“What would be needed to get such a policy up?”

Examinator, a policy of greatly reduced population growth, down to at least net zero and preferably quite a bit less for a couple of decades at least, would require an enormous collaborative global effort.

Impossible? Maybe, but then the world is attempting to deal with climate change, which requires no less of an effort.

What we desperately need is for concern about climate change to morph into concern about total sustainability, instead of an enormous portion of the world’s environmental energies being put into just one aspect of our future-protection while another huge section goes virtually unaddressed.

One significant organisation or national leader could so easily espouse this, and the ball would roll from there. Given that governments do have some problems with touting anything that runs against continuous growth, the people best suited to do this are those who speak on behalf of large non-government aid organisations. First in line is Bill Gates…or even better; Melinda…as matters of population stabilisation / fertility rates / birth control do come across with more clout from a female perspective.

“How would you address the moral, ethical and equity issues?”

Firstly by emphasising the dire consequences of continued rapid population growth, on all levels from personal to global. Of course these issues are difficult, but again, Melinda’s struggle against AIDS confronts these things directly…and the struggle against climate change does also, and very significantly, if a little less directly.

“Who would need to give up having children? The 3rd world?”

NO ONE would need to forego having children. But a very wide-ranging two-child policy would be needed. Or perhaps a one-child policy. Or perhaps if a country’s fertility rate was below replacement level, then people would be free to have three or even four kids. I don’t know. This is the sort of thing that would need to be thrashed out.

continued

“Suppose the population could be stabilized at say 3 billion would it actually solve the world’s problems?”

It would help tremendously, wouldn’t it?

The most interesting question is; would we gain anything if the world’s population was stabilised, or if we managed to considerably lower the growth rate but still have overall population growth, or even if we had a slight population reduction rate?

Not necessarily. The situation could be made worse by dragging out the impact of humanity on the planet before a major crash. But that’s no excuse for not doing our damnedest to reign in the human population problem.

“I agree with Dicky the Gates foundation is a deeply morally flawed institution.”

I don’t. By far the biggest moral flaw is the lack of action on overall sustainability and hence on population growth. This is far far greater than any other flaws the Gates Foundation may have.

“It is inexorably part of the system and therefore part of the problem.”

I don’t believe that in being part of the system it is inherently part of the problem. It has tremendous scope for both remaining part of the system and being a huge part of the solution.

Bronwyn re profligacy, in my opinion is you are completely wrong.

“We can no longer afford to let the extreme libertarian 'I can, so I will' attitude dominate.”

So you would replace it with what exactly?

“Collective solutions are required.”

The strength of any collective is only a reflection of the strengths and diversity of the individuals who comprise it.

A bunch of identical clones, experiencing an ensured “equality”, would only be achievable through carrying the same or very similar genetic profiles and that is a recipe for human extinction.

Check the causes for the Irish potato famine and you will see what I mean.

Respect for individuals each displaying different abilities and capabilities, inherited through diversified genetic strains, is how a species ensures its future existence.

So “Collective solutions are required. And constant ranting about individual rights is both unhelpful and unwanted.”

You are not arbiter of what is either helpful or wanted. When you are, I might still decide to ignore your commands but until that time, I am absolutely certain to ignore such contemptible attempts to shut down my right to express an opposing view.

Ludwig “Examinator, a policy of greatly reduced population growth, down to at least net zero and preferably quite a bit less for a couple of decades at least, would require an enormous collaborative global effort.”

I agree Ludwig, the challenge is to get that effort.

Past experience would suggest the ‘reward’ system of developed countries, with access to developed world technology and decliming populations are not the problem.

Underdeveloped countries are where the bubble is growing.

One option is to withdraw all the development aid and western support in terms of disease control, modernization medical aid and the opportunities which industrialization might bring, which props up the often corrupt government of under-developed world and leave them to their own devices.

That way, as they hurtle toward oblivion, starvation and epidemics will intervene to correct the population growth anomaly.

Whilst this might seem “harsh’ at least it determines, by natural means the natural order of things evolutionary,”survival of the fittest”.

