Pomp

Polly Flinders,

Most overpopulated species suffer a population crash when overpopulation causes problems. In other words, they don't stay overpopulated. Could the pessimists here explain why that has not happened to man, even in underdeveloped countries?

In addition to the answers Cheetah gave you, there is a school of anthropological thought which holds that many cultural practices (male favoritism, for example) developed for the very reason of keeping population down. My exposure to such theories is primarily through Marvin Harris's popular writings.

Pomp

Thanks, Sivakami.

echidna

Back to give the pot another stir.

Of course domestically we enjoy the economic principles of "populate or perish". The U.S. would hardly be the economic powerhouse it is if it’s population were only 15 million all living in small country villages. What would you ultimately like the U.S. population to be ?

More people, higher population densities, etc automatically justify economies of scale, increased efficiencies and such. The luxuries and services which everyone enjoys are usually generated in dirty, crowded, smelly cities. I suspect the U.S. is not so different from Australia on this. A town population of 50,000 will hardly justify a world-class medical university.

As for overall population, Australia’s population is already in natural decline. Only immigration keeps it in the black. I’m not sure about the U.S. situation. PB, 5 children all surviving is simply a natural progression to 2.3 all surviving or less, which historically is how economic development progresses. These declines are already rapidly occurring via the painful but necessary process of urbanisation. The ceiling is in sight already and seems quite sustainable. Why the panic ?

Unfortunately, those of us such as myself, who want and are accustomed to more resources (empty land, gardens, parks, untouched scenery, etc) need to learn how to share with those who need and value other things. It doesn’t mean you are automatically forced to give up your property. As people move closer, your property appreciates in value. You then have the economic freedom to buy a more remote property and develop that to live in. As for change which is rarely a pleasant thing, we in the West need to learn that for the first time in world history, soon if not already we will need to share our social status with races and nationalities quite foreign to our own. Instead of being the privileged few, we will gently slip into the throng, a bit scary I suppose.

At the same time, we shouldn’t forget that sparse population density is the first thing which damages an environment. More roads, more driving, lower efficiency of services, etc etc. Melbourne’s ridiculous urban sprawl is a direct consequence of everyone wanting their big back garden. Consequently Melbourne’s population density is so sparse that public transport doesn’t work and our society is built around the car – not really very environmentally good at all. But city-dwellers have lots of space in their big houses …

Pomp

echidna,

Of course domestically we enjoy the economic principles of "populate or perish". The U.S. would hardly be the economic powerhouse it is if it’s population were only 15 million all living in small country villages. What would you ultimately like the U.S. population to be ?

I don't personally have a definite number in mind. Obviously, there is a significant difference between advocating drastic population reduction to fewer inahabitants than could be supporting by hunting and gathering and advocating a responsible limitation on future population growth.

More people, higher population densities, etc automatically justify economies of scale, increased efficiencies and such. The luxuries and services which everyone enjoys are usually generated in dirty, crowded, smelly cities. I suspect the U.S. is not so different from Australia on this. A town population of 50,000 will hardly justify a world-class medical university.

Agreed. I don't think anyone is advocating the complete elimination of large citites. I'm certainly not.

As for overall population, Australia’s population is already in natural decline. Only immigration keeps it in the black. I’m not sure about the U.S. situation.

No numbers in front of me, but I believe it's growing very slightly before accounting for immigration.

PB, 5 children all surviving is simply a natural progression to 2.3 all surviving or less, which historically is how economic development progresses.

Agreed. You misunderstood my point to Polly, which was that her notion that decreased infant mortality = fewer births = slower population growth was incorrect. If it is economically and culturally desireable to have five children, then a woman will have five children, if she has to do it by having ten and watching five die or by having five in healthier conditions. Infant mortality has little to do with population growth.

These declines are already rapidly occurring via the painful but necessary process of urbanisation. The ceiling is in sight already and seems quite sustainable. Why the panic ?

No panic, really. I'd just like to help the developing nations develop a bit faster, while the world population is as low as possible. Also, the "damn the torpedoes, go forth and multiply" attitude expressed by the LDS woman referred to in the OP really gets under my skin.

At the same time, we shouldn’t forget that sparse population density is the first thing which damages an environment. More roads, more driving, lower efficiency of services, etc etc. Melbourne’s ridiculous urban sprawl is a direct consequence of everyone wanting their big back garden. Consequently Melbourne’s population density is so sparse that public transport doesn’t work and our society is built around the car – not really very environmentally good at all. But city-dwellers have lots of space in their big houses.

