mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
It all sounds very Orwellian and nightmarish at first. Governmental controls on how many children a family can have; the ease with which global efforts to slow population growth might unfairly be focused on developing nations; the loss of one of our most basic human liberties, the freedom to procreate. But more and more, respected experts are making their voices heard on the subject — people like Sir David Attenborough and Dame Jane Goodall, who have joined a British awareness organization called the Optimum Population Trust, which pushes for the voluntary reduction of the British population by at least .25% a year.
Until recently, the Trust says, government policy-makers and environmentalists appear to have been purposely silent on the topic of population growth, engaging in a kind of lie of omission, tacitly implying that the population can continue to grow unchecked forever with no ill effects. (Another Trust initiative is the “Stop at Two” program, the title of which is pretty self-explanatory.) For instance, between now and 2051, the UK population is expected to increase from 61 million to 77 million, but scientists have determined the long-term environmentally sustainable population of the UK to be around 30 million.
In terms of the Earth as a whole, no one’s quite sure what its “ideal population” is, but most believe it’s less than we have now. There are also per capita consumption issues to address — the fact that the USA accounts for only 5% of the world’s population but uses 25% of its resources, for instance. I’d like to think that we’re working on it — or beginning to, at least — but without some checks on population growth, experts agree, per capita consumption reduction alone will not solve our problems.
Obviously this is a hotly contentious topic, but at the risk of starting a flame war, I’d love to hear what our readers think about it. How many of you think the “Stop at Two” program has the right idea?
Comments (63)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
definitely a good program. if you look at all of the issues threatening the planet today, overpopulation stands demurely as their roots.
insufficient natural resources (harvest harvest slash and burn!), the declining availability of land (urban sprawl), pollution (cars everywhere trash everywhere), crime (invasion of comfort zone, lack of positive opportunity), economic troubles (octomom?)…all are clearly tied back to there being too many people on this earth.
what good is being politically correct and ensuring ALL freedoms if it will lead to the downfall of humanity?
posted by heather on 4-14-2009 at 12:14 pm
I just finished a research paper on this very topic! I went through the pros and cons of a smaller population and think that we could really benefit from having less people around.
The most obvious change would be to the environment. Fewer people equals less resources being used. The main aruguement I saw for the need to keep our populations large is the economy and the need to take care of older people. However, people are living longer and technology can and will fill in the gaps when there aren’t as many people in the workforce.
And yes, as one of 7 children, I agree with the “Stop at Two” program. We only need to breed to replace the two parents.
posted by Tricia on 4-14-2009 at 12:17 pm
Two, maximum – a couple can replace themselves and stop there. The planet has a biological load limit and I’m sure we have surpassed it already.
posted by Keeker on 4-14-2009 at 12:17 pm
Spelling error fix: argument*
posted by Tricia on 4-14-2009 at 12:19 pm
Yes, couples having less children would result in fewer resources being used…However, how long would it take before the situation becomes similar to what occurs in China? A 2nd-born child is born with a defect, or a disability, would the parents give the child up for adoption and try again? That would seemingly defeat the purpose of “Stop at Two” because the couple brought more than two into the world, even though they are not taking care of one of the children, somebody has to, and that child is still using up resources. How many children would be placed in orphanages or foster homes because they are not “perfect”?
posted by Mary on 4-14-2009 at 12:28 pm
I applaud this effort to address population growth. The more people we have, the faster our population grows… it can no longer continue at an unchecked rate if we in the developed countries are serious about “greening”. Green technology can only go so far; if there are more consumers than ever the benefits will be offset by the increased population. And perhaps, since the Earth can only supply so much food and energy, out-of-control population growth will not make green technology viable in the long run.
I think that such an initiative will finally help to end controversy over contraception and condoms, and make these items much more available and less stigmatized in the developing world. However, we cannot simply force a population-growth-control on developing countries unless we in developed nations set an example by adopting similar measures. Here in the United States, it is still possible for a doctor to deny birth control to a woman who is not married, and there is still a huge controversy over teaching teenagers how to use condoms and other forms of contraception. Adopting a similar campaign here will no doubt aid efforts across the country to teach people their options when it comes to contraception.
In addition, let’s mention that over 45% of babies born in the USA in 2007 (statistic from motherjones.com) were born to single women. Not that there’s anything wrong with being unmarried and a parent (I know several women who are awesome, loving mothers), but having a child and being unmarried disproportionately affects women’s opportunities and ability to advance their lives. Come on, you never hear the phrase “welfare fathers” or read stories about the trials, tribulations, and discrimination against single fathers in the news. This will do a lot for women the world over, not just in developing countries; it will help empower women to take their own future and health in hand even in countries like the US.
posted by Cassandra on 4-14-2009 at 12:29 pm
@Mary: I don’t want to make it a law, just a program. I agree with you that bad things are happening in China.
