Overpopulation in an age of open borders - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15140236
In a world of nation states with borders, if one country breeds out of control that's their problem.
But with mass immigration, it becomes everyone's problem.

For the country with very high fertility rates and overpopulation, eventually it will become so impoverished people will die from starvation and famine, being left in droves on the wayside.
The breeding becomes unsustainable, and eventually the government comes under pressure to create a clampdown on reproduction. This has already happened at one in point in India and China. Other countries have resorted to incentives to get people sterilized, like Indonesia.

If the people from country A have the right to immigrate into country B, then country B has the right to demand (or enforce if necessary) population control in country A.

Otherwise, even if the majority of countries get their population growth under control, it won't matter, because masses of population will still continue pouring out of the handful of impoverished countries that don't have a handle on their growth.
#15140240
There is sufficient evidence that supports the fact that countries that become wealthy, or at least well developed, have their birth rates drop substantially.

Thailand, as a very good example, had a birth rate of 7 in the 60s, 4 in the 80s and is now lower than USA with just below 1.5.

The key is to HELP impoverished countries so that their birth rates diminish.

Also, when birth rates drop, it's helpful to HAVE immigrants, to maintain population, at the very least. Without borders, you'd probably have areas balance themselves, accordingly. In other words, any fear-mongering about open borders is rather unwarranted.
#15140245
Godstud wrote:There is sufficient evidence that supports the fact that countries that become wealthy, or at least well developed, have their birth rates drop substantially.

But I don't think this can be relied on a global level.

Birth rates typically drop when the opportunity costs of having children get too large.
This typically happens when costs of living go up, combined with higher levels of job opportunity for women.
In rural areas it is carries a low cost to have more children, but also women are not giving up much if they have children, even though they may live in relative poverty. In more developed areas, it can be difficult because there is a lack of living space, having more space is significantly more expensive, and the woman is gone all day at a job outside the home, both because the job pay is higher, and they need to earn more money to pay the high rents.
#15140246
Godstud wrote:The key is to HELP impoverished countries so that their birth rates diminish.

Ok, but to some extent that may be analogous to a game of Whac-A-Mole.
You would have to raise all the places in the entire world into a developed state at the same time.

That seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

You could solve the problems in half the world and there would still be big population problems in the other half, and that population would spill over into the other countries and start holding them back.
#15140249
Puffer Fish wrote:Ok, but to some extent that may be analogous to a game of Whac-A-Mole.
You would have to raise all the places in the entire world into a developed state at the same time.

That seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

You could solve the problems in half the world and there would still be big population problems in the other half, and that population would spill over into the other countries and start holding them back.

Luckily, however, the world is finite in extent, @Puffer Fish. You just keep doing it until you're done, and then you stop.
#15140289
Puffer Fish wrote:In a world of nation states with borders, if one country breeds out of control that's their problem.
But with mass immigration, it becomes everyone's problem.


I am not sure this is true.

Is overpopulation even a problem?

For the country with very high fertility rates and overpopulation, eventually it will become so impoverished people will die from starvation and famine, being left in droves on the wayside.
The breeding becomes unsustainable, and eventually the government comes under pressure to create a clampdown on reproduction. This has already happened at one in point in India and China. Other countries have resorted to incentives to get people sterilized, like Indonesia.


Can you please provide a source that clarifies what exactly happened or is happening in these countries? Thank you.

If the people from country A have the right to immigrate into country B, then country B has the right to demand (or enforce if necessary) population control in country A.


How would birth control be enforced?

Otherwise, even if the majority of countries get their population growth under control, it won't matter, because masses of population will still continue pouring out of the handful of impoverished countries that don't have a handle on their growth.


And this may not necessarily cause problems, so why should any sort of intervention be required?
#15149733
first there is stil no age of open borders, second while capitalism and nationalism still exists there would be competition for population growth, and third there is enough place and resources on this earth for extra 10 billion humans, the problem that hold this in question is mamomnism consumerism and insufficient industrialization, but most of all liberalism and secularism that produced amoral decadent trashing way of life, and till after follows all the rest risks like military industry or energy dependence etc. So there shouldnt be in place eugenic mechanisms concerning "overpopulation" but mental shift of the current western imperialism who sees itself as bearer of the enlightenment ideal for new world order thus its not even close to accept multipolar future world etc. etc. etc.
#15149803
The planet is overpopulated already, there is no doubts about that, the fail in birth control will lead to the end of the civilization forever (with everyone locked in the Malthusian trap, destruction of social institutes and constant starvation; and those hungry hordes will have no fossils to start over, I mean not only oil but guano for example that was absolutely necessary for the humankind to move through XIX century and is exhausted as the result). And of course the worst thing one can do to get out of the trap is to pay the biggest overpops. It reminds me of Pratchett, that moment where the government of the city gives bounty for rat tails leading to rat farms appearing. If you pay for overpopulation you create demand for overpopulation and supply will follow.
#15149929
Ganeshas Rat wrote:The planet is overpopulated already, there is no doubts about that,


no its not, whats happening is wrong redistribution of resources because of liberal capitalism through its planned obsolesce amid consumerism as economic growth!

