The Cheapest Way To Curb Carbon Dioxide: Contraception

This is definitely a strategy worth pursuing on a global scale. A whole lot of our environmental problems would be alleviated if there were just fewer of us. Overfishing, factory farming, habitat destruction, resource overuse, etc. All of these were less of a problem in the past because there were not as many people around doing all those things.

And we don't need to make plans to terminate X percentage of the population, we just need to prevent X percentage of reproduction. At this time, they are looking just to stop accidental pregnancies, but to make a real difference, we will have to go farther.

But of course that is a big problem. Almost everyone wants to have a big family with lots of happy children and grandchildren. And who would decide who gets to reproduce and who doesn't? And how would they enforce it?

But we have to do something. Just like the housing market, the population can't go up forever. Eventually the whole planet will look like 'Blade Runner'.

i thought std's would be enough to wear a condom. its funny to me that people are more afraid of getting pregnant then dying of aids or getting hpv, etc... if more people use protection simply to reduce co2 and environmental damage, when aids wasnt enough, then i dont think those people are logical enough to be allowed to keep their reproductive organs intact.

Sometimes this website just comes up with the craziest ideas. China is definitely not ahead of the rest of the world on this one. And how do you think this would blow over with all the super religious groups who believe they should have a child every nine months until they're no longer fertile.

We just have to hope that on a long enough timeline, those groups that reproduce the most will breed smart people to figure all this out

Decrease a birth rate? Excellent idea! I would like too see what will you do when you will have whole country of old people. Who is going to feed them?

Besides population control, you need to find some way to increase human active age. This is not an easy task, and definitely not cheap.

>Or can a policy that really helps the earth come out of this?

Come out of what? We warmed out of the little ice age (thank goodness), and currently we've been cooling a tad for the entire decade. Oh, I guess you mean "the models"--the ones with the horrible track record, that predict our demise from co2.

As for population, this is a really sticky subject. The US has been growing only due to immigration, and that is expected to hold true through 2050 projections. So what we're really saying is should we force *other* countries to have fewer kids. Think about that for a bit. Oh yeah, I guess the folks that think this way feel we should have world government. Then they'd tell us to have less babies too, so the US goes extinct.

Homework problem: Pick a birthrate less than 2.x per couple, and figure out how many generations it would take for us to go away.

We cannot populate ourselves off of the planet. Nature's equillibrium eventual establishes a balance. The problem is, when nature imposes a limit, it makes us very uncomfortable. Tsunamis, huricanes, floods, and earthquakes kill more because there are more. Food shortages starve more because of more mouthes to feed.

Eventually the planet will overextend on human life, there will be backlash to the population, and then a lesser surge followed by a lesser backlash, until a balance is met.

This is not the pleasant stable life we have come to exspect on this planet. It is also starkly unfair, as it descrimiates based on geography.

So, humanity, having removed predation and most disease from its population must either eventually create new methods of "herd control" or Nature will do so for us. If Nature' is unpleasant, man's is little better. Breeding control at any level other than voluntary become a eugenics mechanism (reguardless how benign). We all know how those turn out.

Voluntary limitation will never work, because those who volunteer not to breed will not pass on that trait. Those who insist on breeding will only pass on that insistance. We already have enough millinia of breeding encouragement in our genomes to be impossible to root out.

Hmm, how do I j shaped growth curve?

One choice most people have is to not have kids.

One method of helping the world attain an equilibrium is to stop assisting those that nature tries to kill off. Quit sending food to other parts of the world, even out of state, quit destroying the land to grow that food, quit rebuilding in disaster-prone places, don't build in them in the first place.

There's an infinity of options that few care to take... I don't think that will ever change of our own free-will.

Between Mother Nature and Science, humans will be just fine. Mother nature will balance things when they get out of whack. Humans will use science to solve many problems, just like we always have.

A thousand years from now humans will be using advanced methods to harness energy from the sun to power our machines. We will efficiently convert waste / salt water to potable water. Genetically altered crops will provide food and sustenance.

We will figure it out. It just takes time.

Don't Panic.

bad idea, in both views politically and religiously. In the book of Genesis God said "... go forth and multiply.." Therefore any laws limiting people to have children will violate our religious rights. And politically, if we have govn't birth control combined with govn't health care, then how would you feel that after 2 children you are FORCED to have vasectomy or else you will not have health coverage (and probably will be thrown in jail).