@ Cassandra: totally agree with you on the sex-ed policies being crap. All I was told about was the horrible diseases you can get instead of actually learning about it. Curiosity was one of the main factors I personally had. Seriously, if teenagers want to, they’re going to and they might as well have a condom.
posted by Tricia on 4-14-2009 at 12:41 pm
Seems to me like this is a Tragedy of the Commons. If only everyone could collectively realize that our population has grown out of control, our society would benefit immensely. But, like other issues on the environment, gun control, the famous “prisoner” example, and many, many others, Ayn Rand has the last laugh. And I do mean, literally, the “last” laugh.
posted by Joel on 4-14-2009 at 12:50 pm
Allow me to clarify:
I never acknowledged that the concept of “Stop at Two” being a law, it is not a from of legislation.
My point is: what is to stop couples who wish to participate in the program from abandoning “less-than-perfect” infants in order to raise two “perfect” children?
posted by Mary on 4-14-2009 at 12:50 pm
I can definately agree with the stop at two program. i was planning at stopping at one or two because not only are children totally freaking expensive, wouldn’t it be better to actually focus on the ones you’ve got?
besides that- we don’t usually live on farms anymore- i don’t really see why people need to go out and have a whole bunch of kids. (especially now that the welfare bonus for kids caps out at 3- not to bag on the welfare people but I’ve heard of a lot of people in my city having like 8 kids to milk it for all it’s worth…)
i know that reproductive stuff is a “right”, but we should also have the right to live on a clean planet that has enough food and water for all of us and we don’t all have to live like people in china do- stacked up in tiny apartments like freaking cord wood!
posted by Sue on 4-14-2009 at 12:51 pm
Addendum:
After writing my comment, I proceeded to wikipedia “tragedy of the commons,” being the trivia (and tragedy) enthusiast I am. Under the section “Modern commons” is listed “Uncontrolled human population growth leading to overpopulation”. So it’s not “like” the tragedy of the commons, it pretty much “is” the tragedy of the commons.
…
*nailed it.*
posted by Joel on 4-14-2009 at 12:56 pm
Plenty of room in North Dakota for everyone.
posted by Bo Darville on 4-14-2009 at 1:07 pm
I’ve noticed that the arguments for population control seem to be fairly one sided. I.E. they look at the costs of each person but rarely if ever take into account the benefit of each person.
In addition to that both the cost of each person and the ability of the earth to sustain that cost are so complex that the calculations people come up with are generally absurd.
Before we rush into this latest fearful craze let’s take a moment to remember that the population bomb was already supposed to have exploded and there’s a reason it didn’t.
On top of that Attenborough and Goodall are the “celebrities.” Give me a freaking break. You’ve got a broadcaster and a nut job. I have terribly little respect for either one so I’m less than impressed.
posted by David on 4-14-2009 at 1:09 pm
@Mary- I don’t know how many parents of children with disabilities you know, but the ones that I know don’t have more kids than they would normally have had to make up for the “imperfect” one. If they only want two kids, they only have two- even without encouragement from outside. I think you’re setting up a strawman argument that no parent would ever want to keep a child who was “less than perfect.” This isn’t a coercive government program like in China, and we don’t breed children just for farm labor anymore. With the exception of a few people who shouldn’t be having children anyway, parents do love their disabled kids.
posted by Stella on 4-14-2009 at 1:11 pm
Exactly why octo-mom is so disgusting!
“I kinda like it when lots of people die.” George Carlin
posted by Kirk on 4-14-2009 at 1:22 pm
Great idea, as long as we keep it voluntary. The actual average birth rate per woman needed for a stable population is slightly higher than 2.0 (about 2.1, if I remember correctly), so those of us who do stop at two (or one, or none) will “subsidize” those whose religion, personal preference, bad luck, or inability to properly use birth control cause them to have more than two.
BTW, I am the proud, vasectomized father of two beautiful children!
posted by Jon. on 4-14-2009 at 1:29 pm
“God stopped at two and so should you” is the motto of some who favor “Population Control”.
Instead of learning to “be anxious for nothing” as God commands (Philippians 4:6), it seems some are determined to worry about everything, including the supposedly devastating consumption of natural resources by an ever increasing global population. Yet Jesus taught, “…Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? …Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ …For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you” (Matthew 6:25-26, 31-33). The apostle Paul confirmed that God “did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). As proof of His existence and beneficence, the Creator continues to provide for the created, and He does so in abundance. Farmers across this nation routinely produce far more crops than can be sold in a marketplace that sustains over three hundred million.
The notion that God stopped at two is false to its very core. The truth is that God started with two. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth …’” (Genesis 1:27- 28). This statement was repeated by God in the days of Noah (Genesis 9:1, 7), and in the days of Israel, as well (Genesis 35:11). God wants the earth filled. Instead of limiting childbearing, as is the policy in China, innumerable children should be welcomed into the world by grateful parents (Psalm 127:3-5).
posted by b-doc on 4-14-2009 at 1:44 pm
I’m a tubal-ligated mother of two. I stopped at two because that’s how many we planned for and could afford. But even though I had two kids, I couldn’t find a doctor to do the surgery until I turned 30. I spent 8 years using the pill and condoms and praying that there wouldn’t be an accident.
