I just watched this episode of Horizon on iPlayer (Link). It's worth watching. The topic matter is how far the resources of the Earth can go to support the growing population of the human race. With the increasing human population things like energy, water, arable land and other resources are becoming stretched.

It brings up an interesting point. How can we face these hurdles?

Changing the way our technology influences agriculture, energy and industry is one idea, and reducing population size is another*. But what do you think would help the growing world population and allow our resources to go further?

(*Which interestingly can be done more efficiently with good education as opposed to more aggressive one child policies)

Hey man. I saw you were banned and tried to look at your profile. But it says only friends can see it.

I thought I was your friend

on topic - Technology alwasy helps. I have a severe problem with forcing people to have less kids. And this problem is not worldwide. Europe is gonna need more people in a few years for example.

As many as we can fit on it i guess. Once we start colonizing other worlds the resource problem will go away.

You can add me if you like, feel free. It was requested ban for a day anyway, I haven't been in trouble so everything is cushty.

...

Whilst you are correct about the population of Europe decreasing (In particular Eastern Europe, Germany and Russia), the population adjustment will likely be a blessing in disguise as we may see the benefits of having to spread scarce resources over a low population, a luxury many countries wont have in 2050. What would you rather have; A large population that is not fed and watered or a small population that is fed and watered?

I personally would go for the latter.

The real problem lies in places like India, China, South america, Sub-saharan Africa and the USA, where population is likely to increase. The resources will gradually become more and more scarce as the population grows. These places will have to spread scarce resources over a large population, which is going to cause major problems.

For countries like this population control is a burning issue. Many choose to ignore it because it isn't pretty, but it is a real problem.

I would like to cite a post I made about charity a few weeks back, where I argued that sending food aid to places which do not have enough arable land to support large populations is a bad idea. Why? because it artificially inflates the population. 

E.g. If I have a million people who are starving because their crops are stretched to their maximum yield then the population is already too large and should in all rights be smaller. But the way humans deal with this situation is by sending food aid which, whilst compassionate, is going to lead to larger problems later on. It will lead to a larger population in the future of say 2 million people (double) who are trying to live in the same area as the previous generation. That is going to make the food twice as scarce and subsequently the problem is doubled in magnitude.

The thing is, even though the population needs to be reduced it can be done so by none violent, none extreme ways quite happily. Off the top of my head I can think of several none violent ways this could be achieved.

• Better education - This will lead to more rational decision about child bearing, economics and contraceptive options, allowing the population to stabilise.
• Population migration - Offer up to a certain percentage of the population the opportunity to move to areas which have the potential to produce higher crop yields. This could solve the problem by (temporarily) adjusting the population in one area to a self sufficient level and increasing the population of another to allow for more potentially large yields. This would be best attempted in areas which are suffering from temporarily reduced yields.
• Population consensus - Offer those who are suffering from famine and drought due to an inflated population the opportunity to receive food aid based on the promise that they will reduce future generations through none violent one child policies. If they have any sense they should comply as it would make both their lives better (through food aid) and the lives of their children better (through crop yields spread over a smaller population allowing for more food.)

I don't know though in reality. All I know is that a growing population is a serious concern (last century alone we tripled in size) and one which isn't addressed as none of the solutions are particularly attractive. Even the three I just gave aren't attractive, but they are three most rational ones I could think of on the spot. Their is a limit to how far technology like hydroponics and artificial fertilisers can bring crop yields, eventually this issue will have to be addressed.

I think people who don't have kids should get tax breaks, and a new car.... and a crown!

Additionally children shouldn't be allowed out of the house after 5pm.

Part of the problem is that we are now living longer lives due to better medical standards.

You just want a tax break, a new car and a crown because you don't have kids, don't you?

I think they should just give us people without children cash, lots and lots of cash. I'll settle for that.

You make good points, but my problem is how are you going to get people to have less kids? That is the critical part.

Its one thing if they choose to. Another is if the government will find some way to "punish" you if you do.

educate them on the risks of unprotected sex both better and younger, make sure contraception is easily available and generally encourage people to have less children

Heres the thing. The problem isnt the number of children. The problem is parents being able to afford providing for them.

So people should be encouraged to be responsbile parents. Not simply to have less kids.