And for those who believe that birth control is the answer to our problems, well then, lead the way; you can throw in abortions too, and maybe you should go sacrifice yourself too.

And for those who believe in Darwinism and survival of the fittest, if nature destroys us then maybe we aren't the strongest ones.

Religious rights are moot in a scientific discussion.

Humanity is endowed by the Creator to think conscientiously about actions that affect others... How does God see those who breed like flies, because of that quote from scripture? Sure, it says "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it..." It also says, " thy wrath is come...and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."

The religious can't have it both ways, their own scripture says so, yet here they are, arguing their right to overpopulate the earth and force upon their children the misery overpopulation causes billions of people.

In other words, think before you procreate, and decide what's best for your children before you have them.

The threat of man made global warming is being imagined and exaggerated in an effort to advance policies that would otherwise be politically unacceptable. There are many players involved. Researchers seeking grant money, governments seeking more tax revenew and control, and lately even military industrialists seeking justification for future expenditures. But at the core, from the very begining, there has always been those that have sought to stop and even reverse population growth, especially in the third world. They propose voluntary efforts now, but have publically advocated that coersion may be necesary. The pseudoscience of eugenics has reemerged clothed in the venir of a new pseudoscience climatology.

sigifrith:

I couldn't agree more. This is the same anti-human death cult mentality that would gladly remove as many human lives as it sees fit in some sickening green purge, preferably starting with those who have accumulated the greatest wealth. It sounds like Marxism mixed with Nazi eugenics. Frankly, I'd be willing to at least respect the purveyors of this garbage if they'd simply do us a favor and set the example by removing themselves from our population.

@podboq
quite the contrary, religious rights have dictated scientific discussions for centuries, so therefore it is not moot. Limiting population growth based upon scientific theory has implications both morally and religiously. Morally, does one have the right to tell another they are prohibited from having children? What if someone becomes pregnant? Does it become the Government's right to abort that pregnancy? What if the child comes full term? Does the Government have the right to murder that child? Religiously, does a government have a right to limit the amount of children a family has? What if that family has children out of religious belief? What of the people who do not believe in the usage of contraception? Is the Government going to force them to use contraception despite their beliefs? Population control heads into some very dark and disturbing territory. The proposition of such is tantamount to oppression and enslavement. While you may not believe in such religious and moral aspects; others do. It is not your right to tell someone else that they have not right to practice their religious beliefs.

this is just silly, want to reduce the birth rate of the world? improve the economies of poor countries. Most of the worlds births are in third world countries. Most "richer" countries, (most of western Europe, the US, japan) have a TFR of 2.1 or less, meaning births replace deaths. The US is a good example of a perfect balance of birth rates CURRENTLY (once the baby boomers from the 30-50s die out things will balance) and even in Europe and Japan the population is decreasing because of a birth rate that is too low. Having a birthrate that is too low is bad for a country as there are shortages of qualified workers.

And besides, even if we did cut out diseases and have good health care, people still die young because they eat unhealthy, smoke, drink, themselves to death.

So my solution is, improve the economy of third world countries, so they won't want to reproduce as much. :)

But like that'll ever happen... haha

sorry i meant to say "some places in Europe" not all of Europe has a decreasing population

@Jaydub

Think before you procreate, and decide what's best for your children before you have them.

@podboq

That is your personal view and you have no right whatsoever to impose that on anyone else. Period!

Ya know Jay, i have little to no patience for parents who don't take care of their kids, or kid, if they only have one. Period.

I have no right to impose my view? You're right, but what makes it right to impose hardships on others, your kids, because you're selfish and think it's your right to have them regardless of the lives they'll likely have in an overpopulated world?

The sooner the knee-jerkers become extinct the better off the rest of the world will be.

Pod, what is this talk of over population? I can still find plenty of places with wide open places where I don't have to see another human being for miles. That doesn't sound like over population to me...

Who is being more selfish? The family who loves children and has many of them as they see fit, or you... the radical tree-hugger that would do ANYTHING to preserve himself/herself even at the expense of murdering of countless children...

Besides you're just pissed because you were at the supermarket and someone's kid bumped into you or was screaming around you. Either move out of the city and away from civilization or just shut up and color.

