# Attenborough: there's too much life on Earth



## Trevor_S (14 April 2009)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6087833.ece



> The television presenter and naturalist said that the increase in population was having devastating effects on ecology, pollution and food production.
> 
> “There are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes only a mere 56 years ago,” he said, after becoming a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) think-tank.
> 
> “It is frightening. We can’t go on as we have been. We are seeing the consequences in terms of ecology, atmospheric pollution and in terms of the space and food production.




Good to see luminaries like Attenbrough starting to speak their mind on the true cause of the biggest ecological problem the world faces, over population.

It's a difficult debate to have because those who try and bring the issue to top of mind are often considered to be proponents of eugenics of some sort.  Especially when we are at odds with nonsense, destructive Government policies like the Baby Bonus etc


----------



## Nyden (14 April 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6087833.ece
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Surely the solution of this is as simple as lack of aid? I do believe in something of a survival of the fittest, it's worked well for evolution; so why not allow nature to take its course on a global scale? Of course, I refer to cutting off any sort of aid to Africa. I'd say it was a safe bet that certain problems across certain countries, and continents; simply aren't ever going to end, so why prolong the suffering? Either that, or implement some sort of mass-sterilisation :


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

To continue to grow as a species we need to look beyond the cradle.


----------



## white_goodman (14 April 2009)

Nyden said:


> Surely the solution of this is as simple as lack of aid? I do believe in something of a survival of the fittest, it's worked well for evolution; so why not allow nature to take its course on a global scale? Of course, I refer to cutting off any sort of aid to Africa. I'd say it was a safe bet that certain problems across certain countries, and continents; simply aren't ever going to end, so why prolong the suffering? Either that, or implement some sort of mass-sterilisation :




NSSM 200, they already are


----------



## Kez180 (14 April 2009)

It occurred to me the other day that EVERYTHING we eat used to be alive in one form or another...

So that got me thinking... is there an 'Aggregate' amount of life on the planet? If so, by us increasing our numbers, the 'life' has to come from somewhere...


----------



## Happy (14 April 2009)

One child policy in China was good start.

More countries should adopt it for a while and see what happens in 100 or 200 years time.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (14 April 2009)

Nyden said:


> Surely the solution of this is as simple as lack of aid? I do believe in something of a survival of the fittest, it's worked well for evolution; so why not allow nature to take its course on a global scale?




Sounds good. Will you be declining medical treatment when you get ill? 

It's a bit like the definition of a recession - it's a recession if somebody else loses their job, it's a depression when you lose yours.

So the person being born in Africa has less right to live than you?


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

In short we need to colonise space. In the process we will learn how to use resources more efficiently as there are less available away from our own planet. This is the next step if we are to both continue our growth in population and advance our development as a species.

When we look at our advances in space technology in the 1960's and 70's in particular (a man mission to the moon was achieved in under 10 years from making the comittment) and compare it to the decades since, we can only look at the rate of advancement in disappointment.

Perhaps another cold war is required between two superpowers to get us going again.


----------



## Nyden (14 April 2009)

Uncle Festivus said:


> Sounds good. Will you be declining medical treatment when you get ill?
> 
> It's a bit like the definition of a recession - it's a recession if somebody else loses their job, it's a depression when you lose yours.
> 
> So the person being born in Africa has less right to live than you?




They have every right to live. But, can they not live on their own? If not, the most important question is whether or not the world can afford to support these people until the ends of time?

I'm always perplexed as to why these older civilisations are so behind the rest of us, is it purely an unwillingness to change, a lack of sociological, or perhaps even intellectual growth, and evolution?

Resources are ever dwindling, and whilst certain countries engage in what seem to be endless wars - why the heck should our tax dollars be going over there, when we have so many problems of our own? Evolve, or die out; it really is as simple as that.


----------



## Old Mate (14 April 2009)

I agree with Nyden, wealthy countries keep supporting poor African countries to make themselves feel better and it's just not improving conditions over there enough. These poor nations need to learn to support themselves otherwise this will keep going unsolved. Despite terrible conditions over there, their population continues to grow, the Catholic Church isn't helping there by condemning the use of condoms. 

And then we have the problem of refugees coming over here and not making any effort to fit in. Just last weekend some friends and I almost got stabbed by Sudanese guys for no reason. I know this doesn't apply to all refugees and Sudanese people but a lot of them don't have any respect for us and we let them walk all over us.


----------



## peterh (14 April 2009)

So are the eugenics proponents offering to set an example and lead the way?


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 April 2009)

Nyden said:


> They have every right to live. But, can they not live on their own?




I think more to the point would be why do they create children they cannot support?
People do this in Australia (create children they cannot support) but we have a social security system that is generous and encouraging of such action.


----------



## moXJO (14 April 2009)

I heard it was a race between China and the US to create a virus that would knock off a large portion of the population. Might be sooner then we think.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> This is the next step if we are to both continue our growth in population and advance our development as a species.





That is assuming mind is greater than nature. A large percentage of this planets population has mental illness ranging from mild to severe.This has been perpetuted through time and will be into the future.

You see, it is natural laws that ensure one species does not dominate.We reduce birth rate, kill each other off or nature steps in with the baseball bat.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> In short we need to colonise space.




Isn't the USA setting up a family space program? Wasn't it the Robinson's family group that was going first. You should see about getting on board Dr Smith.


----------



## numbercruncher (14 April 2009)

Yes its out of control ..Disaster looms ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 April 2009)

There's nothing wrong with burning coal, flying, plastic, dams, logging etc per se. It's when it's done on a large scale that the environment suffers.

Cut one tree and nobody's going to care. Cut a few million tonnes of them every year and you end up with war in the forests. Believe it or not, woodchipping sounded like a good idea when it was introduced and as recently as the 1980's even environmentalists acknowledged that there was "wasted" timber rotting away so it might as well be used for something. Then it scaled up and moved into clearfelling everything in sight...

Same with whales and all the rest. Turn it into a major industry and pretty soon you're faced with some sort of disaster as natural limits are exceeded.

