If you think the earth is over-populated, would you rather...

[EricK]

Would I rather people have fewer babies, or would I rather watch more living people die sooner than they would have otherwise?

That's not a very difficult question, is it? Obviously, having fewer babies involves less human suffering. The problem of course, is actually getting people to have fewer babies. The only thing that seems to work is encouraging couples to start families at an older average age.

It's not a difficult question if your only concern is minimising human suffering. Extinction would then be the optimal solution, of course. But is it clear that this is what we should be doing? Maybe maximising human joy is a more worthy goal. Or maximising (human joy - human suffering).

 

[rousseau]

jesus christ

Good point. Perhaps the solution is to euthanize people on their 60th birthday.

Geez. It's not like I'm suggesting we send old people to gas chambers. But if natural forces caused an increased birth rate and lower longevity the economics would likely work out better.

 

[rousseau]

I find fault with your premise.

Kindly explain, then, why there are a record number of young adults living at home.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/21/record-levels-young-adults-living-home-ons

Obviously, they cannot support themselves.

I would not be so hasty to kill off the old folks, for they control much of the current wealth and knowledge that might prove useful going forward.

An important point to remember is that whatever the current economic situation, youth will need to go through it regardless, a decrease in birth rate or decrease in longevity will have no effect in this area. But everyone will inevitably become unproductive in their old age, so the point still stands.

- - - Updated - - -

In wealthy nations, people are pretty much a net drain on society for the first 25 years of their lives; and for the last 15-25 years.

In poor nations, people are a net drain on society for about the first 10 years of their lives, and rarely live ten years beyond the point where they become old enough to be a net drain - indeed, in such societies, the accumulation of knowledge of the elder is usually a valuable resource until his or her death.

The question of the value of the elderly is a red herring, however; the OP presents a question that is based on a false conditional. IF you think the world is overpopulated, THEN you are wrong. It isn't, and unless something dramatic changes, it never will be.

The reason it never will be is because people are getting richer; and rich people don't, on average, have lots of kids.

I don't see how the value of the elderly is a red herring. If there is an overall increase in social spending per capita, everyone who is living will benefit, and so it's a perfectly reasonable justification for a choice.

It's feasible that if suddenly people stopped having kids it could cause huge problems for the infrastructure of society, meaning we'd have elderly people with no support and a low quality of life (that's actually starting to happen right now)

 

[fromderinside]

... if natural forces caused an increased birth rate and lower longevity the economics would likely work out better.

Really? Bring introduction into productive lives before they are 35? RU kidding me. Plato didn't even thing people were mature enough to vote until that age. Younger cultures have more wars, more disease, more crime, lower living standards, etc.

Humans need the steady hands of mature, seasoned, persons guiding them. Look at what's happening in more civilized countries right now. Birth rates are down, prosperity is way up, free time is out of sight, and the happiest nations on earth are found among them. Do you actually want children running things? Prosperity brings choices and other benefits including lower birth rates. Let's keep that tend up.

 

[rousseau]

On the other hand, lowering the birth rate might be better in the long, long term, so long as it was permanent, but things like that are never permanent in reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Really? Bring introduction into productive lives before they are 35? RU kidding me. Plato didn't even thing people were mature enough to vote until that age. Younger cultures have more wars, more disease, more crime, lower living standards, etc.

Humans need the steady hands of mature, seasoned, persons guiding them. Look at what's happening in more civilized countries right now. Birth rates are down, prosperity is way up, free time is out of sight, and the happiest nations on earth are found among them. Do you actually want children running things? Prosperity brings choices and other benefits including lower birth rates. Let's keep that tend up.

Life expectancy in Canada is 80.93 years old right now. That expectancy coming down and mature/seasoned persons still being alive are not mutually exclusive.

- - - Updated - - -

Some difference in opinion between myself and other persons in this thread is that many members of this forum are much older than me, and the 'end of life' prospects are much nicer. Employment, more easily had, savings, more easily had, pensions, more easily had, more likely to receive more money from social security vs money contributed... etc.

As a twenty year old I'll just be happy if my government can support me at all at retirement age, hence why I like the idea of more people paying into the system than debiting from it.

 

[ksen]

Geez. It's not like I'm suggesting we send old people to gas chambers. But if natural forces caused an increased birth rate and lower longevity the economics would likely work out better.

I'm pretty sure we've had periods of increased birth rates and lower longevity . . . oh yeah, it was called the Dark Ages.

 

[rousseau]

I'm pretty sure we've had periods of increased birth rates and lower longevity . . . oh yeah, it was called the Dark Ages.

Of course I'm assuming everything else remains equal in society. If you want to get literal and put lower longevity in context (which would probably take total economic collapse), then yea it's the worst option.

 

[ksen]

I didn't mean to be so snarky in that post.

