew at the record low rate of .1% in 2021, due in part to all the people dying from covid-19. The pandemic is natures way of saying, "Hold on there, world population — you're growing a bit too fast. I'm going to have to step in and do something about that."



Covid-19 deaths won't be a drop in the bucket as soon as the pandemic is over since it's mainly killing people beyond reproductive age.  The Earth needs a much!!! more deadly human virus for it to heal.


----------



## Knight

Alligatorob said:


> Perhaps, but I don't think people will starve in mass peacefully.


One of those nasty facts people in general don't want to think about. Who  has recently looked up the crop yield per acre, or the loss of topsoil ?  One of the results will be a reduction in grains used to feed animals that make up the protein supply. Known is less supply means  higher pricing.

Who knows maybe Soylent Green will become a reality.


----------



## HarryHawk

If we want to reduce the population for the overriding good of humanity, makes sense to start getting rid of the old people first.  They tend not to produce too much and have fairly high maintenance overhead.

Any volunteers?


----------



## Bretrick

HarryHawk said:


> If we want to reduce the population for the overriding good of humanity, makes sense to start getting rid of the old people first.  They tend not to produce too much and have fairly high maintenance overhead.
> 
> Any volunteers?


If I was to be taken early then I would not complain. Just don't tell me when I am to go.
I want to go unexpectedly


----------



## Murrmurr

IFortuna said:


> Don't you think that is a tad draconian?


Yes.


----------



## IFortuna

Uptosnuff said:


> What is the point of your question?  Sounds like a no-win to me.


The point is that I find it ironic that some people on this forum want to see disease overtake the planet where their children reside yet complain about over population.  I have no children, so it really does not matter to me in the long run. 

"As    a    researcher    in    quantum    chaos    and    neuroscience,    I    struggled    to    reassemble    the     scattered    shards    of    my    physical    worldview.    Over    weeks,    this    metamorphosed    into    “The     Symbiotic    Cosmology    of    Perennial    Conscious    Existence”,    a    creative    commons     monograph    on    Research    Gate    –    augmenting    physical    cosmology    with    its    universal     complement    in    conscious    existence,    in    three    interlocking    components,    biogenic,     panpsychic    and    symbiotic.  This cosmology is consistent    with    quantum    physics    and    neuroscience . . .

B:    Reflowering    Paradise    on    the    Cosmic    Equator    in    Space-time    13    billion    years    out    from    the    big    bang: (1)    Give    half    the    Earth    back    to    re-wilding    the    wilderness,    so    there    is    enough    species    diversity    for    the    biosphere    to     evolve.    (2)  Transition  to  renewable  energy  immediately.   (3)   Decentralise    food    supply    chains    to    protect    humanity.    (4)     Ensure    the    genetic    diversity    of    our    food    and    medicinal    species.    (5)    Eliminate    nukes    and    consider    how    best    to    avoid    a     massive    asteroid    Earth    strike    and    protect    from    nearby    supernovae.    (6)    Teach    people    how    to    live    in    symbiotic    urban     culture.    (7)    Use    technology    for    the    benefit    of    life    as    a    whole    not   for    personal    gain,   humanity    alone,    or    an    artificial     intelligence    takeover.    (8)    Celebrate    the    perennial    wonder    of    existence    throughout    our    generations    forever    Amen."    Chris King  Professor of Maths, Auckland University Retired   file:///C:/Users/PC/Downloads/The_Symbiotic_Cosmology_of_Perennial_Con.pdf


----------



## Don M.

The more I see of what is happening, the more concerned I become about the world our grandkids, and beyond, will inherit.  I won't live long enough to see the decline, but I am Not optimistic about what the latter half of this century will look like.


----------



## Knight

HarryHawk said:


> If we want to reduce the population for the overriding good of humanity, makes sense to start getting rid of the old people first.  They tend not to produce too much and have fairly high maintenance overhead.
> 
> Any volunteers?


