Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Population and DNA

Yes, eventually - within a generation. This drop has been seen between the the post war baby boom and today's birth rates in the West.
Were you hoping for something faster? I'm not sure how you would lower fertility rates replacement levels (or less), in a shorter time than 1 generation - short of a mass sterilization program focussed on the areas of high population growth, namely Africa and South Asia.

Do you reckon it's always as fast as that?

Well - there's no such thing as a sure bet.

But Europe, North America, Austrailia and Japan are all seeing fertility rates that are at replacement levels, or lower, and have reached this point since the post war baby boom.
Since these areas more or less make up the developed world, I would say there's a pretty good chance.

Sorry - don't have time to look up references for the low fertility rates on this right now, but here's the wikipedia entry on the topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

Interestingly enough - Japan is mentioned.
"Another, perhaps simpler explanation, could be a reduction in the frequency of sex in populations with low birth rates. For example, according to a survey published by the Japanese Family Planning Association in March 2007, a record 39.7 per cent of Japanese citizens ages 16-49 had not had sex for more than a month "

Canuck is again partially right. We do get a reduced birthrate.

But it doesn't matter and it doesn't make things better.

The result is an ever enlarging population of the elderly.

And governments, like the ones in Japan and Russia giving their people incentives to reproduce.

So lets get this clear - you're not looking reach your future population goal of 50% of current levels, through reductions in birth rates, because that will give us too many old people.

If you're not going to reduce the population through reduced birth rates, what do you propose? The only other way I can think of is removing 3.25 billion people from the face of the earth at once.
I'm starting to feel ill..........

An aging population can present serious economic and social problems. The U.K. has an a minor 'aging population' problem partly as a result of the post WWII baby boom and partly due to increased longevity, and has had to make social and economic adjustments that affect quality of life and standard of living; but that's not even a pale shadow of the kind of adjustments and hardships that could arise from global population reduction. In the extremely overpopulated and poor third world regions, where it would be most required, the result of reducing the population, rather than merely slowing/stopping growth, could be catastrophic.

It looks to me like the one and only way to achieve a 50% reduction within a hundred years (short of armageddon)is through enforced birth control.

Conclusion: it can be done.

Is there a feasable alternative? I think so. Given enough time, there should be no 'third world' regions. It's in the interests of all nations that this happens as soon as possible. As a result of the process, growth rates should fall sharply.

Canuck said: "So - how do we get the world's population to develop a global conscience? We could probably start by giving them the tools so they no longer needed to scratch out a life. Development to the rescue......Plus you get the added bonus of a greatly reduced birthrate!"

- Exactly my thinking.

We have the DNA that allows positive and constructive action. We also have brains which, evidently, DNA has found advantageous, so the least we can do is try to use them.

Of course you're right - here in Canada, we're trying to figure out how to maintain our public health care system, and pension plans in the face of an aging population. Our solution - immigration. So we steal the best and brightest from the countries that need them the most. Not the best solution.

But at any rate - what I was previously trying to get across, is that any reduction in population that is caused by a lowered birth rates is going to result in an aging population. There's no getting around that. Population growth is more young people than old people - if we want the population to stabilize, young people have to be equal in number to old people, there's your aging population.



I don't know if it can be done, practically speaking. We're already seeing huge resistance from traditional societies who don't want to accept modern societies morals - that homosexuals, should not only be "tolerated", but accepted, or that women are more than property - how do you think those traditional societies will respond to enforced birth control? I have an idea, and it isn't pretty.



Agree 100% with you. Lets loose this concept of under-developed countries, bring modern society to every man, woman and child in this world. Lower birth rates will follow, and in addition, we will be using all the brains that are present on this earth to move us forward as a species (rather than just 1/3 of the brains).

This is the reason why the Davos Trade talks are so critically important. The agricultural subsidies that the US and Europe provides to it's own agriculture sector is keeping 3rd world countries mired in poverty. For those countries without natural resources, their only path towards development is through selling agricultural products - but they can't compete with the rich subsidies Western farmers are getting. Barriers to trade also have to come down to give 3rd world access to Western markets, as well as to give them access to Western investment.
If we keep the 3rd world barred off from the West, it's going to take much longer for them to develop, and will take much longer to get their birthrates under control. It's too bad that unions and farmers can't get that "global perspective' when they're opposing the latest trade agreement, or the Davos talks.



Any feedback on whether we need to actually reduce our population, or if it's more a matter of engaging the ingenuity of the entire population to address our issues?

redewenur wrote:
"Given enough time, there should be no 'third world' regions."

Fewer perhaps. But from where I'm sitting I see the intentional destruction of the US middle class. Which will, in effect turn the US into a third world country.

redewenur quotes Canuck as asking: ""So - how do we get the world's population to develop a global conscience?"

Tools? I think the only way is to appeal to their vested self-interest.

For example: Lower taxes for those whose actions of personal responsibility don't further burden society by requiring more schools, more roads, more sewage processing, larger airports, etc.

So you think that pair of Bangladeshis, who may need 6 kids in order provide a family income that's sufficient for the parents to survive, will choose to have only 2 kids because of some promise of lower taxes?
I wonder what the taxes are in Bangladesh anyways, or how many public dollars are spent on sewage treatment plants?
Sorry, I can't see it happening.

