Thread: Why Do Conservatives Deny The Existence Of The Population Management Crisis

the natural population controls are disease, famine, and war. if we want to control population the natural way, we can wait for one or more of these factors to do it for us. conversely, we could choose to limit population growth ourselves.

it's a sticky issue. limiting it ourselves means that some external agency will be determining how many children a person can have. however, if we don't do it, it's a certainty that our descendents (possibly only a couple generations from now) will be dealing with even greater, natural forces which are unelected and quite a bit more terrifying.

Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla

The Malthusian catastrophe was and has been a load of crap.
Many of the things you cite are baloney.

Most of the factors in the supposed apocalyptic situations, never panned out, because technology has kept up with larger populations.
These predictions ignore individual behavior and tend to be based off static models.

As I told X Factor, I apologize for not being able to give you a good poll-option response.

Originally Posted by Helix

the natural population controls are disease, famine, and war. if we want to control population the natural way, we can wait for one or more of these factors to do it for us. conversely, we could choose to limit population growth ourselves.

it's a sticky issue. limiting it ourselves means that some external agency will be determining how many children a person can have. however, if we don't do it, it's a certainty that our descendents (possibly only a couple generations from now) will be dealing with even greater, natural forces which are unelected and quite a bit more terrifying.

Yep, that's pretty much it, alright.

As for determining the methods of change, math itself is helpful in determining the decrease factor.

If people who want to be parents voluntarily limited the number of kids they create to no more than two per person, there would commence a significant decrease in the population numerical-change rate.

This means that if Bob and Carol had a child, then ended their relationship, and Carol and Ted got together, and Ted didn't have any kids, then Ted and Carol could have just one more kid together, as any more than that would exceed Carol's two-kid maximum. Now if Bob got together with Alice, and Alice already had two kids, the two of them could not create any more kids, because Alice was already maxed-out.

True, if every person coupled and they all had exactly two kids, there would be no decrease, but the very fact that people do die prematurely and prior to having kids and that some would choose not to have kids, plus that the two-kid max/person is independent of which subsequent relationship one might be in .. the population numerical-change rate would indeed decrease, and likely quickly enough to avert otherwise portending disasters.

But, of course, such a voluntary change in global behavior would only happen if there was a huge multi-lateral global-wide advocation campaign about doing so, complete with all the OP reasons and more that validate the need to do so quickly.

Again though, better to really ramp up quickly on a voluntary plan than to finally reach a point where draconian enforcement to save our species becomes necessary.

Still, with all the conservative denial that exists about this dire problem, the odds of a voluntary campaign on the matter are slimmer than otherwise.

Originally Posted by Ontologuy

Yep, that's pretty much it, alright.

As for determining the methods of change, math itself is helpful in determining the decrease factor.

If people who want to be parents voluntarily limited the number of kids they create to no more than two per person, there would commence a significant decrease in the population numerical-change rate.

This means that if Bob and Carol had a child, then ended their relationship, and Carol and Ted got together, and Ted didn't have any kids, then Ted and Carol could have just one more kid together, as any more than that would exceed Carol's two-kid maximum. Now if Bob got together with Alice, and Alice already had two kids, the two of them could not create any more kids, because Alice was already maxed-out.

True, if every person coupled and they all had exactly two kids, there would be no decrease, but the very fact that people do die prematurely and prior to having kids and that some would choose not to have kids, plus that the two-kid max/person is independent of which subsequent relationship one might be in .. the population numerical-change rate would indeed decrease, and likely quickly enough to avert otherwise portending disasters.

But, of course, such a voluntary change in global behavior would only happen if there was a huge multi-lateral global-wide advocation campaign about doing so, complete with all the OP reasons and more that validate the need to do so quickly.

Again though, better to really ramp up quickly on a voluntary plan than to finally reach a point where draconian enforcement to save our species becomes necessary.

Still, with all the conservative denial that exists about this dire problem, the odds of a voluntary campaign on the matter are slimmer than otherwise.

Why is it a dire problem?
Many/most/all the reasons you listed are just false.

Global population is expected to peak at about 15 billion.
Then slowly decline.
The number one factor in that decline is people become more wealthy, the less children they have, so that they can concentrate more resources on those fewer children.

I'm totally amazed (and a little sad, actually) at the level of power that some are only too happy to turn over to some government, or other authority, especially over something that should be so personal. What happened to that so called reproductive "right to privacy" that Roe supposedly stands for?

I'll be bold and take the Muslim point.

Originally Posted by Ontologuy

Yep, that's pretty much it, alright.

As for determining the methods of change, math itself is helpful in determining the decrease factor.

If people who want to be parents voluntarily limited the number of kids they create to no more than two per person, there would commence a significant decrease in the population numerical-change rate.

This means that if Bob and Carol had a child, then ended their relationship, and Carol and Ted got together, and Ted didn't have any kids, then Ted and Carol could have just one more kid together, as any more than that would exceed Carol's two-kid maximum. Now if Bob got together with Alice, and Alice already had two kids, the two of them could not create any more kids, because Alice was already maxed-out.

True, if every person coupled and they all had exactly two kids, there would be no decrease, but the very fact that people do die prematurely and prior to having kids and that some would choose not to have kids, plus that the two-kid max/person is independent of which subsequent relationship one might be in .. the population numerical-change rate would indeed decrease, and likely quickly enough to avert otherwise portending disasters.

But, of course, such a voluntary change in global behavior would only happen if there was a huge multi-lateral global-wide advocation campaign about doing so, complete with all the OP reasons and more that validate the need to do so quickly.

Again though, better to really ramp up quickly on a voluntary plan than to finally reach a point where draconian enforcement to save our species becomes necessary.

Still, with all the conservative denial that exists about this dire problem, the odds of a voluntary campaign on the matter are slimmer than otherwise.

Trying to tell me you get to decide how many kids I have will be met not with mere denial, but with very vocal and active opposition.

Originally Posted by X Factor

I'm totally amazed (and a little sad, actually) at the level of power that some are only too happy to turn over to some government, or other authority, especially over something that should be so personal. What happened to that so called reproductive "right to privacy" that Roe supposedly stands for?

Malthusian catastrophe has been one of the longest lived myths, to plague the modern world.
It needs to die.

Originally Posted by lunchbox

I'll be bold and take the Muslim point.

Your courage to be honest is to be commended.

However .. if "we" and "them" engage in a population-increase-for-control-of-the-world war, well, that's a lose-lose proposition for everyone on the planet.

The question is, if "we're" ramping up our numbers because they "started it first", how do we instead find a way to keep "them" from ramping their population out of control, and thus spare the planet from related collateral damage?

The problem of overpopulation is already self-correcting; rates of population growth are dropping. Europe's is below replacement value already. The US is almost in the negative numbers if not for immigration.

The population "bomb" turned out to be a dud.