For those that believe there is a God with a plan for everyone. 
Maybe God would plan to eliminate all the bad people. 
Then those that have used drugs to the detriment of society. 
Moving on to those that have caused their own poor health to the point of needing special care just to survive. 
Next would be the gluttons that use more than their share of food that would be available. 

At some point looking at the way mankind has increased & has developed negatively in so many ways. IMO worse than when God supposedly wiped out everyone but Noah & his family wouldn't he or she be really pi$$ed about the deterioration of how his "children" turned out & try again?


----------



## JaniceM

Knight said:


> For those that believe there is a God with a plan for everyone.
> Maybe God would plan to eliminate all the bad people.
> Then those that have used drugs to the detriment of society.
> Moving on to those that have caused their own poor health to the point of needing special care just to survive.
> Next would be the gluttons that use more than their share of food that would be available.
> 
> At some point looking at the way mankind has increased & has developed negatively in so many ways. IMO worse than when God supposedly wiped out everyone but Noah & his family wouldn't he or she be really pi$$ed about the deterioration of how his "children" turned out & try again?


----------



## JaniceM

Bretrick said:


> Consider these figures.
> 1970 Population 3.68 Billion
> 1980 Population 4.44 Billion
> 2000 Population 6.12 Billion
> 2020 Population 7.61 Billion
> 2050 Population 9.60 billion est.
> Surely serious birth control should be implemented at some stage soon?
> Of course people will say it is a violation of my Human Rights to stop me having children.
> Well how are Human Rights for every person going to be maintained when the population reaches 10 Billion?
> We are not feeding the 7 1/2 Billion people now.
> The inevitable outcome of unfettered Population growth?


I heard people in the 1970s were emphasizing that..  supposedly why one relative and spouse thereof decided to only have one child.


----------



## ElCastor

JaniceM said:


> I heard people in the 1970s were emphasizing that..  supposedly why one relative and spouse thereof decided to only have one child.


People decided to have one child because technology gives them a choice. Children can be expensive, require a bigger house, disrupt employment, cost of college, healthcare, etc. etc. Back in the day, before Social Security and 401K's, when a large percentage of the population lived on farms children were needed to help with the farm and care for their parents in their old age. Yikes -- my step-mother came from a farm family of 16, but had not one child herself.  For a population to sustain itself, let alone grow, each woman needs to have a bit more than 2 children -- at least 2.1. Not happening in the US, or any modern developed First World country. It's getting so bad in Italy that whole villages have become deserted and in some cases women are paid to have a child. Japan is desperate. The Congo averages 5.7 per woman while Taiwan is barely more than 1 and the US is at 1.87 and declining.


----------



## Larry67

I'm a supporter of lowering the human population to a more sustainable level. I think that organized religion contributes to the problem. Some religions prohibit birth control and some sanction plural marriage. When that is combined with child tax credits and social programs that allow people to have children and escape the responsibility of providing for them, I see no likelihood of population decrease.


----------



## ElCastor

Larry67 said:


> I'm a supporter of lowering the human population to a more sustainable level. I think that organized religion contributes to the problem. Some religions prohibit birth control and some sanction plural marriage. When that is combined with child tax credits and social programs that allow people to have children and escape the responsibility of providing for them, I see no likelihood of population decrease.


With or without religion, countries with birth control, child tax credits, and social programs are of the 1st world, and are universally below the 2.1 fertility rate that sustains a population, let alone allowing it to grow. At 1.84 the US is one of those 1st world countries. Once again ...
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility-rate/country-comparison
So what's the answer for the US and the rest of the 1st world? Open their borders and let excess populations pour in?


----------



## Alligatorob

Don M. said:


> The more I see of what is happening, the more concerned I become about the world our grandkids, and beyond, will inherit. I won't live long enough to see the decline, but I am Not optimistic about what the latter half of this century will look like.


It is coming, no idea when or how but what we are doing is not sustainable.  And I am skeptical that we can or will do anything to change it.

“_If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population._”


----------

