How many people can live on planet earth?

[Meanqueen]

I've just watched a thought provoking programme on the iplayer, David Attenborough asking if the planet can support any more people.

How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?

It is predicted that there will be an increase in population to 9 billion by 2050 and demand for resources will outstrip supply. Scary stuff.

When I was 37 I asked for a sterilisation because I knew I didn't want to have children. I remember the gynaecologist asking me about my responsibility for bringing the next generation into the world. I was a trifle annoyed with her question. My answer was, 'There are already enough people having children, one less won't make any difference'. Little did I know that my flippant answer was exactly right.

An excellent programme, it should be shown to all children age 11 to 15 in schools, and then have a discussion on it. 60 minutes if you want to watch it.

Ilona

[saint-spoon]

May I be controversial and suggest that in this country we actively encourage teenagers to have children in order to maximise their benefits? We have after all the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe. You only have to look at the number of young girls in my home town pushing twin buggies with a third child in tow to realise that it is seen by some as a means to an income. It has become our culture in recent decades. How can we condemn other cultures who have by necessity in the past had large families to overcome the high infant mortality rate. We also have certain religions that encourage large families and others that ban contraception even if it is as a means to try and control the spread of HIV throughout Africa.
Truly the planet can not support many more people, there is already wide spread starvation and the resources are running out rapidly but before we change our own behaviour and discourage children from having children we cant expect the rest of the world to follow our lead.

Sorry if anyone finds my abrupt contribution offensive, i am only pointing out the facts as i read them.

[p.penn]

Hi Jen. Although I can understand your thinking, I would argue what you are saying brings in far more complicated issues as well.

Firstly, that having children is no longer a natural thing but one that needs 'permissions'. Who would have that right? I have studied population - it is a tricky issue. The one child policy in China, although extreme, highlights other issues. It was problematic as implementing a blanket population policy across society was just not appropriate.

That then leads on to secondly, that our entire lives be judged. How far would that go? Medical help withdrawn for a heart attack because we had eaten too many cakes? No dentist available because you eat chocolate or have sugar in your coffee? The list is endless.

Generally, social policy is determined by the need of the time, e.g. UK child benefit increase would be assessed according to the replacement needs of the population. A big increase would indicate that more children are needed to replace the numbers of dying.

Returning to the original issue, there is also the problem of the distribution of world resources. There is plenty of food to feed the world but it is in the hands of the few. It is far more complicated than that of course, but this is just an overview.

EEEK, sorry - it's the sociologist in me coming out!

[Meanqueen]

Interesting Helen, as you say, it is far more complicated. People do need to have fewer children, but no one has the right to dictate who and how many. At the end of the programme it said the best chance human life has of surviving is all down to education. Educated people have fewer children than un educated people.

The land that is available in the world for growing food is shrinking and in the wrong places. More affluent countries who have a shortage of land are buying it up, growing on it, and shipping out the food back to their own country, and the poor people who live there are going without. I think that's very unfair.

I can't explain it very well, you need to see the programme.

Ilona

[Bollybarb]

I remeber going to a 'conference' about the population explosion when i was 16 , i think it connected with the law and govement o level that i was taking. A very intresting argument was made, i'll try amd watch the program.

I was toying with the idea of having a 3rd child in front of my in laws and my F-I-L said what about the over population of the planet, i counted that by saying there was 3o odd years between our genrations and in a lot of families there would be a genration between us. Just another factor in the discussion.

[Stig]

Maybe it's just we all live too long these days (in the west), perhaps we should make a conscious decision not to develop medical science any further!

Is this statement any more extreme than the ones about controlling the number of children we are "allowed" to have?

I agree with Helen - at the moment, there should be enough planet to go round. Unfortunately this does not allow for greed and human nature and sadly I do think we're heading for an environmental disaster. I worry about what my kids will have to deal with.

[Mo]

I've read most of these posts and thought 'how true', even though they all present different sides of the story.
Certainly in the West we want more for ourselves and our children than most can hope for. It's not just food, there's the idea of growing petrol, which takes away food growing land.
Complicated.

[secret squirrel]

Looking at it from the prespective of the teenage pregnancy rate in this country, I would say that the powers that be and educationalists `just dont get it!!!`
I am suggesting this from the position of being a qualified teacher.
My observation is that over the last few years, particularly the last 10 to 15, the age at which s.ex education has been compulsory in school, has come down and down and as it has done so the rate of teenage pregnancies have gone up and up. Now we have children having children because youngsters are thrust into adulthood far too quickly. They say, sadly that childhood is over by the age of 10. That is almost medieaval in its concept, when laws were put into place to protect, particularly young girls.
My own feeling is that even if the s.ex education is decent, there doesnt seem to be any moralistic basis to it. It then becomes exitistensialism, if it feels right then do it!. That to me is society in melt down.
Although I do have children, for which I am very grateful, I have never considered it `my right` just because I am a woman and I dont see how you can realistically impose family size, like they did in China, because its been shown not to be very effective. My sister in law is unable to have children and has just `dealt with it`. She and my brother are very content and happy with that, and they have been married for nearly 25 years.
lorna

[lancashire lass]

I'm quite passionate about this subject and whole-heartedly agree that what is happening is not sustainable. The current human population has almost reached plague proportion - and that can only spell disaster in the future if it is not controlled soon. People are worried about climate change - I think the issue of overpopulation should also be considered as there is no doubt in my mind the 2 are linked.