Only reason we've had trouble with water in this country is because, due to population and econoic growth, our consumption of water exceeded the ability of the infrastructure built 50 years ago to supply it. And, of course, fixing that by building more infrastructure puts on the "dam the lot" track. Constant growth ultimately consumes literally the whole lot no matter what the resource in question.

Ultimately, if there's an environmental problem then population is the cause. One person alone can't do a lot of damage but 6 billion sure can.


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Isn't the USA setting up a family space program? Wasn't it the Robinson's family group that was going first. You should see about getting on board Dr Smith.



That was in 1999 and it only lasted 3 years.

I do hope there has been some serious advancements in robotics since then.


----------



## Largesse (14 April 2009)

no govt is going to implement population control programs until its too late because growing your population is the easiest way to bump up your GDP growth statistics


----------



## roland (14 April 2009)

Re: Aid to Africa



> Dambisa Moyo is a Zambian-born economist who says aid is killing Africa.
> 
> In her new book, Dead Aid, she argues that official aid is easy money that fosters corruption and distorts economies, creating a culture of dependency and economic laziness.




The full story is here: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2009/s2520029.htm

Not only intellectual, Dambisa is quite a looker, link to her pic is here: http://transracial.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/22q4-190.jpg?w=190&h=475


----------



## Trevor_S (14 April 2009)

Happy said:


> One child policy in China was good start.




I don't agree with Government intervention, I do agree with Government education.  I am happy for people to have kids but not to be encouraged or discouraged to have them and certainly not bribed with money 

Having tossers like Costello state publically we need more Australians, mums go forth and have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country is an incredibly irresponsible action for a leading Politician. Australia now has one of the highest birthrates in the world.

There does appear to be a direct link to education for women and responsible birthrates, I see that as more the solution then fostering (no pun intended) direct government action, in terms of population control legislation.


----------



## Happy (14 April 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> ..
> 
> I am happy for people to have kids
> 
> ..




I am happy for people to have kids too.

But we are fast approaching population level that our planet will not be able to support.

Of course we can do nothing and eventually allow rest of the planet to slip into starvation mode, or take some measures to prevent it happening in a first place.


----------



## So_Cynical (14 April 2009)

Good to see all the crazy's coming outa the closet in this thread. 

In all developed country's birth rates fall...most of Europe at the moment has negative 
births to death ratios....so 1 answer is to give them potential mothers jobs and educations 
and the up and coming dads...financial and social obligations to live up too. 

Debt and modern life styles = less kids.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 April 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Debt and modern life styles = less kids.




A big LOL for that. I`m not real good with mathematics but if 6 billion doesn`t double into 12 billion I`m a monkey`s uncle.


----------



## Julia (14 April 2009)

Happy said:


> One child policy in China was good start.
> 
> More countries should adopt it for a while and see what happens in 100 or 200 years time.



Happy this has turned out to be a considerable social problem because families only wanted a male heir so female babies were aborted or allowed to die in many cases.  Now they have a hugely unbalanced population with far too many males seeking far too few females.

On the aid to Africa conundrum:   So much of what we send is absorbed by corrupt governments so fails to reach its intended needy people.  Pretty hard to see why we should donate our tax dollars to propping up corrupt regimes.

No one wants to talk about quasi eugenics, but it may come to this.


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

In 200 years we should have 50 million people on the moon, half a billion on Mars and solved the problems of interstellar travel.


----------



## Mr J (14 April 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> A big LOL for that. I`m not real good with mathematics but if 6 billion doesn`t double into 12 billion I`m a monkey`s uncle.




Yes, but the catch is which of that 6 billion will double? The developing and third world countries take up the slack of the developed countries, but those are also the countries that can't support themselves.



> So much of what we send is absorbed by corrupt governments so fails to reach its intended needy people.




It then becomes a question of whether partially alleviating one person's suffering is worth helping prop up a regime that may cause the suffering of many. Do you withhold aid from the individual to make a point, or to help "solve" the problem (letting Africa "fail" so it can start fresh)?


----------



## So_Cynical (14 April 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> A big LOL for that. I`m not real good with mathematics but if 6 billion doesn`t double into 12 billion I`m a monkey`s uncle.




As u can see from the list, poverty and lack of education, political and economic stability and growth = lots of kids.

Development, good govt and education and more modern lifestyles = less kids.

Germany, Hong kong, Japan, Italy, less than 8.5 kids per thousand population

Niger, Uganda, Congo, Mali, more than 48 kids per thousand population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 April 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> As u can see from the list, poverty and lack of education, political and economic stability and growth = lots of kids.





Also not that more babies are born than people die. 

If you go through all the African countries in comparison you will see the multiples of births over deaths. 

*Note these are averages.  


The World Factbook.  2008.  http://www.bartleby.com/151/fields/29.html
Death rate   

Australia 7.56 deaths/1,000 population (2007 est.) 

Australia 12.55 births/1000 poulation 


Let us know what you think.


----------



## cordelia (15 April 2009)

Nyden said:


> Surely the solution of this is as simple as lack of aid? I do believe in something of a survival of the fittest, it's worked well for evolution; so why not allow nature to take its course on a global scale? Of course, I refer to cutting off any sort of aid to Africa. I'd say it was a safe bet that certain problems across certain countries, and continents; simply aren't ever going to end, so why prolong the suffering? Either that, or implement some sort of mass-sterilisation :




A big problem with Africa is that the people are or were mostly nomadic.....living off the land as they moved around.....this only works with a certain density of population..something which has been overlooked by the missionaries and others....

If you are going to increase a population in a particular area u need to make sure that there is the infrastructure to support it....


The African landscape can only support so many people living as a foraging group.....interference in the process of natural selection has actually resulted in more people surviving but less living successfully....


----------



## cordelia (15 April 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> I think more to the point would be why do they create children they cannot support?
> People do this in Australia (create children they cannot support) but we have a social security system that is generous and encouraging of such action.




Unfortunately dumb people have more children..its a proven fact.....give them money to have babies and the more they breed ....

its frightening really


----------



## Ageo (15 April 2009)

cordelia said:


> The African landscape can only support so many people living as a foraging group.....interference in the process of natural selection has actually resulted in more people surviving but less living successfully....




