Science and Natural History discussion

This is touchy, but I'm curious to see people's opinions on the matter.

As I'm sure you all know, human population is increasing exponentially. This has an enormous impact on what's left of our wild spaces and wildlife that live there. My question is this: Is there an easy, ethical way to implement population control without it turning into some big human rights fiasco?

Yes: Encourage wealth. Wealthy societies self-annihilate (oops! I meant self-regulate). Any top-down system is going to, by definition, involve 'big human rights' fiascos', and since it will inevitably be run by those whose idea of a good time is regulating others, that would be a creeping, invasive system under which I suspect you wouldn't want to live. It's not a coincidence that it takes a totalitarian society like the PRC to implement a one-child policy.

More to the point, it is a fool's errand to try to outsmart nature. There's a reason people have been worried about 'overpopulation' for hundreds of years and nothing has changed: when there are available resources, organisms will utilize them to the best of their ability, and if one organism (or one group of people) doesn't, then another organism (or another group/population of people) will.

Taking a step back, however, I wouldn't worry too much about the whole subject. Scarcity is a wonderful driver of innovation. And besides, ultimately, the 'wild spaces and wildlife' that you're waxing over are doomed whether humanity is here or not; every organism here WILL go extinct, every environment will be subducted, crushed, frozen or baked; it's just a matter of timescale. So ask yourself, why do you particularly care when? Is it for the sake of your enjoyment, your values? Well then, why do those values take precedent over the values of someone like me, who has no particular interest in cocooning the world in a precious snowglobe, but rather as a tool to be exploited?

Save for a few extra-planetary spacecraft (and even our LEO satellites don't fall into this category) we've used up NOTHING, only converted it into lower energy states. All the lego blocks are still here, maybe smashed-up a bit, but still waiting for us to unlock new ways to put them back together. With enough scarcity, who knows, we may start mining landfills--what a convenient source of raw materials our betters left us!

You're taking a zero-sum approach to a problem that is really an opportunity. Every human life added is not a 'minus' to the environment, but a 'plus' to the boundless possibilities that await.

Sl wrote: "Yes: Encourage wealth. Wealthy societies self-annihilate (oops! I meant self-regulate). Any top-down system is going to, by definition, involve 'big human rights' fiascos', and since it will inevit..."

I'm sorry but I really have to disagree on a couple of points. Firstly you suggest that wealth will "self-regulate" the population. Although it's certainly true that the richer a society the lower birth rate, this isn't a reliable method to curb the exploding population. Back in the early sixties the UK was one of the richest nations in the world and yet still it's population has doubled since then. Although the population growth is certainly slowing assuming that this is enough to avoid damaging overpopulation is surely an unsubstantiated premise?

Also you mention that 'every organism here WILL go extinct'. This of course is true, but isn't there a difference between a species naturally going extinct and being wiped from existence at the hands of a conscious, free-willed organism that simply didn't bother to change its ways? A species that consciously brought destruction extinguishing the flame of existence for other species simply because it didn't care? Surely if we were to take your view then we may as well carelessly destroy everything and happily reassure ourselves that it was going to die out eventually anyway? Surely life has an inherent value and surely we should recognise and protect it accordingly? This may well be the only life in the universe (perhaps unlikely but for all we know it's true) so doesn't it deserve our respect?

I'm not saying I'm right but I had to ask the questions.

I agree, Lance. We can recognize that the earth is not infinite, and not be nihilists. What matters is not only our own life on earth, but the lives of others who share the earth and will live here in the foreseeable future. It's pretty mind-blowingly incredible that a cockroach exists, right now, having traveled its 3.5 billion-year immortal journey through time right alongside me, to the very second.

Lance,

While I don't go so far as to advocate carelessly destroying everything (which is a bit more strident than even my black heart aspires to), I do take a somewhat utilitarian view of nature. Because while I've seen many examples of individual humans behaving as 'conscious, free-willed organisms' (and prefer to spend my time with these sorts of people), in the aggregate, humanity behaves exactly like any other organism, expanding to overwhelm its environment, then dying back to equilibrium. Somehow in the great sweep of history, no call to morality, whether from Plato or Augustine or Erlich, has ever managed to change the bell curve that infects chaotic populations of individuals, be it ants or aunts.