Think about it - early hominids were hunted by big game so their numbers were controlled and affected by natural disaster or predation, but we today have become "top predator" so to speak ... anyone who knows anything about food chains would know that you need large numbers of prey (or cultivation land) to feed the fewer predators at the top of that pyramid. Currently we outnumber the prey/cultivation land not to mention (putting it politely here - I had something else in mind ...) polluting our own back yard, and that is just asking for trouble. Modern man now has an arsenal that is unlike anything seen before - so dwindling resources are unlikely to be shared equally but taken by force. Er, let's see - hasn't there been a recent war/conflict that sounds vaguely familiar or did we just go over there out of the goodness of our hearts?

And land for cultivation - am I the only one who thinks the rate at which the rainforests are being destroyed is suicidal and just asking for a disaster to happen. These affect our climate in such a way, I don't think I would want to be around in the future to find out. And what is the reason for the forests being cut down - because more and more people need land - full circle, overpopulation and limited resources do not mix. Is this being addressed at the Copenhagen conference or are we still bartering over the CO2 emissions in the west and how much compensation to pay for those developing countries likely to be affected by rising sea water level ?

Ok, perhaps I've said too much so I'll get off my soapbox now

[Meanqueen]

Fantastic posts here,
Your passion shows, LancsLass, and rightly so, for passion is what's needed here, because the way we're going the planet will be completely destroyed for the next generations. There will be more wars fought, and I can imagine a time when humans will be culled because there is nothing to feed them with. There will be two species of humans, the law of the jungle will take over and it will be the survival of the fittest. The strong will slaughter the weak.

I think the over population of the planet should be at the top of the list for world discussion before anything else, because that is the biggest cause of climate change.

Ilona

[liskeardjane]

some good points, I remarried when I was still in my twenties and already had two children and we would have loved chidlren of our own but decided that no one really should have more than two and we would be having children for selfish reasons, it's sad we never did but sometimes you have to stick to what you believe.

[secret squirrel]

You make a very fair point Jen about how people live their lives now.
However, if you turn the clock back, say, 40 years or so, things were different.
More people waited until after they were married, before entering into a full sexual relationship, than didnt.
I dont think anyone is being deliberately offensive by deciding to have only 2 children. I know someone who did that because the believed that they should replace themselves and not add to the population, and that was 30 years ago. Ilona must have thought long and hard before making the descision which was right for `her` personally, and I take my hat off to her.
Contraception is very reliable, these days, more so than when I was your age, and there really is no excuse for unwanted pregnancy, except in exceptional circumstances.
It depends on what you term ` a long term relationship` as a reason for that relationship to be a sexual one. For some people longterm means only six months. Whatever choices are made, then its up to the individual to live with the consequences. Fewer people opt for marriage these days so it rather changes the goal posts, but thats still personal choice. Everyone should be responsible and stand up for the choices they make, either socially or morally. We all see things different ways and we need to make those choices with care, for those who come after us. I dont think anyone on here is judgemental, but we all choose differently in a way that is right for us as individuals. I do think life can be tough for younger folk these days, but I do wonder as well, how much is as a result of impulsive behaviour rather than deliberate irresponsibility. Dont mean to score points in any way, its just as a parent, that way I feel.
lorna

[BodhisatvaJohn]

Another point woth considering in this debate, is that, it isn't over population per say, that are causing the real problems, (although I agree that there are/will be too many people on this planet), but it is how we use, or over use our natural resources. We waste, waste, waste!
One example would be water. We have just had a water meter fitted, and, apart from the money saved, it has really concentrated our minds, as to how much water we waste! Now most of our urine goes on the compost heap, we only fill the kettle a third full, and so on.

We have squandered the earths resources as it there was no tomorrow! Soon, there may not be a tomorrow after all!

[secret squirrel]

Jen, I`m not having a dig, at all. I promise.
My daughters are all in their 20`s and we have had the same discussion with them, sometimes heated but mostly thoughtful. They are all highly qualified and all have degrees as do I and OH.
The pattern of life is very different now to what it was when I was a student and I have tried not to impose my path in life on them.I have had, myself to accept that they wont do things they way I did but I have tried to teach them to be thoughful and considerate in everything they do and I am immensley proud of how they have turned out.
I do think its very hard for those who are getting on lifes ladder because there is much more media and governmental interference now, where people are told what to do all the time. Sadly it comes from hypocrits who suddenly have what they think is a bright idea and then want to impose it on society at large.You are clearly very bright and you must do what is right for `you`, using the rescources you have at your disposal. No matter what size family you have, every child surely does have the right to your love and the stability you can provide. All you can do is your best.(and we dont always get it right) Being a parent( i have found) is quite the hardest job i have done in my life, but its been worth every smile and tear shed.
lorna