DeaconBlues makes some good points, about what is a very difficult (and perhaps humanities biggest) issue.

Bertrand Russell had some ideas about population numbers (amongst numerous other issues).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

"Passages in some of his early writings support birth control. On 16 November 1922, for instance, he gave a lecture to the General Meeting of Dr. Marie Stopes's Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress on "Birth Control and International Relations," in which he described the importance of extending Western birth control worldwide; his remarks anticipated the population control movement of the 1960s and the role of the United Nations.

This policy may last some time, but in the end under it we shall have to give way—we are only putting off the evil day; the one real remedy is birth control, that is getting the people of the world to limit themselves to those numbers which they can keep upon their own soil... I do not see how we can hope permanently to be strong enough to keep the coloured races out; sooner or later they are bound to overflow, so the best we can do is to hope that those nations will see the wisdom of Birth Control.... We need a strong international authority.

—"Lecture by the Hon. Bertrand Russell", Birth Control News, vol 1, no. 8 (December 1922), p.2"

His views on sex were a little ahead of their time:

"Russell wrote against Victorian notions of morality. Marriage and Morals (1929) expressed his opinion that sex between a man and woman who are not married to each other is not necessarily immoral if they truly love one another, and advocated "trial marriages" or "companionate marriage," formalized relationships whereby young people could legitimately have sexual intercourse without being expected to remain married in the long term or to have children (an idea first proposed by Judge Ben Lindsey).[12][13] This was enough to raise vigorous protests and denunciations against him during his visit to the United States shortly after the book's publication. Russell was also one of the first intellectuals to advocate open sex education and widespread access to contraception. He also advocated easy divorce, but only if the marriage had produced no children — Russell's view was that parents should remain married but tolerant of each other's sexual infidelity, if they had children. This reflected his life at the time — his second wife Dora was openly having an affair, and would soon become pregnant by another man, but Russell was keen for their children John and Kate to have a "normal" family life.[13]

Russell was also an active supporter of the Homosexual Law Reform Society, being one of the signatories of A.E. Dyson's 1958 letter to The Times calling for a change in the law regarding male homosexual practices, which were partly legalized in 1967, when Russell was still alive.[14]"

moi621 (imported) wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:26 pm The one child policy of China is going to come back to haunt them with a decline in working population.

And smarter persons choosing to limit off spring, the World population can only be dumbed down.

Two things, the second first:

Intelligent people (high IQ testing, that is) do not necessarily have high IQ children. 'Regression towards the mean' and all that. Now that said, it does seem that first-world countries are definitely producing fewer kids than is the average. For many countries, fewer than replacement levels, even. Meaning that for the near future, they're going to have to rely upon immigration to keep population levels level.

Second, I agree that the 'one child' policy will come back to bite China on the ass, but not for the reasons you give. As a result of this policy, far too many families are deciding (one way or another) that their 'one child' will be male. Currently, for every 100 girls, there are nearly 120 boys. This means in 10 or so years, there are likely to be some 40 to 60 million 'missing women'. So what happens then? What happens to a society that's so unbalanced in terms of gender distribution? What happens in areas where there are over 1/3 more boys than girls? Exactly how stable do you think the results will be?

An article in todays news. The population boom is actually being defused, and, while population is still increasing, except for rural Africa, the rate of increase is actually falling, and by midcentury the population is likely to start decreasing. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/28/opinion/p ... hpt=us_mid

(CNN) -- This week the world will reach 7 billion people. Understandably that raises concern about a soaring world population. But there is a good news story from the demographic data that is not often told. We -- or rather the poor women of the world -- are defusing the population bomb.

Women today are having half as many children as their mothers and grandmothers. The global average is now down to 2.5 children per woman, and it continues to fall.

This is not just a rich-world phenomenon. Much of Asia now has fertility rates below two, from Japan and Korea to China, with its one-child policy, through Taiwan, Vietnam, Burma, Singapore and much of southern India and parts of the Middle East. Behind the veil, the women of Iran have cut their fertility from eight to less than two in a generation.

The young people out on the streets demanding democracy during the Arab Spring are arguably far more politically active because they are not at home raising large families.