I think programs like this should be strongly encouraged, especially if it leads to better sex ed. Most teens don’t want kids, most parents don’t intend to have kids they can’t afford ( the octo-moms of the world notwithstanding).
@b-doc:
Here’s the problem with your theory: All your quotes about how we should fill the earth are from the old testament. I’m not a biblical scholar, but I’m pretty sure those rules don’t apply any more.
posted by Kijeren on 4-14-2009 at 2:06 pm
We’ve tried Eugenics before. It didn’t turn out very well for all concerned. When has ANY government policy remained “voluntary”?
posted by mike on 4-14-2009 at 2:06 pm
oh for crying out loud! a Bible argument! ugh.
“Farmers across this nation routinely produce far more crops than can be sold in a marketplace that sustains over three hundred million. ”
can you site a source for this? and how much of those crops goes towards feeding livestock instead of going to people?
for the record, i support the Stop at Two idea.
posted by the creature on 4-14-2009 at 2:12 pm
Overpopulation is at the core of many other problems, deforestation, desertification, genocides like Darfur.
There was a great thing on PBS last night w/ Simon Schama about water usage in the west (US), and how Lake Meade is dropping because of the water demands from LA and Vegas particularly, but also the irrigation of farming in CA. This didn’t even address the drop in the Oglala Aquifer.
It may sound cruel, but I don’t see the benefit in all these humanitarian missions like Darfur. The genocide there is a result of competition for resources (because of overpop). It’s a human tragedy, no doubt, but if you save these people, they’re just going to create a strain on resources somewhere else, and once that strain becomes too great, or one group becomes too jealous, genocide will result again.
I remember seeing a TED recently w/ Bill Gates about providing mosquito netting to prevent malaria in Africa. If you prevent malaria, how many rain forests will these people cut down to feed themselves? How much food will we need to send to place like Kenya (the Maersk Alabama was bringing food to Kenya, right next door to Sudan
I guess Bill really is rich enough to decide who lives and who dies, trouble is, he may be saving some in Africa, at the expense of us all in the long run.
posted by Jonny on 4-14-2009 at 2:16 pm
everyone is forgetting religion in this argument. my fiance is catholic and i’m having to go through natural family planning classes. to them, any form of contraception (aside from periodic abstinence) is a huge sin. those people would be very heavily burdened by a “stop at 2″ law becuase it would most likely force artificial contraception on them once 2 had been reached.
personally, i hope to have 2-3, and i figure my homosexual relatives and childless relatives make more than enough room for my kids.
and it sounds pretty horrible, but it’s scientifically true that in many species, when they become overpopulated the rate of homosexuality increases as a natural population control method. i totally believe homosexuals are born, not created, but it’s an interesting factoid.
oh, and if we’re talking population control.. we should also be talking about getting rid of viagra and fertility drugs. old men should not be having babies any more than old women should.
posted by tami on 4-14-2009 at 2:19 pm
This sounds a lot like something my dad told me about in the 60’s. Anyone ever heard of ZPG? It stands for Zero Popluation Growth, and it was a concept talked about back then to basically “stop at two”. You replace yourself and your mate in the next generation, and stop at that. This isn’t a new idea.
posted by Adam on 4-14-2009 at 2:30 pm
I recently attended a lecture by Alan Weisman, the author of The World Without Us. His conclusion was that population control is the best way for the world to continue to support humans. I have to give him props for even mentioning his conclusion, given that the lecture was at my Catholic university in Texas. He was, of course, not well-received.
I only mention Mr. Weisman because, despite my being a good Catholic girl, I support population control. I do not plan on ever having my own children, preferring to adopt. In that way, I can have as many as I wish without contributing to our population problem. Yes, God told us to “be fruitful and multiply,” but he also made us guardians of this planet. And if the planet goes bad . . . being fruitful won’t even be possible.
Granted, I am a little shy of letting the government dictate how many children I can produce. I’ve read enough sci-fi to know that doesn’t always turn out so well. I would love for the world to become educated enough to see that personal population control is the way to go, but there are enough stupid people out there for me to know that’s not likely to ever happen. I think the best we can hope for is enough smart people to perform their own population control to make up for the Octo-Moms of the world.
posted by nutmeag on 4-14-2009 at 2:39 pm
What worries me is
a)this issue is vastly more challenging and multifaceted than a statistical exercise, and
b)the highest birth rate often belongs to those least able to care for their offspring financially or emotionally.
posted by atom on 4-14-2009 at 3:10 pm
I’ve thought about this problem for years and from studying history, I’ve come to this conclusion: When the Earth wants to have fewer people on it, it finds a way to get rid of them. Plagues like the Black Death or the Spanish Flu during the 1920s eliminated millions of lives in heavily populated areas. Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc. cut down populations. I’m not saying that there’s a defense mechanism on the planet or that God flips a switch to kill thousands. I just think that people don’t take into account how often things like that happen.