But they have been foraging for centuries, to me thats the most sustainable way to live hence if the food is scarce people think twice about over breeding. I the problem is something different, you see i dont reckon its the tribes that are over breeding but the poor people living in the cities etc... most tribes will understand the importance of population vs food but if you live in the city most wouldnt have a clue since food is only a short walk to the store.

Then when you mix that up with unprotected sex/rape every day of course eventually your gonna come to a problem. 

Most tribes are actually considered the best conservationists since the land is how they survive so they have the utmost respect for it. Look at the abo tribes here and that will help explain.


----------



## nunthewiser (15 April 2009)

hey why not cull all people over the age of 50 for the next 7/8 years , that should fix things up


----------



## Happy (15 April 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> hey why not cull all people over the age of 50 for the next 7/8 years , that should fix things up





And as added bonus that would fix the 17 years life expectancy problem in Australia too.


----------



## gfresh (15 April 2009)

It is every animal's instinct to go forth and breed uncontrollably, it's a little hard to control. In theory it sounds easy to put a lid on it.  

I think mankind has the intelligence to eventually work it's way around the issues presented, we have in the past and can adapt again. If it has to be other planets or moons in future centuries, I'm sure we will have worked out the science and technology needed. 

If not well, billions will die, and that will take the pressure off the resources and it will become sustainable again, it's pretty much what happens in nature if a creature population gets too large for its environment.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 April 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> hey why not cull all people over the age of 50 for the next 7/8 years , that should fix things up




How long have you got nun.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 April 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> How long have you got nun.




Maybe you should be culled before you breed!


----------



## prawn_86 (15 April 2009)

I have been saying for a while now that the world is overpopulated.

I dont really have much to add, to me there seems 2 options: 

Let nature take its course where the 'fittest survive, note that this doesnt imply smartest or mst intelligent, merely the strongest on a evolutionary point of view. Most city people would have no idea how to grow food or defend themselves if they had to.

Eugenics. This at least has the option of keeping the intelligence our species has built up over time...


----------



## sinner (15 April 2009)

Nature is a self regulating mechanism.

Just look at the Spanish Flu.

WHO reckons the next pandemic is not a matter of if, but when.

If there is a war over any resource (be it water, or oil or whatever) it will be by necessity so savage that the population will either come up with some lightbulb solution or die until the resources fit the population again. 

1st and 3rd world will die alike.


----------



## White_Knight (15 April 2009)

I think a "sterilisation bonus" would work well. Instead of giving people money to have a kid, give it to them to get sterilised. That way the people who could least afford it will not have babies. The middle and upper classes will have higher procreation rates.

This could kill 2 birds with one stone and solve a lot of social problems, provided you didnt succumb to the temptation of importing a lot of 3rd world labour to do the menial jobs (thus initiating further social problems and offsetting the whole point of the exercise).


----------



## disarray (15 April 2009)

Ageo said:


> Most tribes are actually considered the best conservationists since the land is how they survive so they have the utmost respect for it. Look at the abo tribes here and that will help explain.




this is incorrect, aboriginal tribes (from any part of the world) aren't mystically endowed with captain planet eco-powers of conservational awesomeness just because they're "native". it is the nature of our species to move into an area, pillage it while growing the population to unsustainable levels, then dying back to more manageable numbers.

the australian aborigines when they first arrived were responsible for the extinction of the megafauna which once roamed the continent and irrevocably changed the landscape by burning everything down around them. the maori, the easter islanders, the american indians, you name it, they've pillaged it and have only come to this "magical balance" with nature over time because 1) excessive breeding exhausted available natural resources and 2) they lacked the technology to manipulate nature.

today western society can manipulate nature to a certain extent, with almost limitless possibilities given time and research, but like any system it has its tolerances and threshholds. tech advances may push the threshholds further apart but they are still there and when they are reached we have systemic collapse. like we saw with the market.

for australia, the first thing we need to do is move away from the "growth economics" model and the whole "we must continue to grow" competitive mentality everyone is stuck on, and examine sustainability. we should also severely curtail immigration (bringing in 150,000+ a year and stuffing them into our already straining cities is retarded), get rid of handouts to people we don't want breeding (like the poor) and make it easy for the middle classes to support larger families and educate them properly so we can get some useful generations of people ticking over for a change. ditching the baby bonus and instituting maternity / paternity leave is a good start because only people who are working need leave.

we're also going to need to beef up our northern border defences because unchecked population growth throughout africa and south east asia, coupled with global warming causing massive displacements of people, will mean tens of millions of people could be displaced and start looking around for a large, uninhabited land mass a short boatride away. like northwest australia.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 April 2009)

disarray said:


> this is incorrect, aboriginal tribes (from any part of the world) aren't mystically endowed with captain planet eco-powers of conservational awesomeness just because they're "native". it is the nature of our species to move into an area, pillage it while growing the population to unsustainable levels, then dying back to more manageable numbers.




Even the tribes would fight amongst themselves over land. Still happening nowadays, will happen in the future. 

100000 boats heading toward Australia when their own land can no longer support them.


----------



## Old Mate (16 April 2009)

Lol at your sig Wysiwig, that mispelling annoys the hell out of you too huh?


----------



## drsmith (16 April 2009)

disarray said:


> this is incorrect, aboriginal tribes (from any part of the world) aren't mystically endowed with captain planet eco-powers of conservational awesomeness just because they're "native". it is the nature of our species to move into an area, pillage it while growing the population to unsustainable levels, then dying back to more manageable numbers.
> 
> the australian aborigines when they first arrived were responsible for the extinction of the megafauna which once roamed the continent and irrevocably changed the landscape by burning everything down around them. the maori, the easter islanders, the american indians, you name it, they've pillaged it and have only come to this "magical balance" with nature over time because 1) excessive breeding exhausted available natural resources and 2) they lacked the technology to manipulate nature.
> 
> today western society can manipulate nature to a certain extent, with almost limitless possibilities given time and research, but like any system it has its tolerances and threshholds. tech advances may push the threshholds further apart but they are still there and when they are reached we have systemic collapse. like we saw with the market.