Falling fertility happens faster if countries get richer and if women are better educated. Similarly urbanization helps a lot. While even young children can be an economic asset on an African peasant farm, they are an economic liability in cities, where they require education before they can get a job. The teeming megacities of the poor world may look like symbols of overpopulation, but they are part of the solution, too.

But the real story is that rich or poor, Muslim or Catholic, secular or devout, socialist or capitalist, with tough government birth control policies or none, most countries tell the same story. Small families are becoming the new norm.

The reason, I believe, is very simple. Women are having smaller families because for the first time in history they can. In the 20th century, the world largely eradicated the diseases that used to kill off most children. Today, most kids get to grow up. Mothers no longer need to have five or six children to ensure the next generation. Two or three is enough, and that is what they are choosing to have.

There are holdouts, of course. In much of Africa, rural women still typically have five children or more. But if Africa follows Asia, then we can see an end to population growth. We are, I believe, likely to see "peak population" by about mid-century. Perhaps at around 9 billion people.

After that, on current trends of fertility falling to below replacement levels, we will see a falling world population.

And rapid aging. With longer life expectancy and fewer babies, this is all but inevitable. China will soon be aging faster than anywhere on Earth. Aging is set to be the dominant demographic phenomenon of the 21st century, just as the population boom dominated the 20th century.

What does this mean for the environment? Well, peak population is good news, of course. But don't hang the flags. It is a pervasive myth that it is all those extra people that are wrecking the planet. That's no longer the case.

Rising consumption today is a far bigger threat to the environment than a rising head-count. And most of that extra consumption is still happening in rich countries that have long since given up growing their populations.

According to Stephen Pacala, the director of the Princeton Environmental Institute, the world's richest half billion people -- that's about 7 % of the global population -- are responsible for half the world's carbon dioxide emissions, the primary cause of man-made climate change. Meanwhile the poorest 50 % of the world are responsible for just 7 % of emissions. So there is no way halting population growth in the poor world today would have more than a very marginal effect on climate change.

It is the world's consumption patterns we need to fix, not its reproductive habits. Every time we talk about too many babies in Africa or India, we are denying this fact.

The population bomb may be being defused by the women of the poor world. But the rich world has not even begun to defuse the consumption bomb.

Transward

BossTamsin (imported) wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:08 am Second, I agree that the 'one child' policy will come back to bite China on the ass, but not for the reasons you give. As a result of this policy, far too many families are deciding (one way or another) that their 'one child' will be male. Currently, for every 100 girls, there are nearly 120 boys. This means in 10 or so years, there are likely to be some 40 to 60 million 'missing women'. So what happens then? What happens to a society that's so unbalanced in terms of gender distribution? What happens in areas where there are over 1/3 more boys than girls? Exactly how stable do you think the results will be?

Oh, you analyzed it like a pro bro. I have to agree with you.

Can anyone think of a country where they birth rate has NOT cratered as they become educated and opportunities have opened for all kids with abilities (ie. a middle class is created).

I cannot.

All we need is more government telling us what we should be doing in our lives.this sucks at best and if this were to happen are you ready to give up even more of your freedom what a crock.

I am so confused, just what are you talking about Sag, this thread is about the world population.

River

Arab Nights (imported) wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:38 pm Can anyone think of a country where they birth rate has NOT cratered as they become educated and opportunities have opened for all kids with abilities (ie. a middle class is created).

I cannot.

What happens is that as women get more affluent, they get educated and start having babies later in life and having fewer babies.

I'm puzzled because I wouldn't use the word "crater." That wouldn't be my choice of descriptive word for what happens.

My work tends to be cyclical. I am either farting in silk or don't have a pot to piss in. Just for the sake of example, when it goes from $12,000 to $2,000 per year, I talk about it cratering. Hence, when I ask people in several countries in Latin America how many brothers and sisters they have and they say 12 and they have 2 kids, I refer to the population cratering. Just a personal choice of words shaped by my experience. You have had a much more stable work life so I am sure you would pick another word. Whatever, I am sure people understood my point.

I read somewhere that when Bill Gates first began thinking about what to do with his billions, over population lept to mind. He started looking at subsidizing birth control, etc. Finally someone pointed out that, aside from China's one child rule, the only other thing that works is create a middle class. Works every time.