I honestly think we’re due for another pandemic of a sort. Just seems like developed countries have been living too clean lately. (That’s a whole other theory of mine though.)
posted by Annie on 4-14-2009 at 3:24 pm
You need to consider the conditions in other countries with this arguement. It is one thing for the West to say stop at two, but in places that are disease ridden and war torn, some families lose more children than we have. Also in many developing countries having more kids is the “poor man’s social security” If you have 4 instead of 2, it is more likely that at least one will survive to take care of you and your spouse when you get older. You would have to disassemble their cultures to implement this, and in that case how would we be any different from the conquistadores or Hitler or the Communist government of China?
posted by Tom on 4-14-2009 at 3:26 pm
Atom, you brought up an important idea that I might have a solution for. When it comes to people making people they can’t support or care for, I think we should allow Gay and Lesbian families adopt. There are enough children in this world that need love and a family, with a growingly open society concerning same-sex Marriages and same-sex relationships I think its time to give more children loving homes. Everyone stop at 1 or 2 and lets take care of the millions of abandoned children in this world going without.
posted by Kate on 4-14-2009 at 3:59 pm
There is a great book that covers this topic as it’s background story. “The Wanting Seed” by Anthony Burgess. In the future women are limited to two children and the state promotes homosexuality as another form of population control. A great read, many ideas i could see happening in the future.
posted by nat on 4-14-2009 at 4:07 pm
Kate: I totally agree with you about adoption and plan to do so. It’s a whole other theory of mine regarding the people of the world who produce litters when they shouldn’t produce any.
posted by Tricia on 4-14-2009 at 4:22 pm
Yes, I totally agree with the “two children” (or less) philosophy, for many of the reasons already mentioned. My parents were members of a smaller Christian sect, and while I am not a follower, I liked their interpretation of the biblical command…”God said to go forth and populate the earth…he didn’t say to OVER-populate it!”
posted by Maureen on 4-14-2009 at 4:26 pm
This article is very misleading in explaining why the “Stop at Two” policy is never explored as a viable option.
Population increases in the UK (and for the most part in the US) come entirely from immigration not from the birthrate of its citizens. In the US, the birthrate is 2 if immigration is taken out and the UK it lower.
For the UK to lower its population to the level cited in this article it would have to heavily restrict entry to the country, to even friendly nations, since most migration occurs through persons illegally over-staying visas.
The reasons the these matters are taboo is that draconian policies that targeted lower-class and ethnic minorities would have to be inacted to make an appreciable difference in population levels.
In otherwords-citizens of industrialized nations HAVE ALREADY STOPPED AT TWO!! This debate is only about immigration.
posted by julia on 4-14-2009 at 4:46 pm
I love it! I will personally buy the bullets for anyone here who is willing to lead the way. Scumbag morons all!
posted by Hurricane on 4-14-2009 at 4:47 pm
B-Doc’s Christian argument for having more than two children is almost exactly like Christianity’s justification for over-exploiting natural resources (Genesis 1:26). And we all know how well that’s worked out for the environment.
posted by Joel on 4-14-2009 at 4:53 pm
@Joel:
Which is why we good Christians also remember that we were also charged with taking care of the world. As I said above, we can’t procreate if there’s no world on which to do so.
posted by nutmeag on 4-14-2009 at 5:28 pm
I think the problem is that those most likely to listen to this idea, understand the logic and agree to have fewer children (and responsibly follow through on that) are those we least want to lose in the following generations. Didn’t you see “Idiocracy”? It had a point.
posted by M on 4-14-2009 at 5:34 pm
Have you heard of the Duggar Family? I think we could reduce the worlds population if someone sterilized that whole mess of a clan.
posted by ftssoad on 4-14-2009 at 5:47 pm
The central issue, as it’s been framed before, is “less children for whom?” You’re right that population control is almost always focused on the Third World, but even if we apply it to western countries, do people really believe that this is correct policy?
First of all, history consistently shows that higher population rates mean more growth and prosperity. The Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States, to name only one example, occurred during a period of tremendous population growth in both of these regions. China’s population is exploding, and it’s becoming more prosperous by the minute.
Why? “Necessity is the mother of invention.” The higher population numbers force new innovations and inventions to keep up. People think of Africa as overpopulated, but in fact it’s one of the most sparsely-populated regions in the world, having been decimated by colonialism and slavery, and this has much more to do with their problems.
Secondly, global population growth rates are decreasing, and are expected to plateau sometime this century. People do a cost-benefit analysis when they have children (and they do choose–if accidents happen, some societies without birth control simply use infanticide), and since most of the world is agricultural and requires lots of labor to run farms, families choose to have more children for their labor value and for “natural social security” in places where the government won’t take care of them in their old age. As more of the world becomes bureaucratic, industrial and post-industrial, we will start to see population rates go down as the costs of children begin to outweight the benefits. We’re already seeing that in the First World.