Ludwig,
I understand your passion and AGREE WITH YOUR CONCERNS.
The problem with your response is that it doesn’t address the issues I raise. I’m not saying ignore the problem or to do nothing, I’m simply placing it in a realistic context.

It is one thing to say there is a problem but it is a different issue altogether get it on an already crowded agenda.
Pragmatism dictates we :
• Identify the problem accurately i.e. the root cause and treat that rather arguably a symptom.
In a. recent interview an African tribesman was asked what he thought about the fact that of his 6 children only 2 may make it to adulthood.
He responded by saying “in that case I should have more children”. On the surface your view would seemingly argue the issue is a matter of education.

In reality it misses the reason for more children … to look after him in his old age. In a country where SS is non existent the survival of the family (society) depends on these extra hands. This ‘educate’ view also (wrongly) assumes that these third world countries have the technology and the infrastructure to compensate.
China, a rapidly developing economy, (which most 3rd world countries aren’t ) is now trying to deal with these very social issues. Care of the aged, population movements, employment growth and infrastructure to compensate etc. Then there’s the social imbalance and conflicting ambitions.
Add to that the inherent selfishness and myopic reasoning of ”my right of choice”(regardless of the consequences) advocates in any number of Western countries would block any attempt to curb the number of their progeny.
• Then prioritize on immediacy of need AND implementation.
I also suggest that more thought is needed on the impact of less cheap (exploitable) and labour availability generally. Both this and smaller markets to sell to would have adverse effects on Global economies i.e. prices etc aggravating the poverty issues.
All these are linked and need addressing, I argue our wasteful /profligate ways/lifestyles in the west are the base cause.

Bronwyn,
While we disagree in emphasis or approach from time to time I appreciate your usual grasp of the (contextual) nuanced nature of some of my comments thank you.
I must comment that I never cease being amazed by the near intellectually schizophrenic nature of some of the comments we seem to engender.
On one hand they show some understanding then on the other hand make some of the most ridiculously unsustantiatable assertions. I guess we must put that down to (the lazy person’s intellectualism) Dogma based reasoning.
I appreciate your comments. Keep on punching.
Cheers examinator :-).

Hi Ludwig

I confess, your proposals are far more rational than mine. Rather your glass appears half full whereas, mine is often half empty whenever I learn that the foxes are in charge of the chicken coop.

Though I acknowledge the good works performed by the Gates Foundation on AIDS, globally, at least one-third of the 33 million AIDS sufferers are now co-infected with TB. More to the point are the large and greedy drug corporations who have resisted making drugs cheaper.

The suffering of millions of people is ongoing and will remain as long as the multi-billion dollar drug companies refuse to make AIDS and other medications available to the poorer nations at a price they can afford. More governments need to ignore drug patents and manufacture their own drugs for distribution among their people.

In addition, environmental catastrophes and all other related evils such as climatic changes, water pollution, hazardous industrial emissions, destructive agricultural practices, famines, other health epidemics, soil degradation, child abuse, habitat destruction and torture of animals, emerging new zoonotic pathogens, war and crime, etc. are out of control.

To what can all of these disasters really be attributed? Indisputably, their sole and exclusive cause is our life opposing, continuously growing overpopulation problem, for it subsequently forces an increased need for everything one can imagine.

Many of these problems are now insurmountable since remedial efforts to resolve each problem are usually only very half-hearted in order to enable politicians, industrial and corporate leaders and others to preserve their positions. Additionally, these people are given immense funds which, of course are often funnelled into their own pockets.

Today, due to our collective ignorance, 70% of dry regions in the world have degenerated into desert, not least in Australia. Astonishingly, Australia's migrant intake last year was the highest since the 60s.

Due to the insanity of we terrestrials (millions reproducing uncontrollably like rabbits,) catastrophes of every type are occurring and predestined to occur in the near and distant future. Additionally, "persuasive” measures, by hypocritical governments, to mitigate global pollution have failed.

Alas, my glass remains half empty.