My fear is that our current civilisation well suffer a major setback at some point because as a species we are not adapting fast enough to provide the necessary resources to sustain our growth. This is what we need to come to terms with to have a meaningful influence over our own evolution and any chance of overcoming the natural cycles of plague/mass extinction.

Even if in 200 years we have managed the technological advances to sustain half a billion people on Mars and 50 million on the moon that's less than 10% of our current population.


----------



## bassmanpete (16 April 2009)

> In short we need to colonise space.




Even when that becomes possible, we're breeding faster than we could send people into space. Numbers I recall seeing in the '90s put China's birth rate at about 54,000 a day!



> Lol at your sig Wysiwig, that mispelling annoys the hell out of you too huh?




But just to be pedantic, it should be 'the opposite of'.

It always gets to me (but doesn't surprise me) that whenever population control is mentioned at least one person pipes up with 







> So are the eugenics proponents offering to set an example and lead the way?



 or something similar. No one (other than the sick bastards out there) is suggesting that innocent people be rounded up and killed just to keep the population within reasonable limits.

What is being proposed is education, contraception, empowerment of women, etc but governments are ignoring the problem because they're seduced by the concept of growth; a concept that is kept at the forefront of their thinking by big business lobbyists and conservative think-tanks like the IPA. Empowerment of women is kept in check by religious lobbyists such as Roman Catholics, Evangelical Christians and Muslims, amongst others, or just plain old misogyny.

Have any of you noticed how anything classed as morally good seems to exacerbate the problem of overpopulation? For example, we keep premature babies alive at enormous cost but many of them die anyway (maybe nature was disposing of an unviable foetus); we help infertile couples to have kids; same sex couples to have kids (and no, I'm not anti-gay); send huge amounts of aid to starving, tsunami/cyclone/earthquake affected third world countries, most of which doesn't get to the people who need it, etc, etc. Anything classed as morally bad (eg, not doing the aforementioned things) would help alleviate the problem.


----------



## Julia (16 April 2009)

bassmanpete said:


> Have any of you noticed how anything classed as morally good seems to exacerbate the problem of overpopulation? For example, we keep premature babies alive at enormous cost but many of them die anyway (maybe nature was disposing of an unviable foetus); we help infertile couples to have kids; same sex couples to have kids (and no, I'm not anti-gay); send huge amounts of aid to starving, tsunami/cyclone/earthquake affected third world countries, most of which doesn't get to the people who need it, etc, etc. Anything classed as morally bad (eg, not doing the aforementioned things) would help alleviate the problem.



You're right, of course, but the societal leap required to actually adopt such a view is unlikely to happen as long as the current political and religious forces remain.
The bit you didn't mention is the amount of money spent on keeping old people alive - e.g. cardiac surgery in their 80's.


----------



## drsmith (16 April 2009)

Julia said:


> You're right, of course, but the societal leap required to actually adopt such a view is unlikely to happen as long as the current political and religious forces remain.
> The bit you didn't mention is the amount of money spent on keeping old people alive - e.g. cardiac surgery in their 80's.



This approach though devalues human life and is hence a very slippery slope.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (16 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> This approach though devalues human life and is hence a very slippery slope.




Agreed. This line of thinking reduces people to functions of economic utility.

ie. "Will this person cost more to keep alive than to allow (or force) to die? Or, will they be able to add sufficient value in the future to justify the cost of keeping them alive now?"

But it's hard to accept that any properly functioning person could genuinely believe that humans are nothing more than economic utilities and that economies are anything more than arbitrary constructs that obtain for the benefit of a society.


----------



## Julia (16 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> This approach though devalues human life and is hence a very slippery slope.



How are we going to fund the hugely increased numbers of aged people, given the reduced tax base from fewer (proportionately) people working, especially as healthcare continues to become more sophisticated and therefore more expensive.   

I've seen a number of cases where e.g. cardiac surgery at advanced age has actually reduced the patient's quality of life, given their lack of capacity to recover easily from such major trauma to compromised health.  Some never come out of hospital, absorbing in the process resources which could alternatively be used on people with all their lives ahead of them.

Sure it's a touchy subject, but perhaps one we will eventually have to come to terms with.  A reasonable solution would be to legalise voluntary euthanasia so those old people who no longer want to live may have a peaceful exit.  And before anyone accuses me of wanting to get rid of old people, I'd be keen to enrol myself for a quiet exit at, say, about 80.


----------



## drsmith (16 April 2009)

If it's voluntary then that's fine but if for example access to medical treatment is compolsurly denied after a given age (say 80), what's to stop the debate subsequently shifting to a younger age. The problem with applying a fixed limit (such as age) to a quality of life service (such as healthcare) is it's convenience relative to other options.


----------



## drsmith (16 April 2009)

bassmanpete said:


> Even when that becomes possible, we're breeding faster than we could send people into space. Numbers I recall seeing in the '90s put China's birth rate at about 54,000 a day!



Space offers the challenge of accessing additional energy and physical resources to fund our future growth. A second challenge is the efficient use of energy and resources needed to be self sufficient in space. The technological advances would no doubt help us to be more efficient energy and resource users on our own planet.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 April 2009)

Old Mate said:


> Lol at your sig Wysiwig, that mispelling annoys the hell out of you too huh?




And duly corrected on my grammar.


----------



## Trevor_S (17 April 2009)

bassmanpete said:


> What is being proposed is education, contraception, empowerment of women, etc but governments are ignoring the problem because they're seduced by the concept of growth; a concept that is kept at the forefront of their thinking by big business lobbyists and conservative think-tanks like the IPA. Empowerment of women is kept in check by religious lobbyists such as Roman Catholics, Evangelical Christians and Muslims, amongst others, or just plain old misogyny.




Exactly, these are concepts that need to be implemented now by Governments



MS+Tradesim said:


> Agreed. This line of thinking reduces people to functions of economic utility.




I agree, I also think it's too big an ask when some simple concepts like rethinking public policy would start to have an immediate, local effect.