Hey, you were that 62yr old man that slapped that child for not shutting up at Walmart weren't you?!?

Ms. Locke:

Of course you're right that fewer people means fewer demands on natural resources, food, etc.

You're also either very, very brave or very, very nutty to publicize this research is a publication as widely read as this one. I think some of the comments so far underscore my point rather nicely.

As we can see, religion and individual liberty are hot buttons.

You mentioned China, which indeed provides an excellent case study. (I lived there a number of years and married a local lady, so I heard plenty of stories.)

No, China is not ahead of us, largely because of the law of unintended consequences.

For one thing, with the weak public public support system for the elderly and the drastic drop in the number of young to care for the elderly, China, like quite a few other countries, has a real crisis in the offing.

But it's even more complicated than that. Many don't know that China did not impose the one-child policy on everyone, contrary to what people think, which is one factor in its population growth over the last few decades.

For another, at the time, the policy made good sense in terms of public policy, if not in terms of religious and civil liberties, though the former isn't much of an issue in this particular context. It made good public policy to a set of leaders who personally lived through the privations of the civil war/World War II, and later domestic events, especially the so-called "Great Leap Forward," which directly led to the deaths of millions through starvation. Estimates vary on just how many; the "rosiest" is around 20 million.

I don't know if even leaders with foresight, such as the late Deng Xiao Ping, realized where the one-child policy would lead as the demographics became thrown out of kilter. Not that it matters, not know.

There are no genuinely good short-term solutions for China. And that's despite its relatively blisteringly growing economy, even now. And the easiest longer-term solution is to return to traditional Chinese ways honored for millenia . . . and go back to having as many kids as they can.

Even were birth control universally available for one and all, of course there are many who would refuse to use it, as some the the sometimes heated remarks here show. Try telling, say, a devout Roman Catholic that he or she should practice [artificial] birth control. For that matter, ask an elderly Chinese who has secretly held onto traditional ways. Both will give the idea short shrift.

Should the rich countries help more, since, as we know, poorer countries generally have higher birth rate4s? Would education help? -- secular, I mean, not trying to cram foreign religious ideas down people's throats.

Maybe, in both cases, to a degree. Whether that would help enough is an entirely different kettle of fish.

In the case of foreign aid, I think I would handle it differently. I wouldn't seek to preach or lecture. Nor would I give the aid in the context of "you have to do things my way."

I would say, simply, "We can afford to help you support a population to be numerically self-sustaining, but no more. Do as you wish, but that's the most we can help." (Of course, that assumes we *could* afford to help even that much, true.) In other words, no judgment, no recrimination, but a simple "I've got ten bucks I can give you, but that's it. Sorry I can't give more."

That's implicitly brutal and inhumane, which bothers me. But if people exercise their freedom to have a dozen kids per household then famine hits, then we really *can't* afford it, not and take care of ourselves, too.

I hope no one takes offense, because I mean none.

"or you... the radical tree-hugger that would do ANYTHING to preserve himself/herself even at the expense of murdering of countless children..."

So now I'm a child murderer because I believe people should consider the lives their children will have before having them?

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Yep, the ocean is one such place where there are wide-open spaces where you wouldn't see another person for days... unless the trash floating there mars the experience. How bout the dead zones on the sea floor? 'Over-population' isn't solely about population density, it's about how the people who do exist affect the environment; rivers not running to the seas they once did, aquifers dropping from their normal levels, air pollution so thick you can't see more than half a mile on a good day...

Over population is evident even in Eastern Montana, where the population density is less than 10 people per square mile, how you ask? Try to find a bison. Not inside a fence. Try to find a wolf... not on someone's wall. Try to find a river you could drink directly from, they exist, few and far between. Try to find any river with fish sizes comparable to those 150 yrs ago.

Keep on with the stupidity... stupidity isn't ignorance, it's conscious disregard for the facts.

That's an AVERAGE population density genius... In case you didn't know, large population centers INCREASE that number. Have you eve been to Eastern Montana? How about Kansas? Idaho? Eastern Washington? Eastern Oregon? Northern Nevada? Southern Utah? The population may be much more dense where you're at but that doesn't mean its that way every where.