I'm not terribly fond of this math, and there are those weaker moments when I may be heard to mutter, 'but why can't we all just...'--but I quickly come back to my senses and realize that we are what we are. I'm not sure how to measure the inherent value of life, or calculate to what level it deserves our respect. I have no balance scale or gas chromatograph to determine these things.

So then it falls upon competing moralities, which leaves us two essential possibilities; that we either live side-by-side in laissez faire toleration, or enforce our will upon one another at the point of a gun (for this is what ultimately any law relies upon).

Personally, I'd prefer the former, as it at least is the way I wish to treat my fellow men, but historically, I'm afraid the latter is by far the more prevalent one.

I'm somewhat kneejerk in overpopulation discussions, and I hope I haven't ascribed to you arguments that you aren't making, but my fear in these sorts of discussions, is that underlying the question is a suggestion--that something needs to be done. I always worry that this sort of sentiment comes from people who at their core don't really like other people all that much, and have no problem getting the 'wrong sort' out of the way.

Sl wrote: "Lance,

While I don't go so far as to advocate carelessly destroying everything (which is a bit more strident than even my black heart aspires to), I do take a somewhat utilitarian view of nature. ..."

I would disagree that 'no call to morality' 'has ever managed to change the bell curve' because our morals are constantly developing and evolving. We are certainly coming around to the view of protecting the natural world more now than ever before. Certainly no one comment or observation has suddenly changed our views but the world rarely behaves like that anyway. It's more like a massive oil tanker where it takes small changes over a longer period of time to change direction.

I agree that it is difficult to measure the inherent value of life or how much of our respect it deserves. Ultimately it is a moral one and is therefore subjective. But I don't subscribe to the notion that there are only two competing moralities, laissez-faire or enforcement. Surely the middle ground is simply consciousness raising? Making more people consider the value and beauty of the natural world. When people's mindset is that the natural world is a commodity to be exploited then that's what they will do. But when you take the time to teach people about the world they generally come to respect it more. In fact many conservation projects around the world have begun to use this exact same method (I could be wrong but off the top of my head I believe this is part of the technique being used to protect the Aye-Aye in Madagascar). So basically my point is that by teaching people about the natural world and giving them cause to consider it they often naturally develop more respect for it and become more inclined to treat it so. Perhaps I'm being naive and overly optimistic but there does seem to be evidence that it works, at least in some cases.

No need to hold fears in this discussion I assure you. It's just interesting to discuss these issues.

As a light-hearted aside here's a recent story on the topic that I thought was fantastic (though those who dislike bugs may disagree).

I'm not at all worried about Mother Earth. She can take care of herself. But if we humans want to stick around for much longer we need to stop raping Mother Nature of all her resources or there will be nothing left to subsist on (no matter how innovative these future humans are).

For me it's about saving wildlife and landscapes, but it doesn't have to be like that for everyone on the planet. There's more than one way to skin a cat (please don't, though), and I'm sure there are myriad reasons for individuals to want to do something proactive - or at least relatively neutral - to keep these resources from dying off.

But, I mean, if no one else cares if there's a future for the next generation, then fine. :P

Simply put, I consider that global population control will become essential in the near future (I consider that it is essential now). How such control would be implemented beyond simply legislating that an individual cannot have more than X number of children, I do not know. It does represent an ethical quandry but I think it also rather speaks of our collective selfishness. We seem more disturbed by suggestions that we may have to accept a dramatic change in our cultural paradigm than we are by the numerous widespread problems which face the natural world. I find this to be utterly baffling.

"Perhaps the time has now come to put that process into reverse. Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it's time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment." David Attenborough.

I would agree with that 100%, but it's not quite that simple.

If laws were put into place that said you are not allowed to have more than 2 children, what happens to the children that come after 2 if the parents decide to break that law or an accident happens? Do we add them to the already enormous pool of children up for adoption? Do we enforce abortion? Fine them? How much should the fine be? If it's too small, then too many people would be willing to disregard the law for a small fee. If too large, it would just throw that family (further) into poverty.

This is my biggest problem with the idea and the one that raises the most questions.

Implementing fine for an extra child can have very adverse effects on the way a person thinks.
It can be seen as the value of a life(that sounds really petty). Also, it would mean that only the rich can have multiple children. (So instead of buying something shiny and showing off, people will simply tell you how many children they have). Will that destabilize the society?(but since reservations and funding are given to the poor and, rich's rich going haywire due to exponential expenditure, that it may stabilze the society?)

Also, such a bill would take years to pass.

