[KaiserJeep]

The government of China tried and failed with the infamous "One Child" policy.

The very thought of something such as that in the USA creeps me out big time. The only way I would agree to anything of the sort is after everybody buys into the idea. To me, that means a population limit for this country that is a number such as for example 350 Million. Both the limit number and the system to regulate population under that limit need to be implemented with Amendments to our Constitution.

Yes, I understand how hard that is. That's why I said it. We need that much buy-in or this would never work.

[Ibon]

Yes, I understand how hard that is. That's why I said it. We need that much buy-in or this would never work.

That buy in requires some extra human external consequences to unify the country in a common cause. Otherwise we are dreaming or as I often say putting the cart before the horse.

The nature of those external consequences is not clear to me for the USA since there are more vulnerable bio-regions globally that will most likely suffer population crashes beforehand.

We should also note that the USA is out of balance in per capita consumption not in the number of consumers so "correction" in the USA will be more with consumption than population. Other bio-regions will be more focused on population reductions.

[KaiserJeep]

Without disagreeing with what you said, anything positive you do no matter what fails in the end if your population grows without limits. We can solve all our problems with a stable population. That is priority #1 for everybody.

The fact that some parts of the world have already exceeded limits and have to fall back to lower populations is tragic and grim. I don't want to see this country in such dire circumstances.

I'll also remind everyone again that AGW/CC is but a symptom of overpopulation. Once you have stabilized the population, built out the infrastructure to be more energy efficient, and switched to carbon free power generation, you will have solved the most pressing problems. But without limits to population in any given area, the Earth's ecosystem dies long term.

[onlooker]

"Yes, I understand how hard that is. That's why I said it. We need that much buy-in or this would never work."
But you already see the demographics in rich countries changing as they are having less children. Economic incentive to procreate or not seems to be a determining factor. In a world of undeniable constraints, the economic incentive would be there to have less children if a family could manage economically with less or even be better off. I realize personal freedom is a big thing in this country, I am just not sure that the freedom to procreate is that coveted. Now having sex is more of an undeniable urge. So again, a medical procedure would be the surest way of preventing pregnancy while allowing for a fully satisfying sex life. Again, its about looking down the road further when consequences have already hit hard and so people will be more aware of the need to change and so amendable to doing their part

[onlooker]

Kaiser with regards population you are absolutely right. Now, however the part of what people need to do is a bit more fuzzy to me. On the one hand you vouch for our primate urges and tendencies on the other you seem always the staunch Libertarian. Well, you cannot have it both ways. As we go further down the road in the brilliant observation by Ibon, only then will people really begin to grasp the necessity of these changes. But if not all do, then that is where the Government steps in to force compliance. We right now live in the US with laws which we MUST abide with, well I see no problem with a law requiring a medical procedure if you meet certain criteria to end your ability to contribute to a pregnancy. As you said it will all be for naught if population rise and/or immigration continues unrestrained.

[KaiserJeep]

The one nuance in my position that you failed to grasp is the implication of implementing a population cap via a Constitutional Amendment. That is a very high hurdle to overcome. In fact women have no Constitutional right to vote in the USA today because the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) failed to be ratified by the required number of states in the required period, it's dead.

I feel very differently about something written into the Constitution, as opposed to something passed into mere Federal Law by Congress (aka that pack of theives) or implemented by Executive Order (as Obama used because he was useless in cajoling Congress to get Legislation passed).

[onlooker]

Yes, as much as possible the Constitution should be maintained as the Supreme Law of the Land. But I am not sure how relevant it is with regards the Overpopulation issue given the anachronism of this issue at that time and so lack of import given to it in the Constitution.
Now you can argue it falls under the 1st amendment which complicates the matter. Nevertheless, where the priorities of each person lies ultimately is the basis of making any headway on the issue of the overshooting of our environmental capacity. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness all fall by the wayside if we doggedly ignore the Overshoot Predator

[KaiserJeep]

Constitutional Amendment. A M E N D M E N T, meaning to change, make an addition to, and extend. The document allows for this, but the process is deliberately difficult, and rightfully so.

[jedrider]

The government of China tried and failed with the infamous "One Child" policy.

The very thought of something such as that in the USA creeps me out big time. The only way I would agree to anything of the sort is after everybody buys into the idea. To me, that means a population limit for this country that is a number such as for example 350 Million. Both the limit number and the system to regulate population under that limit need to be implemented with Amendments to our Constitution.

Yes, I understand how hard that is. That's why I said it. We need that much buy-in or this would never work.

Why did that fail miserably? China is the global leader in economic growth. How is that for failure?