Instead of regulating its population (which, by the way, is probably due MUCH less to births than to their astronomical immigration rate, especially from the Middle East, whose people tend to have more kids–hmmm…could this be a the very root of all this? “Less children for whom,” UK?), Britian should worry about their own energy consumption. States shouldn’t try to cut down on their own populations–they should provide those populations with incentives to develop cleaner energy and more efficient lifestyles.
-Daphne Holland
posted by Daphne Holland on 4-14-2009 at 6:29 pm
check out vhemt.org
voluntary human extinction movement. they do take it a little far, but the ideal has it’s basis in everything that was discussed here.
i personally plan to adopt.
posted by john m on 4-14-2009 at 6:34 pm
I don’t necessarily agree with the stop at two program, some parents just should not have children at all. If there were more parents who gave much of a crap about turning their children into decent human beings we would not have such a problem to begin with. How many of us know a large family whose children have all grown up to be respectable adults, and the alternative is any size family whose kids are total pieces of garbage? It’s not how many freaking kids you have, it’s how you raise them, for pete’s sake. Why does the government of any country have a right to tell decent, hard-working, responsible people how many kids they can have? Tell welfare people and drug addicts ‘ENOUGH’!!!! And DO NOT even get me started on Octo-mom. She should have those kids taken away and given to decent people who will teach them not to be resource-sucking zombies. I say you have to meet some minimum requirements to have children. That alone would be population control, simply because too many crappy people are having too many resource and life-sucking crappy children. If people have to meet some requirements before they are allowed to reproduce, maybe there would not be such a drain on resources. Sounds very sci-fi and unrealistic I realize, but come on!!!
posted by Kristi on 4-14-2009 at 6:35 pm
The past rationale for having large families was the high mortality rate among children. I don’t remember the statistics, but it was awful – if you made it past age 5, you were lucky indeed. With medical advances, our infant mortality rate has gone down, and our life expectancy has gone up, as well. Not only do we have more children surviving to adulthood, but adults are living longer. I’m not going to knock this, because I’m actually pretty happy to have made it to adulthood, and would like to live a long life, but by the same token, I can see why overpopulation might be a concern.
posted by Rusty on 4-14-2009 at 6:52 pm
I absolutely agree that we should limit our population growth. If we don’t do it voluntarily I think there’s a point in the feature where it will be limited for us.
But then, arguments for voluntary population limits are usually just preaching to the choir.
posted by Madison on 4-14-2009 at 7:37 pm
My husband wanted to “stop at two”, even though he knew I felt differently. After number one, we had twins. Ha! I win!
All human life is precious, period. No one commenting here is qualified to say who should have children or not, or how many, or who should live or die! But if you really think the earth would be better off with less people, by all means, feel free to begin to reduce the overload by volunteering to leave life early. The earth will thank you.
posted by Pam on 4-14-2009 at 7:38 pm
I read somewhere that if we continue at the current rate of population growth, in eight generations we will be at approx. 160 billion people on the planet. Roughly the same amount of square meters of available land on planet earth. Overpopulation is the main danger to our existence. Recycling and reduction will only go so far. Even if we are able to do the impossible and recycle or reuse 50% of the resource we consume we are still back to zero when the population doubles. And at that point there will be no more efficiencies to exploit. Waste/pollution is a normal biological process of living things. The planet is perfectly adapted to recycle our waste. The problem is too much of it.
Overpopulation will be a tremendous problem to fix in the coming generations, compounded by the fact that all our modern economies are based on demand growth not reduction. To avoid a « Soylent Green » scenario we will to have to go through a gigantic economic and cultural shift and it will not be able to be done solely on the backs of developing nations.
posted by Max on 4-14-2009 at 7:39 pm
@Daphne H – Ok, but which is the leading factor? Is prosperity leading to population growth, or is pop growth leading to prosperity?
If prosperity results in pop growth (people are better able to care for a large brood and so have more kids) then you can’t have these poor countries try to populate their way out of poverty.
I think humans are like rabbits. When food is plentiful and there are few predators, the population explodes. And huge population growth tends to spring from prosperous times, not the other way around.
posted by Jonny on 4-14-2009 at 7:54 pm
As one of five children, I don’t want to imagine life without three of my siblings. And I, for one, will have as many children as my spouse and I agree on, which may or may not be more than two. I apologize for using up your resources in such a selfish way.
posted by CaitlinJ on 4-14-2009 at 8:12 pm
yes! yes! yes! i’ve been screaming at family and friends for years now that the government needs to start the dialogue on population control!
and for those right-wing conservative christians that are happy to overpopulate the planet with their unholy spawn . . . well, that’s why their god, jesus christ, gave us shotguns!
happy hunting!
posted by marc on 4-14-2009 at 11:41 pm
Johnny,
If prosperity leads to population growth, how then do you explain the declining family sizes in the most prosperous regions, namely the First World? And if population growth doesn’t lead to prosperity, how then do you explain the fact that almost all societies that shot to wealth and prosperity experiened a massive increase (usually gradual) in population growth rates in the years LEADING UP TO (as in BEFORE) the beginnings of their reaching prosperity? And how then do you explain why Africa and some South American countries, some of the most sparsely-populated regions of the world, are also the poorest?