So the best option seems to be "AWARENESS"(and that includes people talking about it in an online discussion). Simply alter the way a generation thinks bit by bit through education (and the system of fear and local acknowledgment).

But i cant do a thing on my own. Why? Because i m a bloody lazy fellow. When you do something, you seek something in return. But sometimes you dont know what you are seeking and instead leave it to time to explain it later. I wanted to make to point with the last two lines but now i forgot so ummm.....that's it.

I'm no expert and I really haven't thought much about this topic before, but how about, instead of controlling population growth, finding ways to adapt to more people? Humans are very good at adapting hence we've been around for ages.

I mean, there will always be natural population checks like wars and famines and natural disasters but between them, rather than controlling population growth ourselves, we could explore ways to adapt to ourselves and our own growth, as well as improving our environment.

At the core of it, people populate and have children because they choose to have families. It doesn't seem fair to take away or control this right when there are other avenues still relatively unexplored, or even some that are undiscovered.

Education, with all that implies. As in all things, ignorance is the enemy. Simple (but not easy).

Andrew - I wasn't proposing any sort of methodological approach (re: simplicity) but was speaking of the impending necessity of population control. As I noted previously, the subject represents an ethical minefield. Legislation is highly unlikely to provide a practicable solution; education provides a more feasible way forward. Unfortunately, as with many other issues which require urgent and immediate action, it would appear that those who are able to make a positive difference which will benefit both humanity and the planet in the long term are largely unwilling to do so.

This is a tricky area.

The first question which is an obvious one to ask is, where geographically is population growing the fastest?

I think the answer to that is South Asia and China and Africa.

The second question is what is already being done about population growth?

I don't really have a great answer. From what I know, in China there are financial incentives in place. India has numerous government and NGO led initiatives promoting family planning. I don't really have a great visibility to what's happening in Africa (perhaps someone else here does).

The third question, is how effective are these measures ?

I also don't have a clear view on how effective these measures are except that population growth in China and India is expected to slow down.

The fourth question, what can we do to help make these existing efforts more effective if that is what is required ?

For a start, if there was a better understanding of the issues laid out in clear but not simplistic terms, that would help me at least. What initiatives i.e. family planning, encouraging womens rights, education etc have had the most success ? What are the best practices amongst NGOs that can be shared globally ? How can we increase fund-raising for the right efforts ? How can we simply provide transparency at ground levels for existing efforts so we know what works and what doesn't ?

Andrew wrote: "This is touchy, but I'm curious to see people's opinions on the matter.

As I'm sure you all know, human population is increasing exponentially. This has an enormous impact on what's left of our wi..."

There has never been an easy path to a good solution.

Pangolin wrote: "No. There is never an easy path to a good solution.

Ever. "

Okay, then how about any way. Doesn't have to be "easy."

This site has lots of eloquent writers but delightfully lacking in people willing to take action.

'Delightfully'? I don't know if that's your sense of irony kicking in, but I thought that was funny.

I think that's the point of this thread, though. It's about speculating over what sort of action that may be taken in the event and purpose that it probably should. So it really is just spitballing around, but it's fun, and it may well lead to the very unlikely possibility of something globally feasible and universally* agreeable - a solid working plan.

*hopefully

Yeah, I didn't realize this was a board of experts on the subject writing a bill to be introduced and voted on in Congress/Parliament/etc.

Anu wrote: "This site has lots of eloquent writers but delightfully lacking in people willing to take action."

How would you suggest one takes action with regards to the matter at hand? It seems that the most direct and immediate action would be to refrain from reproducing oneself, in which case I am a case in point. Less immediate is the educating of others with regards to the problems of overpopulation and again, I endeavour to do this. Further removed again from the individual are actions such as lobbying government (to what end I do not know) and spreading awareness and education in countries where the problem is most acute. It would be of greater benefit to the group and individuals (potentially beyond this graphical representation of binary data) if you proposed and discussed avenues of affirmative action. In the spirit of 'judge not...' it is far from constructive to cast aspersions from an perspective which is fundamentally uninformed.

I want to co-found a think tank that answers the question below. I'm looking for volunteers to help get the think tank started.

From my post above:
"The fourth question, what can we do to help make these existing efforts more effective if that is what is required ?

