Modern Medicine and Overpopulation

[EarthKwake]

We've all heard that humanity is currently suffering the effects of overpopulation. Millions are starving in third-world countries, and in North America job competition (and unemployment) is always on the increase. However, the two main causes of overpopulation (decreased mortality rates and increased birth rates) are also the two goals of a species. Nature, as she has done for billions of years, has tried to keep our population down with disease and famine. But we've countered with modern medicine, making the average once-feared illness a mere trifling inconvenience. Is there a point at which saving lives becomes detrimental to society? With death rates decreasing and lifespans increasing, are we actually digging our own proverbial graves by continued advances in medical science? Where is the line between the value of a single individual's life and the life of a species?

Go.

[Raptor Jesus]

I don't think that birth rate is increasing. It increased during the baby boomer years after World War 2, but now with worries of things like sexually transmitted disease, people are slightly more responsible and use condoms. Also, with the rise of women in the workplace, having excess children becomes a hamper on a career and birth control has become popular, also reducing the birth rate.

And with countries that either outlaw multiple children or have some incentive for less children it isn't very difficult to imagine birth rates being quite stable.

And there's also abortion. People hate it due to their religious inclinations, but it is an option people use.

You can argue there's a lot of countries where birth control and condom use is minimal or even non-existent, but those countries also tend to have less advanced medicine, so their increased birthrate are countered by the higher child mortality rate.

Anyway, if there is overpopulation, then I say we go with the GTA4 radio show method- kill the old people and use them as feed for younger folks. This also solves that whole social security problem. :p

[Doppleganger]

I could give a half-arsed biological refutation, but I think the economics route is perhaps better suited to this debate -

Is there a point at which saving lives becomes detrimental to society?

With death rates decreasing and lifespans increasing, are we actually digging our own proverbial graves by continued advances in medical science?


No on both counts, for a stable economy. Birth rates and death rates are closely tied to a (fixed) standard of living and one-time increases in births or deaths lead to a readjustment of resources to accommodate.

If births > deaths, the population increases, and the standard of living decreases. The lowered standard of living in turn causes a decrease in births, and subsistence is re-attained. Likewise, if deaths > births, the population decreases and the standard of living increases. This leads to an increase in births, which returns everything back to subsistence.

The key point is, if one uses medicine to reduce the death rate, in the long run for a stable economy it won't have any effect on the standard of living. The adjustment will be diluted by influencing the factors to decrease birth rates.

High world population is solely due to one-time technological increases, but standard of living doesn't change, the birth rates and death rates simply get larger.

[EarthKwake]

If births > deaths, the population increases, and the standard of living decreases. The lowered standard of living in turn causes a decrease in births, and subsistence is re-attained. Likewise, if deaths > births, the population decreases and the standard of living increases. This leads to an increase in births, which returns everything back to subsistence.


Your theory is flawed in that it assumes the birth and death rates will always keep each other in equilibrium. If that were true, the population would always remain fairly stable. That is obviously not the case in today's world, where the population is said to increase by nearly two billion in the next twenty or so years. Also, because the standard of living is so high in North America and parts of Europe, it is unlikely we will be experiencing any significant drops in the birth rate; rather, we will most likely suck dry the resources from other countries (i.e. the Middle East) until we eventually completely run out and are forced to turn on our neighbors for such basic necessities as food and water. And only once we reach that stage will the death rate become higher than the birth rate (and it will most likely be too late by that point anyway). So my question is: should we start acting on the problem of overpopulation now via population control, or is that too immoral to consider (and if it is, what other solutions are there)?

[Doppleganger]

That is obviously not the case in today's world, where the population is said to increase by nearly two billion in the next twenty or so years.


Due to one-time technological increase in India and China. And I might add, 20 years is not "long term", 100 years is. China and India's standard of living will adjust out by that time.


Also, because the standard of living is so high in North America and parts of Europe, it is unlikely we will be experiencing any significant drops in the birth rate; rather, we will most likely suck dry the resources from other countries (i.e. the Middle East) until we eventually completely run out and are forced to turn on our neighbors for such basic necessities as food and water.


Birth rates have already adjusted in the US and Europe, it just doesn't seem that way because immigrants from countries with lower standards of living bring with them a high birth rate. If you want a country that has a declining birthrate but is tight on immigration, look at Japan.


And only once we reach that stage will the death rate become higher than the birth rate (and it will most likely be too late by that point anyway).


Even if the death rate were higher, the population would shrink to a small enough size after that for resources to no longer be scarce. I don't believe that end-world scenario anyway because economies will compensate long before resources run out (you assume people would be willing to hypothetically pay $10/gallon for gasoline to sustain their current lifestyles, they will instead form a new one if all other conditions are constant) and technological improvements will likely alleviate the dependence.


So my question is: should we start acting on the problem of overpopulation now via population control, or is that too immoral to consider (and if it is, what other solutions are there)?

There's no need for it.