on other hand, there are problems amid indebtness and economic growth vs needed population growth so particularly western realm would keep the current pace of dysfunctional social and political stability, and until the world economy is still on legs we could not face any risks because the current population stats, eventually what is the biggest fear for the west is not world overpopulation but emergence of multipolar world, the real threat in that case would be risk of need for more people to be brainwashed but also potential risks in times of economic crises allies to be secured by money ...
#15152671
what we would need as world if we want to survive and thrive is at least 50 to 70% of Agrarianism and cheap desalination of sea water, tho with mxenes even toxins and cnt's will be filtered!

here is good russian analysis of overpopulation, the only problem is how power centers are willed to collaborate so there would be no monopolar new world order but multipolar one ...

#15181601
Odiseizam wrote:what we would need as world if we want to survive and thrive is at least 50 to 70% of Agrarianism and cheap desalination of sea water, tho with mxenes even toxins and cnt's will be filtered!

here is good russian analysis of overpopulation, the only problem is how power centers are willed to collaborate so there would be no monopolar new world order but multipolar one ...



It seems like you are a Russian. Why else would the 2 links you provided be in Russian?

Why would anyone believe a native of a nation that is a competetor of Their own nation?
Youe evidence is in a language I can't read.
Why not believe the source is an example of disinformation.

Everything I have seen and believed for 50 years has told me the Malthus was right, even if the crunch was delayed by tech for a while. In the end there will be 1 persin per suare meter of land area. We can't have more people than that. And, those people would be dirt poor.

In the here and now, there are not enough resources to provide a European stabdard of living for every person on Earth. Money is not a problem, MMT has shown it can be almost infinite. It is real resources that are the problem.

[I once saw someone run the numbers on exporting the excess people from India. They assumed that one would need to export 1 person for every birth every day. They discovered that you would need more planes than the world had at that time and more jet fuel. Moving people to the moon would be much harder than moving them from India to anywhere on earth. Without a low energyt anti-garvity tech to move people it is impossible to export 1 person from Earth to match 1 birth every day forever. Enen then, all those nutriants would have to be replaced somehow, phosphprus being the main problem. People need phosphorus to live and grow.]

To have a world of 7.5 B + 10 B people would make everyone dirt poor. Besides which, there is always a limit. To breed up to that limit before you stop increasing the population, didn't keep away the need to someday stop breeding. Therefore, it is better to stop NOW. The longer we wait, the less standard of living is possible for everyone.

Besides which, AGW, aka ACC, is going to put a stop to your population growth plan very soon.

What you are proposing is very wrong, very foolish, and shows you are in denial about ACC.

Therefore, I conclude that the world is over populated NOW by about 4 B people. YMMV.
.
#15181603
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not sure this is true.

Is overpopulation even a problem?

Can you please provide a source that clarifies what exactly happened or is happening in these countries? Thank you.

How would birth control be enforced?

And this may not necessarily cause problems, so why should any sort of intervention be required?


Enforcing such a program is not the problem.
The problem is the will "to do it".
There are at least 3 Religions that would be a huge problem. Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims.

Another problem is how to make the enforcement system FAIR.
I created such a system 50 years ago. And, nobody cared because there was, and still is, no will to do it.
Ask & I'll detail it.

The thing is that we would have to be as unforgiving as Mother Nature is. No exceptions, no special cases, no nothing. We are, as of now, totally unwilling to do that. We have not faced the problem yet.
It is a lot like ACC. Until 2019 there was no in your face evidence of the problem, so 80% of people were unwilling to do much of anything to stop carbondioxide releases. IMHO, even now 60% are unwilling to do much. With population growth, there is still no in your face evidence of the problem.

However, humanity is now destroying the enviroment and the world's ecology on which we depend for life. We arehave reaching the limit at about the time the The Club of Rome report on the limits to growth predicted back in about 1971. As I understood the report, it said (if little or nothig was done, and it hasn't been done) in 2050 plus or minus 25 years there would be a huge die off of people taking the pop. from 8 B down to 800 M people starting at that time and extending over a few decades.

I hope everyone's grandchildren can live with air that is just 5% oxygen. Not 20%. Because the oceans and rain forests that release O2 are dying.
.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

You mean the settlements they abandoned in 2006 f[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]