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-
Why did that fail miserably? China is the global leader in economic growth. How is that for failure?

I did not say that the nation of China failed. I said their population control policy failed. It was severely abused from the beginning, especially in the rural areas where little to no enforcement existed. The cities felt the brunt of the government's fist in this. Women were involuntarily sterilized after the first child, and those who were not sterile but concieved a second time had delivery induced and the child was injected with a poison as soon as the head emerged, to ensure it was born dead. Then the involuntary sterilization surgery. There were additional problems such as selective abortions of female babies, because males had more earning potential and could care for elderly parents better, producing a shortage of females in the current population, where males outnumber females by approximately 50 million.

The Chinese government claims that 440 million births were avoided, The US CIA factbook has an estimate of less than 100 million. In any case, the policy was retired in 2015-2016. China's 2018 population is estimated at 1.4 Billion. As with all developed nations without the severe human rights violations, the birthrate in China is falling naturally. But they still grow at 0.4% per year, because the Middle Class affluence that curbs births is relatively new to them.

By contrast, without illegal immigrants, the USA and most 1st World nations would have falling populations already. That is why, as unpopular as the idea is, we need Trump's wall at the border and enforcement of our immigration policy.

The difference with "One Child" is that China imposed the policy upon the populace involuntarily. In the USA, I am suggesting what amounts to a mandatory "Two Child" limit, but only after the Constitution is amended and the amendment ratified by the states. That is a voluntary limit adopted by a majority of the citizens.

[onlooker]

The population issue comes down to having the incentive and the means to prevent pregnancy. At least somewhat the majority of mankind is free from the shackles of irrational superstitious dogma ie. Religion and more prone to analyze rationally.
So the incentive or lack thereof is economic. In a world of shortages, people will think twice about bringing into the world another mouth to feed. Combine that with policies rewarding procreation restraint and you have a potent incentive. With our modern medical technology, we have the means to sterilize and neuter individuals.
Above all what we lack at this time is "feeling" the compelling necessity of all this. Which highlights again perhaps the biggest insight I picked up so far on this site thanks mainly to Ibon. CONSEQUENCES are the only catalyst that will truly ignite crucial holistic change. And the consequences themselves will be part of the changes needed

[KaiserJeep]

At this point in History, the USA would slowly fall back to a sustainable population below 100 million or so as long as we can close our borders to immigration. Yet immigration remains a hot button political issue, mostly with various Hispanic and Indian cultures from South and Central America. There are also many Chinese fleeing the oppressive regime, many West Coast cities from the Mexican/US border all the way to Northern Canada have their Chinatowns today.

For the population to stabilize, immigration must cease. But it's a hot button issue for many voters, and if a politician comes out in favor he loses in many districts. Other areas have enough immigrant constituencies to gain votes from making pro-immigration claims.

[onlooker]

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/41 ... nets_means
A study led by the University of Leeds has found that no country currently meets its citizens’ basic needs at a globally sustainable level of resource use.

[Ibon]

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/4178/a_good_life_for_all_within_the_planets_means
A study led by the University of Leeds has found that no country currently meets its citizens’ basic needs at a globally sustainable level of resource use.

You know your tag line Onlooker being mortal humans are doomed to die. This inevitable
reality really does fxxk with so many peoples heads and at the end of the day is the source of so much dysfunction of why humans chase wealth and so many feel split off from the natural world. Why our biosphere is imperiled.

Instead of sitting in the anxiety of your inevitable death as a mortal sentient there is a far more sane and humble realization. That is that you were even able to exist in the first place. That you are sentient. Everyone alive has this miracle of being a self aware sentient being and instead of witnessing this and feeling blessed and grateful many of us focus on the mortal part of our eventual death. Deferring the moment for some fake security of retirement or taking out life insurance. Believing that a fat bank account immunizes yourself from death or that status will distract you from the ticking clock of the grim reaper.

Humans are cowards and few take the gift of life as enough of a blessing in and of itself. They want more, to be immortal and because they cant they replace this with chasing false substitutes; wealth, status, power, etc. This chasing of false substitutes is the source of our biospheres suffering. Because we cannot leave well enough alone and calmly appreciate this gift of a few decades of being sentient. Our fear of death is a pathetic collective pathology that has lead to all of the ecological imbalances we witness today. The current generation is the most cowardly toward death in the history of all previous generations.

You will die
So will eye
Open your I's
To the infinite skies

There in the infinity there is no death.