Anyway, even if you look at contemporary areas that have higher birth rates and lower longevity they are generally the shittier places of the world.

 

[EricK]

I didn't mean to be so snarky in that post.

Anyway, even if you look at contemporary areas that have higher birth rates and lower longevity they are generally the shittier places of the world.

Although presumably the causality runs: shitty place => poor hygiene and medicine => high child mortality => high birth rate and low life expectancy

There is no reason to think that a high(er) birth rate and low(er) life expectancy caused by old people dying earlier than previously would result in a shitty place.

Also, in the context of this thread a "high" birth rate could just be an average of 2 children per couple compared to 1.5 - so not really comparable with the high birth rates associated with the shittier places of the world.

 

[Under the Rose]

This thread has great potential for a science fiction novel.

The premise of a mandatory age at which each generation is expected to report for 'termination' and a licensing structure limiting who can breed and how often, most not at all would be the central plot. All assets and licensing and 'terminals' will be controlled by that bastion of ethics, the government, who will as ever see that the greater part of privilege extends to their own.

There will be rebellious individuals of course, the aged who learn how to change identities, disguise their age by moving frequently, staying fit, cosmetic surgery etc. There will those who hide their pregnancy and manage to deliver secretly and move the newborn infant to a special retreat. This retreat would be a moving location managed by 'Silver Fox', a mature female who has long outwitted the terminators and the regulatory bodies with her many capable mature male and female companions, all possessed of the Lazarus gene, which precludes them to a very fit old age, easily able to counter the fittest of the younger generation because of their skills and training.

I can run laps around my co-workers now, for pity's sake, and them barely more than half my age. They just don't have any endurance, the poor pups.

 

[bilby]

Tell that to the teeming millions of Sub Sahara Africans that will go to bed hungry tonight.

They will go to bed hungry in a world that has enough food, right now, to feed ten billion people.

Their hunger is not caused by their numbers; it is caused by the inequality of wealth distribution; and far more people went hungry (and died of starvation) in Africa last century - when the population was a tiny fraction of what it is today.

For example, the great Ethiopian famine that sparked Live Aid in the 1980s took place in an Ethiopia that had less than a quarter of the population it has today. Right now, they are not having a problem feeding more than four times as many people as back then - if population was the issue, then where has the famine gone?

 

[bilby]

Geez. It's not like I'm suggesting we send old people to gas chambers. But if natural forces caused an increased birth rate and lower longevity the economics would likely work out better.

Then how do you explain the fact that great famines have become less and less common through the 20th century, and have effectively ceased to occur at all in the 21st? If the economics worked better with fewer people, we would see the opposite trend.

The 'starving millions' in the 1960s were in China, India and Africa; in the 1970s they were in India and Africa; in the 1980s they were in Africa; and today they are 'going to bed hungry', which is not good, but beats the hell out of 'dying like flies'; No matter how you look at it, the correlation between population and starvation is the exact reverse of what one might expect - which strongly suggests that the whole concept of 'overpopulation' is fundamentally wrong.

If your hypothesis predicts the exact opposite of what your observations tell you, then it is time to bin the hypothesis.

 

[angelo]

Geez. It's not like I'm suggesting we send old people to gas chambers. But if natural forces caused an increased birth rate and lower longevity the economics would likely work out better.

Natural forces cause an increased birth rate? How's that work? Ever hear of birth control?

 

[angelo]

Then how do you explain the fact that great famines have become less and less common through the 20th century, and have effectively ceased to occur at all in the 21st? If the economics worked better with fewer people, we would see the opposite trend.

The 'starving millions' in the 1960s were in China, India and Africa; in the 1970s they were in India and Africa; in the 1980s they were in Africa; and today they are 'going to bed hungry', which is not good, but beats the hell out of 'dying like flies'; No matter how you look at it, the correlation between population and starvation is the exact reverse of what one might expect - which strongly suggests that the whole concept of 'overpopulation' is fundamentally wrong.

If your hypothesis predicts the exact opposite of what your observations tell you, then it is time to bin the hypothesis.

In not so many words, the population explosion is a myth. If only the first world gave half their wealth to the third world all would be roses.

 

[bilby]

In not so many words, the population explosion is a myth. If only the first world gave half their wealth to the third world all would be roses.

If by "half their wealth" you mean "a few percent of their wealth", then pretty much.

As long as by "give" you mean "allow to work for, on a reasonably level playing field".


Of course, the little known fact about how the starving millions in Asia got, OK, not 'rich', but got out of the 'starving' category, is that it boils down to effective mapping - GPS plus government surveyors.

Ancestral lands are OK for raising rice, but they are only good for raising capital if the bank can be sure exactly what you are mortaging to buy that tractor. By allowing the poor third world farmer to join the global capital system, and borrow against (or sell) his own real estate, you enrich the whole planet.