What you're saying is that large populations have a reduced environmental impact when they are arranged so that people are packed in as tightly as possible. This is uncontroversial. The idea is that such packing in is generally unpleasant and it might bemore desireable to maintain a lower population and avoid the neccessity.

echidna

Understood & agreed.

On a side note, most of my friends have reached the age of having children & there’s a not-uncommon attitude amongst the new mothers of "you can’t possibly be happy unless you have children". I suspect the LDS woman is an irritatingly religious variant on this theme.

Pomp

echidna,

On a side note, most of my friends have reached the age of having children & there’s a not-uncommon attitude amongst the new mothers of "you can’t possibly be happy unless you have children".

Ahhh! Horrible memories! Are you married? It's worse if you're married. My ex-wife's cousins (with new children) would not shut up about how much happier we'd be if we had a baby. I can only imagine how thrilled I would be to still be stuck in an unhealthy relationship if only I had an additional innocent person stuck in it with me.

Polly Flinders

Pompous Bastard, did it occur to you that people in underdeveloped countries might overcompensate for expected losses? A woman who expects many of her children to die may have ten children and have five of them survive. If the same woman received the benefits of technology and development, she would be confident that all her children would live, and might choose to have, not 5 but 1 or 2. Reduced infant mortality would, in this case, cause a major population reduction as well as giving all existing children the benefits of modern science and technology.

Pomp

Polly Flinders,

A woman who expects many of her children to die may have ten children and have five of them survive. If the same woman received the benefits of technology and development, she would be confident that all her children would live, and might choose to have, not 5 but 1 or 2.

You'd think that, at some point, those cultures would figure out approximately how much overcompensation is neccessary to hit 2 living kids and most women would have that many, then, wouldn't you? Culturally and economically, it is desireable to have many children. That has to change, via the modernizing of those societies.

Reduced infant mortality would, in this case, cause a major population reduction as well as giving all existing children the benefits of modern science and technology.

I'm not really sure what we're arguing about, because we agree that reduced infant mortality is a Good Thing. I just don't think it would have a significant effect on population levels. That has to come through economic development, so that children require a high economic investment to be successful, and through cultural development, so that birth control is accepted and used.

Edited for UBB tags.

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

DMB

I was involved in the field of population and reproductive health for some 11 years. I find discussions such as this always seem to hint that doing anything to slow population growth may have to involve coercion. If people are having 10 children of whom half are dying, then either we have to stop them or we simply need to give them western technology.

I would point out that over the past 40 years great efforts have been made to slow population growth and they have had considerable success. The reason why UN population predictions have come down is largely because of the work already done.

I am not an environmentalist, but those I have met do not believe that our poor old Earth could sustain even its present population if everyone lived at the average per capita level of environmental impact found in North America. That is not to deny the need for development, but development doesn’t simply mean adopting every aspect of our way of life. What countries need is not just economic development, but human development. I suggest anyone interested in this topic read the UN Human Development reports, which focus each year on a different aspect of human development. I would also suggest a reading of works by the Nobel-Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen. The late Mahbub ul Haq was responsible for the creation of the Human Development Index. I remember him saying a few years ago that the HDI gave a good indication of future trouble spots. The huge sums constantly expended by the developed world in military and other emergency interventions could be largely avoided if we would only give the necessary help for social development before the trouble blows up.

An important part of human development is access to contraception and reproductive health care.

The World Fertility Survey and the Demographic and Health Surveys showed that large numbers of women in developing countries either wanted to have no more children or wanted to be able to space births but did not use contraception. Reasons included lack of information, lack of access and health fears. This discrepancy between actual and desired fertility control is referred to as “the unmet need”. Current estimates suggest that about 150 million women fall into this category.

Abortions are an indicator of the unmet need. There are about 45 million annually (out of 175 million pregnancies). The fact that there are so many unsafe abortions (about 20 million a year) is a cause of great worry. We need to move towards untrammelled access to contraception backed up with safe, legal abortion.

James Grant wrote in the UNICEF Report 1992:
With regard specifically to population, I would like to quote from paper by Malcolm Potts (Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Jan 2000) <a href="http://www.jrsm.org" target="_blank">www.jrsm.org</a> (BTW, TFR stands for total fertility rate and is a measure of how many children a woman is likely to have) :

I quote this to illustrate that in discussing population we need to look at what it means in a particular country or region, rather than worrying too much about the world as a whole. For example, in Bangladesh, population pressure has led people to settle in areas that are subject to disastrous floods. This results from time to time in tens of thousands of deaths. People are not so stupid that they don’t know these areas are dangerous. Enormous and rapid population growth in a very poor, largely rural economy has left them with nowhere else to go.