[onlooker]

Yes Ibon I agree. In my stay on this site, i look dispassionately at the prospect of many people dying. Not because of lack of compassion but because Death is as much a part of this world/reality we live in as anything else in it. Come to think of it Ibon, in your moments of solitude in Mount Totumas, you must feel that sense of peace more precious than any pleasures the Earthly world can give us. Yes human kind seems hell bent on experiencing pleasures and sensations before the cold hand of death takes us. But how then can we be still enough long enough to feel the Peace bereft of longing and fear. I lived all my life near the big city and these words from this song capture the futility of it "As I rose above the noise and confusion just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion" Enjoy the rest of your day amigo Ibon.

[Ibon]

Yes Ibon I agree. In my stay on this site, i look dispassionately at the prospect of many people dying. Not because of lack of compassion but because Death is as much a part of this world/reality we live in as anything else in it. Come to think of it Ibon, in your moments of solitude in Mount Totumas, you must feel that sense of peace more precious than any pleasures the Earthly world can give us. Yes human kind seems hell bent on experiencing pleasures and sensations before the cold hand of death takes us. But how then can we be still enough long enough to feel the Peace bereft of longing and fear. I lived all my life near the big city and these words from this song capture the futility of it "As I rose above the noise and confusion just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion" Enjoy the rest of your day amigo Ibon.

Thanks Onlooker. On rare occasions it is interesting to reflect on the deeper philosophical truths that underlay our dilemma. I wrote my last post in the nearby town, all caffeinated while waiting in a cafe for our latest guests to arrive, five entomologists visiting us for 4 night in search of highland endemic moths and butterflies of the cloud forest.

[evilgenius]

A lot of people thought prohibition was a good idea too. So many, in fact, that it became the law of the land. It took a long time to repeal that. The context it set up, within which organized crime found a place in American life, still has not entirely gone away.

The only way you are going to curb the birthrate is to convince people that having children is not their purpose in life. As it stands, having children is something that people practically fall into. If they come to the conclusion that they either don't need to have children or that children are not necessary for their happiness, that usually happens after they have had children. It takes a while to sort out what is a biological imperative from what has been pushed upon a person by society. This is a societal issue. It pertains to the development of healthy adults within society, not children running around masquerading as adults.

Also, a lot of people have kids in order to undo what their parents did to them. They don't like to admit that, but hoping that their children will lead to a better world somehow is common amongst people who have kids. That doesn't necessarily mean that people who think that were abused themselves. It only means that they think they can give their kids what their parents couldn't give them. The flaw in that thinking is that a deprived individual cannot know what they have been deprived of, unless they engage their situation with truth as their goal. Kids don't provide truth. They provide opportunity. And that isn't the opportunity to undo what was done to them. Chances are, they, or, really their parents, have already more than mucked that up by the way they've passed along their parent's teaching in the manner in which they have treated their fellow man all through life, prior to coming to any truthful realizations. For many, it's an opportunity to achieve a sort of therapy. For others, a level of control. For very few, an answer to a call for responsibility toward their fellow man.

[evilgenius]

What's necessary, you see, is for people to realize that almost everything they think they can get from having kids can really be gotten from one's interaction with one's fellow man. For having kids is an evolving thing, a procedural thing that starts out from ignorance and develops according to what the child requires, which necessarily requires absenting one's fixation with one's self. You are not only responsible for their safety, but their development. That takes work of an unselfish kind. You aren't molding your kids. You are helping them discover who they are in proper context within the rest of humanity. Sometimes that does take discipline. You are also doing that for yourself. Any fulfillment you can get from that can be gotten from treating your fellow man the way you would like to be treated, or should be treated. There are lots of things that keep people from seeing that, but fear is probably the chief reason. People fear losing themselves when, actually, they will find themselves.

And, no, I am not talking about becoming a 'sucker.' You discover yourself in the manner in which you discover humanity in others. You don't find it in subservience or subordination per se. You find patience in those things, but to participate you also have to know how to take your own turn when it is your turn, and, then, to understand when your turn is over. The rest of humanity needs you to know that just as much as you would like to see it in others.

[Ibon]

Reading Evilgenius's post I had brainstorm idea. You calculate replacement level for determining the number of births. And then you allow this number either through natural childbirth or in vitro or any other means. And then the babies are loaned out during their first 8 years to several "parent"s

This way every couple gets to enjoy the purpose of being a parent. These loaner babies will have a richer set of parental mentors.

No one in the society at large is prohibited from being a parent since the pool of babies are shared.

You restrict births but allow every qualifying member of society to have a role as a parent.

[Newfie]

Ibon/OL.

Your interchange could fit well on the How much is enough thread”.