Africans are the next to take the plunge; in a few decades, nobody will go to bed hungry. Well, of course they will. But it will be tens of thousands, rather than tens of millions. Which has to be considered a plus, surely?

 

[angelo]

If by "half their wealth" you mean "a few percent of their wealth", then pretty much.

As long as by "give" you mean "allow to work for, on a reasonably level playing field".


Of course, the little known fact about how the starving millions in Asia got, OK, not 'rich', but got out of the 'starving' category, is that it boils down to effective mapping - GPS plus government surveyors.

Ancestral lands are OK for raising rice, but they are only good for raising capital if the bank can be sure exactly what you are mortaging to buy that tractor. By allowing the poor third world farmer to join the global capital system, and borrow against (or sell) his own real estate, you enrich the whole planet.

Africans are the next to take the plunge; in a few decades, nobody will go to bed hungry. Well, of course they will. But it will be tens of thousands, rather than tens of millions. Which has to be considered a plus, surely?

Give the man a fish he and will be satisfied for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will be satisfied for good. [or something along those lines]

 

[doubtingt]

Tough call.
For purely selfish reasons, I would say reduce the birth rate. My wife and I chose not to have kids and I'd like to live another 40 years rather than only 20.
Also, the "productivity" thing is bogus because I am betting that more people produce more that is of benefit to society in the last 25 years of life than the first 25. Also, society is way too focused on "protecting the children" as an excuse to curb liberties, so less kids in the world the better. In fact, having kids appears to make people more close minded, authoritarian, and conservative, so if more people didn't have kids that would reduce the prevalence of these traits.

OTOH, people over 60 tend to be more close minded, bigoted, anti-science, conservative, and many other negative psychological traits that harm society. Less of them means less resistance to positive moral, political, and social progress. Without the 60 crowd, gay marriage and pot would be legal in almost every state over night, and the religious war on secularism and CSS would tilt massively in our favor. This isn't just an issue of current older people being born in an earlier generation. It is also that people become more conservative, close minded, and bigoted as they age (evidence suggest this may actually be partly due to brain plasticity reduction, because if the brain can't physically change as easily then the mind can't change and learn as easily).
Thus, in terms of social, political, and intellectual progress, society might be better off with fewer people over 60 than with fewer kids, but that presumes that the described aging effects don't just shift down in age along with life expectancy.

In the end, I care more about my own life expectancy than societal progress, so I'll go with lower birth rate.

 

[ksen]

Give the man a fish he and will be satisfied for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will be satisfied for good. [or something along those lines]

I think currently it's:

Give a man a fish and you turn him into a government-tit-sucking-welfare-queen. Teach him how to fish and you can charge him ever more expensive fees in order to access the lake for the rest of his life.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would personally rather see birth and death rates drop to zero. If someone wants to live forever, then the price would reasonably be that they would not reproduce.

We are not served in any way by extinction, not is there anything noble in it; there is no magic which makes such a thing 'right' absent some enduring context for it to be right in. Death doesn't serve us either, since when someone dies, we lose knowledge, processing power, and a unique perspective. So I would rather see a birth rate = death rate = ~0.

 

[fromderinside]

Some difference in opinion between myself and other persons in this thread is that many members of this forum are much older than me, and the 'end of life' prospects are much nicer. Employment, more easily had, savings, more easily had, pensions, more easily had, more likely to receive more money from social security vs money contributed... etc.

As a twenty year old I'll just be happy if my government can support me at all at retirement age, hence why I like the idea of more people paying into the system than debiting from it.

Put index finger over thumb. Play.

Come on.

I'm a pre-boomer. Turns out the first 13 years of my life included WWII and Korea. I was fortunate to serve before the Vietnam era, but, many of my friends and acquaintances at the time died, fled to Canada, or, hobbled in that period. Yes. I'm white, anglo-saxon descent, westerner, smart, and lucky. However when I was 20 I was still working summers in the wheat fields and canning factories. We had communism and the bomb hanging over us until I was 50. Around that time retirement plans began to shrink inscope. I lost retirement health care which leaves me spending up to $2000 a month now and my pension is $3200 a month in a $6000 a month world when one has children and assets.

Had no time for finding myself since there was no support net of any size when I was in my 20s. So don't whine. Birth rates are down around two which is a bit less than replacement in western countries including Canada and the US. Its was mine and it will be your responsibility to provide for your comfortable retirement. However you can rest assured you'll have something better than those among us who haven't prepared when you get to that ripe old age of at least 55.

If we ever figure out a way to keep the predators from raiding pension funds you should have a fine retirement. That task was generated during our generation and now its on you . Chin, er, dauber up. Good luck.