The only place in the world where your solution would work, is in the developed world. And guess what? Populations in the developed countries are not expanding due to birth rates. So you've come up with a solution to a problem, that's only applicable in places where that problem is non-existent to begin with.

You want to stop the additional roads, STPs, schools or airports from being built in the US? Easy solution - stop immigration. The US birth rate is 2.1 which just so happens to be the exact birth rate that is required for replacement. The US population won't increase 1 iota if you stop people from coming in.

!!!! Please excuse my MAJOR error!!!!

That should have read

"Conclusion: it can't be done."

hehe - that changes your statement a bit

Redewenur wrote:

'That should have read "Conclusion: it can't be done."'

My eyes must be really playing tricks on me. That's how I saw it when I read your original comment! Must have assumed something. I've gone back and seen that of course you are correct.

Canuck wrote:

"The agricultural subsidies that the US and Europe provides to it's own agriculture sector is keeping 3rd world countries mired in poverty."

Exactly. And when do you think the US and Europe will lift those sudsidies? The unfortunate thing is the free trade deals being made at the moment are almost totally designed for the benefit of first world countries. They mainly involve the free flow of money and intellectual property. Guess who's worried about those things. There is a lot of hollerin' and cryin' here about Oz having an FT deal with US while we don't. However sensible people point out that the sort of deal Oz has is completely useless for them and would be even worse for us.

Any move to actively reduce population in the West will eventually result in a Muslim planet.

It is imperative for Muslims to reproduce because at heart, Islam is a territorial religion. Geographical gains are inextricably linked to the Qur'an.

If you look at the average family size in, say, the UK and compare non Muslim with Muslim, the Muslim family will be twice as large.

Islam will not be sympathetic to any form of population reduction.

Blacknad.

Blacknad. I'm sure "Islam will not be sympathetic to any form of population reduction." However the Roman Catholoc Church is not sympathetic to any form of population reduction either. Canuck holds out hope that more people will mean more brains to come up with more solutions. It seems the rest of us are not so sure.

No, no, no - please don't represent my views. Perhaps I've been unclear. I think we need a higher proportion of the current population to provide their ingenuity to come up with more solutions. Let's differentiate between increasing the population to come up with problem solvers, and accessing current untapped population (the under-developed or developing countries) to come up with problem solvers. I'm advocating the latter.

Honestly? Seeing how the Republicans have f'ed everything up, and are on their way towards giving the Democrats control of every single government institution - not any time soon. The Democrats have never been a fan of opening up global trade.

As far as Europe goes - I can't see them giving up their socialist ways, the ag subsidies are there to stay.


And I apologize - it is the Doha trade talks - not the Davos trade talks.



Interesting to hear you say that only 1st world countries are concerned about money movement and intellectual property. I would say these are the very first things needed to develop the 3rd world. Money has to move in to 3rd world countries in order for factories to be built, for natural resources to be developed, etc... It's the leading edge of development. As far intellectual property goes, if a company's IP isn't protected in a certain country - they're not going to get involved with that country, so that money flow is stopped.

Blacknad wrote:
"Any move to actively reduce population in the West will eventually result in a Muslim planet."

And why is this an issue?

I suspect I know what your motivation was for writing that statement so I invite you to look at yourself in the proverbial mirror and ask what relevance it has to anything.

In your lifetime and that of your children ... I would think looking at what is happening in China, India, and the so-called West far more relevant.

Interesting to hear this come from somebody who seems to think religion is one of the primary causes of the world's past and present ills (I've been lurking the 'not-so-science forum).
I wonder if our esteemed friend would say the "why is this an issue?" if somebody suggested that a particular action would end up with a planet full of Christians.

Or perhaps he thinks the world would be a better place if it was legal to have people killed because of their sexual orientation, or women treated as chattel.

My goodness, DA, one can only assume that you were experiencing a "Senior's Moment" when you made your last entry. Why is a "Muslim Planet" an issue? They're still pissed at us over the Crusades. They have prayers that include lines such as "May the swords run with the blood of the Infidels". Punch in JIHAD on your Search Bar to see why this is an issue.

Not a senior moment at all.

I am more than well aware that some percentage of those who follow Islam don't particularly like my government and my culture and several western religions.

I am also aware of the fact that keeping them under our thumbs by out-reproducing them is roughly equivalent to cutting off your own nose because you don't like your face. It would seem to me that people as wise as yourself and Blacknad could come up with an alternative or two.

Here are a few from my list.

1. Get our own house in order. Put decent resources behind moving from oil to fusion and stop subsidizing hate with dollars.

2. Stop selling weapons and technology to people for purposes of war just because it generates profits.

3. Stop hypocritically messing around in the affairs of other countries.

4. Sincerely apologize for having messed around in their affairs in the past.

5. Provide foreign aid only for education and health and never again for military purposes.

No doubt any reasonable person could add to my list but it gives a flavour of what could be done.

And if it were I've no doubt in a hundred or so years the people of a particular religious persuasion would either modify their behaviour or become irrelevant to those of us that have.

One thing I think we can all agree on looking back at the previous 2000 years of history. What we have been doing has not worked.