You’re right that technically more prosperous people (I’m defining “prosperous” as industrial or post-industrial) can afford to have more children, but we can see that this is absolutely the opposite of what happens as a country becomes more prosperous.
The key factor is the cost of having children. In agricultural and early industrial societies (specifically, before child-labor laws), the benefits of having children far outweigh the costs. Farms and factories need labor, and children provide that for free. They’re mostly income. However, in post-industrial economies, especially in the UK, the costs of having children usually outweighs the benefits. How much does it cost to raise a child in a post-industrial economy? A lot. Between their clothing, school supplies, health care, not to mention the “quality time” you have put in with them, it all adds up to quite a bottom line. And with more women in the workforce, you can add childcare into that list, too. And what do children bring back financially for this massive investment? Pretty much nothing. When they grow up, you’ll be lucky if they deign to take care of you in your old age.
So while more prosperous people COULD afford more children, we consistently see that they don’t choose to use that money on having children. Why? Well, why should they? Children bring little to nothing financially and, for some people, nothing emotionally. Children can hurt a woman’s chance of getting a job or being promoted. They can be a burden on men, too. And with infant mortality rates so low in prosperous countries, you hardly need a huge amount of children to pass on your genes. In fact, you probably only need one, if that motivation is important for you at all.
Europe’s population rate is just barely at replacement right now, and if it weren’t for immigration, it would probably begin to decline in a matter of decades. The US’s replacement rate is higher than Europe’s, but not by much. Look at the statistics for family size in the US and Europe–it’s been a downward trend for at least twenty-five years now, a major factor in the US Social Security mess. And as the midwestern and heartland areas of the country become more urbanized, I predict we’ll start to see the US’s rate drop, too. In fact, the problem very well may be underpopulation for the First World. I also predict that China’s population will hit a plateau at some point in their industrialization, about the time that the costs of the having children start to outweigh the benefits.
I believe people should be skeptical about these “population disaster” scenarios. This idea is not new. In fact, it goes back to the sixties. Many of the core dogma of the population regulation movement originate with Paul Ehrlich, who wrote a book called “The Population Bomb,” in which he made dire “future” predictions for the Earth’s population in the eighties and nineties (these two decades were in the future when he wrote the book), none of which came true. In fact, the dire predictions about population going all the way back to Malthus and the Club of Rome have all failed to come true. Global food production has increased dramatically, for example, and starvation in parts of the world are problems of politics and unequal distribution, not supply. The better solution is, as I said before, to use a population’s talents to discover ways to limit energy consumption and pollution, making things better for everyone.
-Daphne Holland
posted by Daphne Holland on 4-14-2009 at 11:46 pm
@Daphne (and thank you for unnecessarily correcting my name – there is no H)
Secondly, I like how you say population growth took place BEFORE prosperity, w/out stating a single fact, yr, GNP, or per capita income figure. But I’m glad you’re certain. It’s my understanding that people move where there is economic opportunity, ie America in the 19th cent. America was a prosperous nation to begin with, which drew in immigrants and domestic pop growth.
Third, I think you may be confusing GNP growth, w/ per capita income growth. While in many pre-industrial and early industrial nations, simply adding a worker would increase economic output, but eventually you reach a point of diminished returns. Adding the Nth worker will increase overall output, but will DECREASE per capita output.
That’s the fallacy that permits these poor countries to think they’re better off by simply increasing their family size, thinking they can increase their take home pay, but again, there are always diminishing returns in a closed system, and last time I checked, the Earth was a closed system w/ finite resources.
If you read my early post (you remember my name, Jonny, right?) about limited water resources out west, and the Oglala Aquifer, which is being drawn down by agriculture, you simply cannot increase productivity ad infinitum, to make up the difference. At some point your water resources are limited, and so is your arable land. Neither can you send food around the world to make up local shortfalls. At some point the resources you use to send that food to Kenya, costs you resources in producing more food. How many tractors can be run on the gas used to ship food 5,000 miles?
posted by JONNY on 4-15-2009 at 12:45 am
That is just great!
When it comes to overpopulated areas, we think of India and Asia in general. But the case here in Easter Europe, in Romania more specifically, is the exact opposite. The avarage population is old, we have too many pensionists and the whole social insurance system is gowing down, dragging after it the health system and the economy. We need 3 working people to support one penionist.That’s bad, especially since the birth rate is soo low. Soon Eastern Europe will be an old people’s wasteland.
posted by dreamwind55 on 4-15-2009 at 4:43 am
Jonny,
Sorry for misspelling your name–it was an accident. In fact, all my posts in this thread have been friendly debate, not personal attacks, so stop taking it personally. This is going to be my last response and then we can agree to disagree. Truce.