Julia said:


> Sure it's a touchy subject, but perhaps one we will eventually have to come to terms with.  A reasonable solution would be to legalise voluntary euthanasia so those old people who no longer want to live may have a peaceful exit.  And before anyone accuses me of wanting to get rid of old people, I'd be keen to enrol myself for a quiet exit at, say, about 80.




I also agree with Julia, it is a huge issue that Government address with population in crease as the solution.  The massive pension and health budget liabilities will be enormous and explains why the Government is addressing the issue by encouraging people to have more kids, so they have a larger future tax base.. but that's ultimately futile and is dooming the planet...because more and more kids are needed to service those "kids" when they get to an infirm age, a policy ultimately leading to exponential population growth to work over a longer period of time.  

This one is a much more difficult and a way more sensitive nut to crack then simple policy decisions by Government to halt the spiralling population growth.

The first step might be legalise and legitimising euthanasia ? so people that want to can end their life.  I know when my Dad was dying from cancer he wanted to end it more quickly.  I would have been happy to let him if it was all legal, he had argued for years for legalising euthanasia and had to die a wasted, rotting caricature of a once strong man, how is that "living" ?  When I get to the stage where I am in bed ridden 100% of the time, jaw agape, drooling out the side of my mouth, I might like that option available to me rather then be "maintained".


----------



## derty (17 April 2009)

One of the best ways to reduce the birth rate is to educate the women. Children are then born later in life and family size is reduced.

You can see the effectiveness;
*Temporally*: look at the sizes of your parents families and your grandparents families.
*Locationally*: look at the size of the average Australian or European family compared that of any African nation.
*Socially*: within Australia families with professional parents are smaller than those of the more disadvantages socio-economic groups e.g. Bogans e.t.c.


----------



## bassmanpete (17 April 2009)

> The bit you didn't mention is the amount of money spent on keeping old people alive - e.g. cardiac surgery in their 80's.




Hi Julia, you're right of course, there are so many things that could have been mentioned but I just wanted to keep it short and to the point. I'm currently 64 and doing my best to live to a ripe (and healthy) old age - good diet, exercise, don't smoke, etc. Plus good longevity genes; my father got to 91 and my mother to 89. However, my other half and I have an agreement that if either of us is seriously incapacitated, eg in a vegetative state, we'll do our best to terminate the other and to hell with the religious bastards who want to stick their noses in to other peoples lives.

derty said 







> look at the sizes of your parents families and your grandparents families.




Quite often back then families had a dozen or more children but in many cases less than half of them survived to the age of two. There's no need now, in First World countries at least, to have so many kids as modern health care is so good that the vast majority survive to adulthood - when they then get themselves p****d and kill themselves in a car smash


----------



## Trevor_S (19 April 2009)

A further follow up interview

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6121737.ece


> *He is the first to admit the problem is a thorny one. *“Indeed; indeed it is,” he says, “but we can make sure women have the choice as to whether they have children. If you spread literacy, education, a decent standard of living, the population increase drops. That’s why the notion, the ability, to restrict population growth should be around. I don’t believe women want to have 12 children where eight of them die, as they did in this country 150 years ago. Now they have a choice, and that is the reason we have an almost static population here – if you discount immigration.” But isn’t it a bit too late for all this, now that the global population is nearly 7 billion and rising fast? “Oh yes, yes,” he says.
> 
> Besides, what’s the ideal figure for human life on Earth? Attenborough is a little soft-focus on details. *“I don’t know how you’d calculate . . . optimum-ness, but certainly, the mere fact of what we’re doing to the natural world makes it perfectly clear we’re way past it. Half the world’s starving.”'*
> 
> Closing our borders? “We have to keep our borders open: it’s a worldwide problem,” he says. *“You want a free movement of people round the world because that’s the only way you’re going to stop wars.* Because if you put walls around yourself, you tend to think you’re the only people who are important, and that people on the other side of the wall are the enemy. And you only realise they aren’t the enemy if you travel among them.”




I have to agree, much to the chagrin of the close border set amongst us


----------



## Happy (20 April 2009)

> From post  #56
> 
> Closing our borders? “We have to keep our borders open: it’s a worldwide problem,” he says. “You want a free movement of people round the world because that’s the only way you’re going to stop wars. Because if you put walls around yourself, you tend to think you’re the only people who are important, and that people on the other side of the wall are the enemy. And you only realise they aren’t the enemy if you travel among them.




I don’t see too much problem with that, but if you have some religious group that is bent on converting everybody to their belief and multiply like rabbits, we all might have a problem, of course unless we are part of that group already.


----------



## disarray (20 April 2009)

David Attenborough said:
			
		

> Closing our borders? “We have to keep our borders open: it’s a worldwide problem,” he says. “You want a free movement of people round the world because that’s the only way you’re going to stop wars. Because if you put walls around yourself, you tend to think you’re the only people who are important, and that people on the other side of the wall are the enemy. And you only realise they aren’t the enemy if you travel among them.”




well that's his opinion, but he is nieve in the extreme to think that just by allowing people the freedom to roam wherever they want (one way ticket to the first world please) that will end war and conflict.

conflict arises over access to resources, cultural differences, competing philosophies, tribal loyalties, family feuds and myriad other reasons. with respect to the good sir (and i have a great deal of respect for his contribution to humanity), he's deluded if he thinks simply opening our borders to anyone who wants to come will bring peace to the world.

we are already seeing the affects of "free movement of people" in europe with riots, massive spikes in the crime rate, and racial tension which is already coming to the boil. i prefer to keep my walls in place thanks, and sir david can go live amongst the areas of ethnic diversity he seems so keen on fostering, like the "sensitive areas" of sweden or germany or france or england where i'm sure he and his family could revel in the warmth and generosity of his fellow human beings.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 April 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> Closing our borders? “We have to keep our borders open: it’s a worldwide problem,” he says. “You want a free movement of people round the world because that’s the only way you’re going to stop wars. Because if you put walls around yourself, you tend to think you’re the only people who are important, and that people on the other side of the wall are the enemy. And you only realise they aren’t the enemy if you travel among them.”






