6 ms·

How much of this is due to over-population? If the population of Bangladesh was 80 million instead of 160 million - giving each person access to theoretically d

How much of this is due to over-population? If the population of Bangladesh was 80 million instead of 160 million - giving each person access to theoretically double the amount of resources and land - would the net improvement be greater than 2x? What about 40 million - would the improvement be 4x? The solution may ultimately be a one-child policy, as demonstrated successfully by China.

postingpals 6y ago
China's policy wasn't all that successful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women_of_China Population control is a very outdated idea, we have enough resources for the population, we just don't know how to distribute them using free market models.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  "we have enough resources for the population, we just don't know how to distribute them using free market models. " That strikes me as improbable. Globally, you might be right - there is, for example, enough fresh water on the planet for many more people than are alie today. But moving a lake from thinly populated Canadian wilderness to Niger or Burkina Faso, where the needy populations are, is not technically possible. And vice versa, Sahara would be a perfect place to generate solar electricity, but the North European populations that would gladly consume it in the winter are too far away.
  - postingpals 6y ago
    It's a big topic to get into, but what I really mean is there are certain resources that we either throw away or don't distribute that wouldn't require relocation, and could be given to people without needing to police them for having kids or whatever. Do you not think Nigeria and Bangladesh have this problem as well? It's not just the developed world. Underdeveloped countries have resource allocation problems and definitely have excess resources in some cases.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > we have enough resources for the population, How is this calculated? Are there enough resources for 8B people go to Tahiti or equivalent destinations for their honeymoon? Because that’s where the conflict comes in. There might be enough resources to feed everyone some basic meals everyday, but is there enough for everyone to have their own single family detached house with a yard and a couple personal vehicles? Is there enough to ensure everyone can fly around the world to see their relatives or vacation? Is there enough desirable land for people to move to from their currently undesirable land (due to weather/accessibility/availability of fruits and good food)?
  - postingpals 6y ago
    Liveable necessities like water, food, and housing, that are either wasted on inefficient food production methods or given to rent-seekers (by the economic definition of the term). No one is claiming we are post-scarcity and that everyone can have the standard of living of a millionaire, though I would argue that one having a standard of living like this could take away from other people's standard of living. Basically my argument, since this thread is quite far down now, is that over-population is not robbing the globe of resources in any amount worth worrying about and therefore population control is not going to solve inequality since it's a distribution problem.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      I would say the irreversible damage being caused from pollution of what we in the developed world would call “modest” lifestyles shows that we are at a limit, at least if people all over the world are aspiring for the single family detached house with a couple personal vehicles lifestyle. Basically, I’d like to see what quality of life we would have if resources were distributed evenly. I imagine it wouldn’t be acceptable to most people who are used to their spoiled due to the inequality.
- iridium_core 6y ago
  There are missing women even in Australia and Canada - son preference is cultural. https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/the-missing-girls-never-born-in-australia-20180811-p4zwxr.html https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/the-missing-girls-never-bo... "mothers within some key migrant communities are recording sons at rates of 122 and 125 for every 100 daughters in later pregnancies." The solution is for migrant-receiving countries (ie. the West) to place a limit of 49% males from any one country on any type of visa. This will dramatically boost the intake of females (for some visas and countries eg. India, the intake is 75% male) and thus their value to society in their home country. Alternatively male migration could just be banned altogether from countries which practice systematic sex-selective abortion.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
redis_mlc 6y ago
> The solution may ultimately be a one-child policy, as demonstrated successfully by China. It turns out that most Chinese couples were allowed 2 children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy But there's wide reporting of females being scarce, so some families were involved in female infanticide, which will cause long-term demographic issues. China is currently facing famine, so we'll see how that affects the population. (It turns out that although China is a communist country, they didn't/don't provide welfare for the flood victims, tens of millions of whom are farmers.) A more regional problem is that China is damming the Himalayan head waters, so the downstream countries (India, Pakistan, etc.) will face drought on a large scale. Usually that leads to war.

postingpals 6y ago

China's policy wasn't all that successful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women_of_China Population control is a very outdated idea, we have enough resources for the population, we just don't know how to distribute them using free market models.

inglor_cz 6y ago
"we have enough resources for the population, we just don't know how to distribute them using free market models. " That strikes me as improbable. Globally, you might be right - there is, for example, enough fresh water on the planet for many more people than are alie today. But moving a lake from thinly populated Canadian wilderness to Niger or Burkina Faso, where the needy populations are, is not technically possible. And vice versa, Sahara would be a perfect place to generate solar electricity, but the North European populations that would gladly consume it in the winter are too far away.
- postingpals 6y ago
  It's a big topic to get into, but what I really mean is there are certain resources that we either throw away or don't distribute that wouldn't require relocation, and could be given to people without needing to police them for having kids or whatever. Do you not think Nigeria and Bangladesh have this problem as well? It's not just the developed world. Underdeveloped countries have resource allocation problems and definitely have excess resources in some cases.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
> we have enough resources for the population, How is this calculated? Are there enough resources for 8B people go to Tahiti or equivalent destinations for their honeymoon? Because that’s where the conflict comes in. There might be enough resources to feed everyone some basic meals everyday, but is there enough for everyone to have their own single family detached house with a yard and a couple personal vehicles? Is there enough to ensure everyone can fly around the world to see their relatives or vacation? Is there enough desirable land for people to move to from their currently undesirable land (due to weather/accessibility/availability of fruits and good food)?
- postingpals 6y ago
  Liveable necessities like water, food, and housing, that are either wasted on inefficient food production methods or given to rent-seekers (by the economic definition of the term). No one is claiming we are post-scarcity and that everyone can have the standard of living of a millionaire, though I would argue that one having a standard of living like this could take away from other people's standard of living. Basically my argument, since this thread is quite far down now, is that over-population is not robbing the globe of resources in any amount worth worrying about and therefore population control is not going to solve inequality since it's a distribution problem.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    I would say the irreversible damage being caused from pollution of what we in the developed world would call “modest” lifestyles shows that we are at a limit, at least if people all over the world are aspiring for the single family detached house with a couple personal vehicles lifestyle. Basically, I’d like to see what quality of life we would have if resources were distributed evenly. I imagine it wouldn’t be acceptable to most people who are used to their spoiled due to the inequality.
iridium_core 6y ago
There are missing women even in Australia and Canada - son preference is cultural. https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/the-missing-girls-never-born-in-australia-20180811-p4zwxr.html https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/the-missing-girls-never-bo... "mothers within some key migrant communities are recording sons at rates of 122 and 125 for every 100 daughters in later pregnancies." The solution is for migrant-receiving countries (ie. the West) to place a limit of 49% males from any one country on any type of visa. This will dramatically boost the intake of females (for some visas and countries eg. India, the intake is 75% male) and thus their value to society in their home country. Alternatively male migration could just be banned altogether from countries which practice systematic sex-selective abortion.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

redis_mlc 6y ago

> The solution may ultimately be a one-child policy, as demonstrated successfully by China. It turns out that most Chinese couples were allowed 2 children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy But there's wide reporting of females being scarce, so some families were involved in female infanticide, which will cause long-term demographic issues. China is currently facing famine, so we'll see how that affects the population. (It turns out that although China is a communist country, they didn't/don't provide welfare for the flood victims, tens of millions of whom are farmers.) A more regional problem is that China is damming the Himalayan head waters, so the downstream countries (India, Pakistan, etc.) will face drought on a large scale. Usually that leads to war.