[EarthKwake]

Due to one-time technological increase in India and China. And I might add, 20 years is not "long term", 100 years is. China and India's standard of living will adjust out by that time.

The world population has been steadily increasing for the last thousand years, and not just in Asia. I only pointed out the next twenty years to emphasize the exponential nature of the population increase. Also, "one-time technological increase" is hardly the cause for population growth; just look at Africa, where even in the worst parts of the continent the population has been steadily increasing for the last century.

Birth rates have already adjusted in the US and Europe, it just doesn't seem that way because immigrants from countries with lower standards of living bring with them a high birth rate. If you want a country that has a declining birthrate but is tight on immigration, look at Japan.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Bdrates_of_Japan_since_1950.svg/512px-Bdrates_of_Japan_since_1950.svg.png

Japan may be tight on immigration, but you are forgetting the number of Japanese leaving the country. Since few immigrants are coming into Japan but many Japanese are leaving for other countries, it is natural to expect the overall birth-rate to decrease (if your theory were correct). On the contrary, for the last half-decade the population of Japan has remained fairly constant, despite the masses leaving the country, and in the past two years it is even on the rise (and is expected to continue rising). The Japanese people are still having children, just not necessarily in the country, hence why the birth rate has been decreasing in the past. Also, keep in mind that we are discussing the "world population increase", as opposed to individual countries. Yes, immigration will affect the birth rate of a specific country, but on the whole the population continues to rise.

Even if the death rate were higher, the population would shrink to a small enough size after that for resources to no longer be scarce. I don't believe that end-world scenario anyway because economies will compensate long before resources run out (you assume people would be willing to hypothetically pay $10/gallon for gasoline to sustain their current lifestyles, they will instead form a new one if all other conditions are constant) and technological improvements will likely alleviate the dependence.


Firstly, many resources we depend on (and not just oil, but fresh water especially) are not renewable, or are insufficiently renewable (such as lumber). They will not just "no longer be scarce", they will be gone, potentially forever (at least in terms of humanity). Also, because the oil companies aren't about to risk a panic of declining amounts of oil, they will be willing to keep prices down low to keep the public calm (which is exactly what they are doing now, in fact; you think the amount of oil lost in the Gulf has pushed prices up significantly? I think not). And even if gasoline prices were to rise to $10+/gallon, people are completely reliant on gasoline for practical transportation, no matter what new solar or nuclear technology emerges (which, with the lack of funding and amount of contempt from the oil industries it has today, is unlikely to become our grand solution any time soon.

[Breeder KJ]

If we look at the world's population, which cannot be argued from an economical point of view since that has to do with international relations more than anything else, there is a problem. The current world birth and death rates, for 2010, are a rounded 20 births per 1000 population and a rounded 8 deaths per 100 population. (birth rate (http://www.indexmundi.com/world/birth_rate.html), death rate (http://www.indexmundi.com/world/death_rate.html))

Now let's take a look at the trends. Using the same sources, the death rate is for the most part consistently falling, as we discover new medicine and are able to fight more diseases of course this is expected. Meanwhile, the birth rate, which is some what erratic, for the most part hasn't changed much. This does concern in the long run, but here's my issue.

My mom is a woman's health-care professional. She pointed out that the rise in medicine also applies to the birth rate. Women who do not have the proper natural pelvic shape to give birth would have simply either died in child birth, have a still-born child, or both are now able to have c-sections. A sterile woman can employ another woman with healthy a uterus to carry her baby. Women don't even need men (directly) to reproduce now, what with sperm banks and insemination procedures.

Mean while we have so many old and elderly people that we don't know what to do with. Men and Women who can no longer function in society nor have the ability to clean themselves, living in understaffed nursing homes, where they are neglected to death.

All in all I agree with EK that there is a problem, and I think one of the only ways to solve it is to allow nature to run it's course and not let medicine interfere for a while. On that same token, I don't quite think that's possible nor would it ever be allowed by the yuppie idiot breed who don't even understand where there food comes from.

[unownmew]

Doppel has some good points, IMO.
Personally, I believe in survival of the fittest, and, if we can conquer it, we should (in regards to medicine).

There is no way we are going to be able to outwit Nature though. If we conquer one virus or disease, another one will appear, or an old one will mutate, and population control will be put into check again.

War is another of nature's tools to control our population. After the Great Wars (WWI and II), we had a period of relative stability and peace, allowing us to recover our lost populations. As we start pressing up against each other again, we get into even more conflicts, which reduces our population again.

If population ever were to get completely out of hand, I imagine one of two things will occur, either we will advance in technology enough that we can live in space and colonize other places (thereby allowing further population increases, and better standard of living, or we will apocalypse ourselves to level out the population again, like many of the great civilizations before us.


I have full faith that Nature won't let us down, regardless of how many stupid decisions we make, short of exterminating ourselves on purpose. (such as pillaging natural resources, or overpopulating the planet)