Happy said:


> I don’t see too much problem with that, but if you have some religious group that is bent on converting everybody to their belief and multiply like rabbits, we all might have a problem, of course unless we are part of that group already.




Not to mention drugs (Mexico v USA) in that group.

I wonder if Trev would be the first to take 4 to 6 refugees into his home to clothe, feed and help get jobs?


----------



## Pager (20 April 2009)

Nature has always had an uncanny way of readdressing the balance, we have had a few scares with SARS, bird flu and AID,s is every present.

Hope it never happens but a disease will most likely wipe a good portion of us out at some point, maybe many years or decades, even hundreds of years away but just look at what the plague did a few century's ago, IMO at some point we will face a similar if not worse highly contagious and deadly disease.


----------



## nunthewiser (20 April 2009)

Pager said:


> Nature has always had an uncanny way of readdressing the balance, we have had a few scares with SARS, bird flu and AID,s is every present.
> 
> Hope it never happens but a disease will most likely wipe a good portion of us out at some point, maybe many years or decades, even hundreds of years away but just look at what the plague did a few century's ago, IMO at some point we will face a similar if not worse highly contagious and deadly disease.




Gday m8 ....... read "the stand" by stephen king  now thats a good story about what COULD happen at any given time if one thinks about it 

good tale anyways


----------



## moXJO (26 April 2009)

moXJO said:


> I heard it was a race between China and the US to create a virus that would knock off a large portion of the population. Might be sooner then we think.




Wonder if those whispered rumors became fact? Apparently US has been preparing for something like this for a while.


----------



## Trevor_S (17 June 2009)

To keep this debate alive, there was a segment on Life Matters (an ABC Radio National program, listened to by myself and four others across Aus. probably  ) on Australian population density

Anyhooo... the link below if you want to have a listen

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2009/2600274.htm



> By 2050, Australia's population is predicted to be between thirty one and forty two million.




Notable, as the guest, like myself was mortified at Costello's baby bonus policy.


----------



## doogie_goes_off (17 June 2009)

Most importantly is hectares of arable land/head of population. I we can feed us all we'll build our houses out of something. Then we just need somewhere to sh*t. I hope our sh*t does not consume us

Sustainability is a perception. It's probably not sustainable to drive cars for much longer, but doesn't mean we can't live.

So fundamentally is there too much life - no. Is there too much life to support the rate of consumption of natural assets, well that is simply an equation that involves how much oxygen and light is available to the earth when projecting this cosumption.

While the sun comes up each morning and we breath an acceptable level of oxygen there seems to be little concern for such futile ponderings.

So maybe we should consider if we should be threatened by population or doomsdayers. It's a philosophical argument with too much scientific bias.

Figure out what you want for your fellow humans and act accordingly.


----------



## Happy (17 June 2009)

Julia said:


> ...
> 
> No one wants to talk about quasi eugenics, but it may come to this.





I might put my spin on this.

Since we have surplus human beings, reintroduction of death penalty would be good start and all those who kill, rape, rob could go first.

Drug addicts who overdose repeatedly would be probably better off with the extra nudge.

I would look at cut off point for early birth, one of the Netherlands countries I think Belgium (not sure) put it at 25 weeks. Sounds good to me, why have child that has 50% chance of being blind, and 40% chance of having learning disability or behavioural problems.

I would look at voluntary euthanasia including assisted suicide at any age. 
Why not, if somebody wants to go let him or her go.
Might change mind later? No problem as long as it happens before exit is administered.

Doesn’t sound reasonable or fair, well, we have more than 1,000 deaths on our roads and I bet many of them are innocent and didn’t want to die, so few unnecessary deaths will not make big difference. 


Aha, almost forgot, the entire antisocial element would be housed separately from vibrant and productive society.
If you don’t pull in our direction, we will not tolerate you as a nuisance.

Utopia? You bet, but sooner or later some form of population control will have to happen.

Of course it might happen the natural way, after all we even didn’t have a second wave of recent flu.


----------



## drsmith (17 June 2009)

Happy said:


> I might put my spin on this.
> 
> Since we have surplus human beings, reintroduction of death penalty would be good start and all those who kill, rape, rob could go first.



The problem with an alternative like this as a means of population control is that to achieve it we may need to go as far as on the spot lead poisoning for jaywalking.


----------



## Happy (17 June 2009)

drsmith said:


> The problem with an alternative like this as a means of population control is that to achieve it we may need to go as far as on the spot lead poisoning for jaywalking.





This is just a start, as deep we go will only depend on the target.

If we will have to drop population to 1 billion and we have 100 years time 1 child policy might be all we need, if speed reduction is vital we might have to have birth lottery?

People who work against community should not have right to enjoy right of sharing space with that community, population control or not.

But we all know how it is, and how it will be for a while and we will have to adjust to ever growing violence, ever increasing robberies, assaults, rapes to name the few.


----------



## Trevor_S (17 June 2009)

Happy said:


> This is just a start, as deep we go will only depend on the target.




How's about instead of this Soylent Green armageddon, we instead try to 

1. educate Government that population growth education is okay so that they
2. educate the public that population growth education is okay (ie it's okay to have kids if you want to but lets not be out there doing the have many and many more e.g no welfare for children would be nice start)
3. start to spread this message around the World by lifting education and health standards instead of pouring money into the military ?

too controversial ?  I guess we bury our heads and go Soylent Green in 2100


----------



## Julia (17 June 2009)

I have plenty of sympathy with suggestions above, but I can't see any of this happening in our lifetimes due to the shouts of outrage from the left about human rights etc etc.

I feel particularly strongly about voluntary euthanasia:  why on earth would you not let people go comfortably when they've simply had enough, whether due to disease or just the incapacity of old age?
The argument from opponents, of course, is that cliche that it would be the start of the slippery slope and before you know it, well we'd be bumping off every grandparent in the land.

Instead we continue to spend megabucks on keeping old people alive in miserable nursing homes.  Just makes no sense.