America was NOT a prosperous country at its founding or for many years afterward. It was a backwater agricultural country. The immigrants attracted here in America’s early years were usually people fleeing persecution, famine, or war; adventure-seekers attracted by rumors of endless wilderness (a distant memory in much of Europe) and gold; or people who saw a chance to own their own land and escape the remnants of the European class system. And these people certainly did pour in and have children, causing (as I argue) the adaptations to overcrowding in the cities and other areas that lead to the Industrial Revolution and prosperity. There was an increased demand for efficient production and distribution of goods and services, more people to innovate those ideas, and a larger tax base to help pay for them.
Second, you’re right that at the moment, distribution of global food resources is a problem. I argue that many of these problems have solutions, and that higher population rates spur people to find those solutions, just as they did in the United States, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere.
Third–just as an aside–if you really wanted to reduce population rates in Africa (I don’t see why you would want to, as they are so sparsely populated) or anywhere else, you need to remove the material conditions that are causing people to have children. Simply implementing, say, a two-child policy or “educating” people about birth control isn’t the solution. Most people in these societies, as I said before, ALREADY used birth control long before the condom was invented. They either spaced their children by breastfeeding longer, or they practiced active or passive infanticide. These people aren’t having children because they’re too stupid not to, as First Worlders seem to believe. They’re having children because they think or feel that they are necessary to their labor on the farm, and they usually are. If you want them to stop having children, you’ll have to provide an alternative form of farm labor, which I argue will happen naturally if population rates increase for awhile and the country gradually becomes more prosperous.
It’s been fun debating you, Jonny. You can have the last word if you want.
-Daphne Holland
posted by Daphne Holland on 4-15-2009 at 8:36 am
people never put there money where their mouth is- half the responses posted were probably by people w/ more than two children- and as terrible as it may seem until we prohibit people who cannot take care of themselves (drug addicts/welfare families third generation) then we will never curve the problem-noone wants to be the bad guy but soon half of every dollar you make will pay for someone else’s child-common sense is not common-
posted by adele on 4-15-2009 at 9:13 am
. . . and quit giving gargantuan families their own shoes on TLC. this only encourages them!
posted by shelly on 4-15-2009 at 10:13 am
*shows, even
posted by shelly on 4-15-2009 at 10:17 am
I 100% agree that stop at 2 is the way to go. People need to THINK about our planet’s future. Plus, having more children will not make you happier. Actually studies show that having children makes people less happy.
I personally don’t plan on having children. That doesn’t mean anyone can make up for the ones I’m not having though!
posted by Laura on 4-15-2009 at 11:42 am
I think that adoption should be looked into more. Yes, parents would love to see what their offspring would look like etc etc, but I think that, adoption should be looked into first, and then you can have your 1 true offspring.
I do subscribe to the “Stop at Two” idea, and believe that it would work well IF people will adhere to it.
But, as a citizen of a developing country, I know that when people are “idle”, they will have sex… and people from lower income (or no income) brackets who are having sex are not using protection often, if at all…so sex will most often result in pregnancy, and then birth…if not abortion. And then these children either are turned to the streets, or put into the adoption system.
For those of you who do not or cannot have children, I suggest going the adoption route (should you like to have children), rather than doing IVF etc.
Also, for those of you who have more than 4 kids, please do not say that you balance out with those who do not have any children…because, in a sense, those children are accounted for already in adoption centres!!! If you can follow my logic…
posted by ariaDne on 4-15-2009 at 12:49 pm
As other posters noted, this idea has been debated for a long time.
I guess what occured to me is that people spoke mainly about birth rates, but what about death rates? In the past it was ok to have lots of children since the infant/child mortality rate was high. However people are now living longer.
When my grandmother was born in 1915 the life expectancy was a lot shorter than it is today and I am sure people weren’t expected to live for 90+ years. For 92 years she has been using resources on this planet. Does that mean something should have been done to shorten her life expectancy? (e.g. Logan’s Run) Is having someone live for 90 years and using all those resources just as bad as people having more than 2 kids?
I am not suggesting any Logan’s Run program, I just wanted to present the thought.
posted by Gina on 4-15-2009 at 1:24 pm
I wasn’t personally attacking you, I was tweaking you. By pointing out the error in addressing me, I showed that your certainty in certain “facts” could be in error as well. If I were personally attacking you, I’d have called you DAPNE.