You're absolutely right about the stupidity, but I'm afraid its not coming from over here. And before you're panties get into a twist, you're the one that believes in forcing people into methods of contraceptive and population control reminiscent of China's own attempts.

Oh and before you start talking to me about the amount of fish in streams, perhaps you should go back and look at the percentages of fish in the yearly Salmon runs as compared to years past. Yeah, they may be less than 150 years ago, but we are taking measures to curb that and the numbers are beginning to rise again.

I suggest you look a little better into those numbers on wolves. Speaking from someone who is from the Northwest, I happen to know that wolves are not on the endangered species list and are again becoming an issue on farms. But I understand that someone who wishes to remain ignorant wouldn't know anything about that.

Oh and btw, Overpopulation directly relates to the surrounding environment's ability to SUSTAIN the occupying population. Not the effects of the population on the environment.

So back to the matter at hand, You keep with you're outspoken Nazi like ideals. You keep with the ideas of selective execution just so you don't have to listen to children any longer. Push your views on your radical cult followers and I'll keep living free and execute my right to have children.

I haven't claimed or said to FORCE anyone to do anything, and stupidity is defined by claiming others said what's publicly obvious they haven't said.

Yes, I've been to all those places.

Wolves becoming an issue on farms.... boo hoo, farmers can't outsmart the wolves, so kill all the wolves. Brilliant.

Have as many kids as you want, but be responsible for them, instead of putting them off on society to raise.

Talk about a nazi... sheesh, anyone else smell this turd?

Seeing as how you've done nothing but put words in my mouth the whole conversation, I'll just ignore your next post, and any future ones from you.

Coming from the NW isn't a virtue, since I've lived up here myself I've come to realize that the people here, as a whole, are just like you, rude as hell and unapologetic about it. Tell me the I-5 corridor isn't overpopulated and I'll laugh in your face. Now stfu, and learn to use your turn-signal.

(p.s. I didn't come in here calling names, acting like a child or slinging sh*t, but I won't back down from anyone doing so to me either.)

There is a difference between being rude and standing against uneducated and ignorant people such as yourself. You might learn that you are only treated as well as you treat others. In your case, I'm sure people have been politer to you than you truly deserve. People from the NW are not rude, they are wholesome and polite people. I'd challenge that you never really lived there, and I think I'd be right. If people from the Northwest are anything, I'd say their too complacent to stand up against radicals like YOU!

Let me ask you, how exactly do you out smart a wolf from killing your cattle? How do you out smart a wolf from attacking any of your livestock? You speak as though you are a farmer and you know how to do all of this! Lets say I catch a wolf and displace him to a location 100miles away. There is going to be another wolf, if not the same one, to replace that one. The key is population control. Wolf hunting, like ALL hunting is highly regulated to prevent OVER hunting!

Oh and I do take care of my kids, and I educate them in ignorance, in fact, I'm having them read your responses to show them what true ignorance and stupidity is. Utter disregard for facts and complete falsification of facts are your charges and you're utterly guilty.

Last I checked, the I-5 Corridor ran through WESTERN Washington, WESTERN Oregon as well as California. If you took the time to read what I was saying, then you would have seen this. Your original argument was that the world is overpopulated, I countered with I can find PLENTY of wide open spaces where this was false, you're counter was that in Eastern Montana the population density per square mile was 10 people, my counter argument was I've BEEN to Eastern Oregon, Idaho, Eastern Washington, Northern Nevada, Southern Utah, WYOMING, AND Montana. I never once claimed anything about the I-5 corridor which is, AGAIN in WESTERN Washington and WESTERN Oregon! And even THEN when relating to the I-5 Corridor, the population density is at its highest between the southern edge of the Portland metro area and the northern edge of the Seattle metro area. That is until you enter into California, but that wasn't part of the argument no was it? NOW SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!

(P.S. I didn't come on here to argue with you. When I see some ignorant moron, such as yourself, telling someone else that "religion has no basis in scientific discussions" I feel compelled to put them in their place. Since the beginning you've been unable to directly address the primary issues that led me to call you out. Instead you've disregarded them and clouded the issue with others. Excellent way of deflecting. You picked the wrong fight to not back down from. I suggest you do so now.)

LOL, the next time you want to have an argument with yourself, please leave me out of it.