So if we were to have to support fewer old people then we wouldn't need the additional numbers in the younger generation in the work force, providing the tax base to look after the geriatric segment.  This is probably a simplistic argument but it seems to make sense at least superficially.

Happy, re your suggestion of isolating criminals, that might indeed prove some deterrent to recidivism.  Maybe Nauru could be brought back into service, and the facilities on Christmas Island extended.  

And for the sake of the discussion, maybe we could have a contribution from someone opposed to these suggestions?


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 June 2009)

Julia said:


> And for the sake of the discussion, maybe we could have a contribution from someone opposed to these suggestions?




Hi Julia

I'll jump on board for the sake of debate. While "in theory" I agree with your euthanasia viewpoint, I find the logistics of how it would work in practice very difficult. How, who and when do you determine a person is "right to go"? The moment you start rolling out the rules, there are so many..... _what ifs_?  

One of our primal instincts is self-preservation and the need for survival. How do we reconcile that core instinct with the belief system that a life is worthless?

Duckman


----------



## Julia (17 June 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Julia
> 
> I'll jump on board for the sake of debate. While "in theory" I agree with your euthanasia viewpoint, I find the logistics of how it would work in practice very difficult. How, who and when do you determine a person is "right to go"? The moment you start rolling out the rules, there are so many..... _what ifs_?
> 
> ...



Hi Duckman,
Do you remember the brief existence of the Northern Territory legislation allowing voluntary euthanasia?   It seemed to work quite well.   That was limited to people who were in the latter stages of a terminal illness, and they needed the assessment of (I think) three doctors, probably the initial GP and two specialists.  Presumably one of the specialists would be a psychiatrist to attest to whether they knew what they were doing.

But that doesn't cater for a huge number of people who are simply experiencing the dependence, loss of dignity, and disability of old age :
who find life a burden in every way, and who would like to be able to peacefully call an end to it.

I understand that to establish criteria for such deaths is very thorny indeed, and of course the possibility of coercion by greedy relatives to make an exit is a real risk.   The stats on elder abuse already are pretty distressing.

But if it were possible to find some equitable way of allowing those who on an entirely voluntary basis want an assisted death, then I think that availability just of itself would reduce the anxiety of a lot of older people.
The fear of the incapacity of real old age, with its utter dependence, is something many fear over anything.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 June 2009)

Julia said:


> I understand that to establish criteria for such deaths is very thorny indeed, and of course the possibility of coercion by greedy relatives to make an exit is a real risk.   The stats on elder abuse already are pretty distressing.
> 
> But if it were possible to find some equitable way of allowing those who on an entirely voluntary basis want an assisted death, then I think that availability just of itself would reduce the anxiety of a lot of older people.
> The fear of the incapacity of real old age, with its utter dependence, is something many fear over anything.




That is why I am still open to the idea. I have seen first hand the suffering of elderly people. Not knowing anyone, not knowing who you are, not having control of bodily functions, losing your spouse and having no relatives /friends left. It is so sad. I so hope and pray that this will never be my parents.

It is very hard to argue that people in those circumstances would not be better off - and so would the lives of those around them, not to mention the economy and health system.
Duckman


----------



## ronnieling (17 June 2009)

I'll also jump on board for some counterpoint against all the Darwinist-survival-of-the-fittest sentiment out there. 

Nature is indeed self-regulating, one of the coolest things I learnt at uni was that male Kangaroos lost their fertility and even became sterile when conditions became too hot to support a higher population. Human beings might have been subservient to kangaroos if they discovered air conditioning before we discovered fire!

What Darwin observed was nature in its pure form. Once you start implementing technology to improve the standard of living, it brings not only yin but also yang. We've long reaped the rewards of better healthcare, remedies to disease and higher agricultural productivity but now its time to deal with the consequences. If we want to go back to survival of the fittest where nature self corrects and all is right with the world, you and I are going to have to leave our mobile phones, clothes and cars at the door.

We can't apply rules to a game which we have been changing for thousands of years.


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 June 2009)

Too much to analyse?


----------



## drsmith (18 June 2009)

Happy said:


> This is just a start, as deep we go will only depend on the target.
> 
> If we will have to drop population to 1 billion and we have 100 years time 1 child policy might be all we need, if speed reduction is vital we might have to have birth lottery?
> 
> ...



Population management and the management of other issues (such as crime) are separate issues and need to be managed accordingly. To put the two together may result in an overall conflict of interest with potentially highly undesirable outcomes for society as a whole.

That's all I'm trying to say.


----------



## Trevor_S (18 June 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> How, who and when do you determine a person is "right to go"?



  I think it completely audacious not to let them decide.  Have the decision reviewed by two others (professionals) and a cooling off period.  I think this was something along the lines of the NT model (as Julia mentioned).  

To me it's not about us deciding to knock them off for the sake of expediency but allowing them to decide they no longer want to be here.  My father suffered terribly from cancer, spreading into his brain, was an avid believer in euthanasia long before he found out he suffered from cancer and was so ridden with pain and suffering he asked constantly to be euthanised and yet those attending him (including my mother all the time) could offer nothing aside from platitudes.  To me, watching him suffer, it seemed at times like that a controlling Government was truly evil.

That aside, it seems to be that education (of women in particular to show they have choices) a better standard of living and a Government that is not biased one way or the other but there to provide education is the solution.  It may be easier to recognise there is a problem, then go down the path of solving it.  At the moment their seems very why little recognition there is even a problem and every attempt to accelerate the problem into a crisis.


----------



## Julia (18 June 2009)

ronnieling said:


> I'll also jump on board for some counterpoint against all the Darwinist-survival-of-the-fittest sentiment out there.
> 
> Nature is indeed self-regulating, one of the coolest things I learnt at uni was that male Kangaroos lost their fertility and even became sterile when conditions became too hot to support a higher population. Human beings might have been subservient to kangaroos if they discovered air conditioning before we discovered fire!
> 
> ...



So can you extend your above approach to the end of life/v. euthanasia question?




GumbyLearner said:


> Too much to analyse?



GL, sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I don't know what you're suggesting here.  Can you expand a bit?