And America WAS prosperous, from the start. At the time of the Revolution, the economy of America rivaled that of England or France, and perhaps could have surpassed them, if England hadn’t limited manufactured goods from being made in America (They protected their own manufacturing industries by banning production in the colonies)
America was a money-making enterprise, and many of the colonies were if not founded as such, soon became that (ever hear of NY? Originally New Amsterdam, founded by the Dutch East India Company). Its a myth that all Americans came here fleeing persecution. Wikipedia says The Mayflower Compact was made because the original expedition was set for Virginia (by the London Virginia Company, a business enterprise), but the pilgrims decided not to go there. When the decision was made to go to MA, some “strangers” – people on the Mayflower WHO WERE NOT PART OF THE RELIGIOUS DISSENTERS (ie, NOT pilgrims, but people in it ONLY to make money) disagreed, and decided they would not be ruled by the Pilgrims. The Compact then set about rules that these two groups of people, Pilgrims, and “strangers” would make decisions for the good of the group.
But its not as good a story if some of the people on the Mayflower are just coming to America to make some money, so they’re included in the persecution myth and lose their original sin of greed for being principled people of God.
And give me a break about Africa being sparsely populated. Certain parts of Africa are…. LIKE THE SARAHA and KALAHARI DESERTS. But the rest of Africa is has some very huge populations. Kenya is 47th in land area, and 36th in population (ie, greater population density than the average country). Nairobi has at least 10% more people than Chicago.
Texas is a good analog. TX is 26th in population density in the US w/ 80 people/sq mi, Kenya has 153, nearly twice as dense as TX which is about average for US pop density. TX and Kenya are about the same size, TX about 15% bigger than Kenya, yet Kenya has 38 M people, and TX has only 24 M.
Adaptations to circumstances did not start the Industrial Revolution. The IR grew out of the Enlightenment, and people sought better ways of doing things, the printing press begat education and science, which led to the steam engine and steel, and other industrial processes.
Whether population controls are put in place (by govts) or are voluntary, or nature takes its course (pandemic, natural disaster, or climactic changes), THIS WORLD CANNOT CONTINUE ITS UNCHECKED GROWTH, in my opinion. No amount of innovation can prevent it, this world cannot support 7+ Billion people for long. Someday there will be a crash, and its not likely to be pleasant.
I suggest you read Collapse by Jared Diamond. Subtitle is How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.
posted by Jonny on 4-15-2009 at 1:31 pm
I’ll be honest… I did NOT read everyone’s posts before mine so I might be repeating.
I understand and agree with the concept. We do need population control, yes. But I don’t think the ’stop at two’ could work outside more than just a personal preference. And stop at two where? What about couples who get divorced and remarry someone else? If they already had two children from the previous marriage does that mean they can’t have any in this one? Or they allowed two more children? What about those who don’t get married and have multiple partners? Are they allowed two children with every partner? What about if a child passes away? Are they allowed another child?
I grew up with 3 other siblings, and I can’t imagine my life without them. When it comes to my personal preference, I would like to have 3 children. I don’t feel I have the right to say to someone. “You can’t have anymore kids, you have too many already.” But at the same time I look at someone who has 7 children, is pregnant with another and was struggling to take care of one… and can’t help but think, why are you having more?
I guess I’m just saying, it’s a lot more complicated than simply saying “Stop at two”. It’s a great suggestion that some people will follow.
And honestly, when this kind of thing comes up, all I can think of is “And remember folks, spay and neuter your pets.”
Captcha is fitting – sister essential
posted by Dazee on 4-15-2009 at 3:20 pm
Bo Darville wrote: “Plenty of room in North Dakota for everyone.”
Dude, the planet is not standing room only.
If I had my druthers, I would sterilize every man, woman and child on the planet and provided we dismantle all the toxic structures (factories, power plants, chemical dumps)all would be well with the earth in 60 to 100 years.
posted by Nurse Chapel on 4-15-2009 at 3:32 pm
I am actually rather surprised at the comments here. I didn’t expect to find such strong arguments for stopping at two. What a cold, cynical way to look at having families. I’m disappointed and sad.
I will admit that, in theory, I agree. I also think that, just as you need a license to get married, you should have to have a license for kids. A completely useless and impractical idea, but oh well. Some people should just not have children, or more than a couple. I’ve also heard of families who have more kids to milk the system. HOWEVER, this should not dictate how many children a stable, loving family should have. If such a family has two and stops, as does an unstable, abusive family, is that really even? I don’t think there’s any rule that fits across the board.
For those advocating adoption-alright, then make it a more affordable option. Insurance covers having a baby, but if you adopt you get to shell out all of that money out of pocket. I’ve known several families who have adopted, and it’s a struggle in all senses of the word.
posted by Kate on 4-15-2009 at 7:39 pm
Check out mark steyn for why this is such a terrible idea. If socialist polotics stopped it might work, otherwise we’ll have to start killing off all the old people we can’t support to help hit the target. maybe we could sterilize ‘undesirables’ or people who don’t contribute enough to society. but what would we do with all the bodies? burning them creates atmospheric pollution and burying creates toxic runoff. We could jettison them into space, but i haven’t worked the bugs in the design for my corpse-launcher yet.
posted by Sam T on 4-16-2009 at 1:43 pm
Perhaps there will eventually be tax benefits for people who have no children? That’d be nice. I never get a refund.
posted by Emily on 4-16-2009 at 6:20 pm