For a start, if there was a better understanding of the issues laid out in clear but not simplistic terms, that would help me at least. What initiatives i.e. family planning, encouraging womens rights, education etc have had the most success ? What are the best practices amongst NGOs that can be shared globally ? How can we increase fund-raising for the right efforts ? How can we simply provide transparency at ground levels for existing efforts so we know what works and what doesn't ? "

I don't mean no disrespect to anyone just being provocative. Its often the case that someone starts a good and relevant discussion. But sadly it remains talk and hot air. Nothing happens.

Often the smartest people are not doers. I think given the complexity of something like this topic, you need a think tank that does advisory to governments and NGOs.

Anyhow enough hot air, any willing volunteers to start a think tank ?

I do apologise, I completely missed your initial post.

1) Where geographically is population growing the fastest?

It's not Asia but Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa (with exceptions).

http://www.prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/M...,...

2) What is already being done about population growth...
3) ...how effective are these measures...
4) ...what can we do to help make these existing efforts more effective if that is what is required?

The two most commonly cited measures employed are the legislative approach (China) and the education and empowerment of women. The latter is often cited as a significant contributory factor in observed declines in the number of births in focal areas. The efficacy of the latter measure varies (the Chinese method is pretty effective)but,as ever, the underlying problem is more complex than simply educating women. The impacts of overpopulation require more diverse remedies than simply slowing rates of growth. As countries develop, a greater number will survive into old age; developing economies will apply greater industrial pressure to the environment; consumption will soar; and so on.

As for what we can do to improve the efficacy of certain methods? Very little I'm afraid. One may strive to live a sustainable life and educate others about doing likewise but unless one is in the position of being able to directly contribute to such things as education of developing countries or legislative reform, there is little that can be done by the individual to improve these measures. That does not mean, of course, that we should not try (always keeping Yoda in mind).

Here are a few sites which may inform:

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2007/623W...
http://www.populationmatters.org/
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ca...

"One may strive to live a sustainable life and educate others about doing likewise but unless one is in the position of being able to directly contribute to such things as education of developing countries or legislative reform, there is little that can be done by the individual to improve these measures."

Eloquently written but to be honest, it sounds a bit defeatist.

If empowerment of women and womens education are the top two ways to reduce population growth, then surely it makes sense to increase fund raising and donations in this area in the developed countries does it not?

We live in a digital age where a few people can spread a strong message much more easily than someone could 50 years ago.

Anu wrote: "Eloquently written but to be honest, it sounds a bit defeatist."

It may sound defeatist but I assure you that that was not the intent with which it was written. Despite the many problems faced by the world as a whole, I have to believe that we have a chance of putting right that which is blatantly wrong. I am not an optimist by nature but in this instance it is the beauty and wonder of the natural world and the potential of the human species which inspire such (admittedly guarded) optimism.

You are absolutely right with regards to fund-raising and donations. I was speaking with regards to more direct action. There are certainly organisations which require funding to spread awareness, particularly in Africa. Indeed, if one were so inclined, one could take the leap of volunteering or seeking employment with these organisations so that one might make a direct contribution.

Anu wrote: "We live in a digital age where a few people can spread a strong message much more easily than someone could 50 years ago."

Absolutely. That, for me, is the purpose of social media. Facebook and Twitter exist as platforms to assimilate and propagate news pertaining to science, conservation, the environment and other issues which get little mainstream coverage.

Population growth impacts so many areas - oil price, deforestation, number of species we have left, climate change, immigration, famine, war conflicts often over key resources. Its simply one issue we can't leave to the governments to get right.

I'm a strategist by trade. My competence lies in solving big problems for other people. I'd like to see a monumental step change in how we tackle population growth. My gut is telling me that the ongoing efforts we have globally need a coordinated strategy. The very first step towards a solution imho is to develop a clear and simple plan (no flowery language).

A think tank would be the vehicle to do that. It would:

1. Understand whats been written already and develop a hypothesis

2. Through phone interviews with NGOs on the ground and selected field trips, confirm whether the hypothesis has legs (ie womens rights, education etc are really the bees knees of solutions)

3. Develop solutions -> fund raising for the right actions is one. Sharing NGO best practices is another. Using digital means is another (I don't just mean Twitter/Facebook).

I wish I could go spend some time in Africa and get my hands dirty. Unfortunately, I also have a day job. I'd be doing this as a hobby. I also realise I can't do this alone. I need other hobbyists to join me on this adventure.

I would be totally willing to help out with this effort in any way I can.