----------



## Happy (18 June 2009)

Julia said:


> ...
> 
> euthanasia question?
> 
> ...





It’ll probably go like this:

More and more people will commit suicide.
Probably some kind of cottage industry will spring up due to demand.
And eventually government will have to put some measures to regulate the new cottage industry.

After all few other things were pushed through due to popular demand.


----------



## The_Bman (18 June 2009)

I liked the concept I saw on a TV show, think it was Sliders or something like that. You could withdrawal free money from ATMs, the more you withdrew, the more you were likely to be drawn in a gov lotto for "sacrifice".

And what really annoys me is we cull any species that we consider is plaguing except our own. (Excluding Genocide)

Clearly though the problem needs to be resolved before birth however then there is the economic impact. No one is ever going to say reducing humans is good for business. We can’t even agree on reducing the pollutants we produce.


----------



## Firefly_au (20 June 2009)

Happy said:


> I might put my spin on this.
> 
> I would look at voluntary euthanasia including assisted suicide at any age.
> Why not, if somebody wants to go let him or her go.
> Might change mind later? No problem as long as it happens before exit is administered.




Hi all,

Pardon the Pun -

All we need is for a internet virus or worm to permanently wipe out the internet and we will all be taking the EXIT in desperate boredom he he  


Seriously though - In every culture and nation on earth where women have been given control of their own fertility by the use of the contraceptive pill being generally available to them, the birth rate has fallen below equilibrium and stayed there! Unless the Governments involved take drastic measure like the baby bonus to deliberately encourage women to have more babies. 

To me the answer is simple give women equal rights and control over their fertility and the world population will fall without the huge disasters that usually occur in natural population systems. Naturally we would need to tie the hands of interfering governments as well.  

BYE


----------



## Trevor_S (21 June 2009)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...sing-population/2008/12/18/1229189797496.html



> The United Nation's Population Fund is concerned population growth in Asia averages 1.1 per cent a year. Australia, as a First World country, should have a much lower growth rate. It does not. *By the end of the Howard era, our annual population growth had risen to a stunning 1.5 per cent: almost off the First World scale and high even for Third World countries*. (Indonesia's, by contrast, was then 1.3 per cent, but has recently come down, with much effort, to 1.2 per cent.)






> *Under the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, our rate has increased*. According to Bureau of Statistics figures, it is now 1.7 per cent. Both natural increase and net migration continue to rise. *At this rate, one which many are determined to maintain or increase, our population will reach 42 million by 2051. By the end of the century, it will pass 100 million*.




This is far above any credible estimate of the population Australia could hope to feed.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/new...e-global-debate/2008/04/06/1207420195790.html



> The world population is 6.6 billion. This far exceeds early 20th-century predictions that it would reach about 3.9 billion by 2009. *And yet overpopulation barely registers now as a public issue*. Not even as part of climate change discussion, which is, after all, about planetary sustainability.


----------



## Julia (21 June 2009)

I suppose one of the reasons overpopulation hasn't been much discussed (including the increasing birth rate here in Australia) is because of the belief that an increased taxation base needs to be in place to support the ageing population.

This was the basis of Costello's (imo ill conceived) baby bonus and its continuation by the present government.

So far the compulsory Super contribution is remaining at 9% so it's unlikely too many people will in fact be funding their own retirement in the future.

Then there's the exponential rise inevitably in the Health budget with the same ageing population.

Perhaps the much anticipated Henry Review of taxation will solve it all.


----------



## Old Mate (21 June 2009)

I think some simple, morally right measures can easily been implemented in today's society to curb population growth. The main ones I believe in are the death penalty and voluntary euthanasia. Even without the abundance of human beings we have I think we should still have these. 

Voluntary euthanasia is one issue I strongly believe in. If a 95 year old man is stuck in bed in constant pain, has no family and friends, and just wants to move on, just bloody let him. It's better for him, the economy, the health system and the other sick person waiting for a bed. Who loses? Absolutely no-one. The main objections seem to come from Christians forcing their beliefs on others. Apparently it's God's decision as to when we die. But anyways let's not get onto religion.


----------



## Trevor_S (21 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Perhaps the much anticipated Henry Review of taxation will solve it all.




Solve it ?  My guess is exacerbate it


----------



## Julia (21 June 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> Solve it ?  My guess is exacerbate it



Um, my comment was facetious, Trevor.
I hold little hope of the Henry review being our salvation.


----------



## jono1887 (21 June 2009)

a few nukes in largely populated areas would solve the problem wouldn't it


----------



## knocker (21 June 2009)

Come and live in the Uk. we have lots of bonuses for kids. Lots of europeans come to uk just to get in on the action. it is a money spinner.


----------



## Happy (22 June 2009)

Old Mate said:


> I think some simple, morally right measures can easily been implemented in today's society to curb population growth. The main ones I believe in are the death penalty and voluntary euthanasia. Even without the abundance of human beings we have I think we should still have these.
> 
> Voluntary euthanasia is one issue I strongly believe in. If a 95 year old man is stuck in bed in constant pain, has no family and friends, and just wants to move on, just bloody let him. It's better for him, the economy, the health system and the other sick person waiting for a bed. Who loses? Absolutely no-one. The main objections seem to come from Christians forcing their beliefs on others. Apparently it's God's decision as to when we die. But anyways let's not get onto religion.





+1, but to call and then win referendum we need many many more.


----------



## Trevor_S (25 July 2009)

Not sure if anyone read his book "Alone Across Australia" ? (I have a signed copy)  Anyhoo..  From this article

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...-adventure-we-may-all-face-20090725-dwom.html



> Jon Muir believes the question of survival now faces the planet. "We've got 6.5 billion people and a third of them are leading a First World lifestyle. We've got all these signs it's not working - soil erosion, overfishing, salination, the collapse of ecosystems, species extinction, extreme weather events. The life force of the planet is in crisis and the First World can't see it."


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2009)

If anyone would know ... this guy would know.

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/9/597


----------



## howardbandy (26 July 2009)

Greetings all --

Here is a website with a lot of information about population and resources:

http://www.chrismartenson.com/

Thanks,
Howard


----------

