Why Is Population Growth Seldom Discussed?

[Jim Lane]

217. The Third World has higher population growth, but we also have an overpopulation problem.

You refer to "places where population growth actually is a problem." I keep saying that growth is not the only issue and you keep saying that everything in the U.S. is fine because our natural rate of increase is negative. My view is still that the U.S., at its current population level, is overpopulated. To me, that's absolutely clear from our share of the human impact on the global environment. Your answer appears to be: (1) Hey, I said, we're not growing, except through immigration, so no growth = no problem, and (2) at some unspecified time in the future, we'll be able to reduce our impact, while yet maintaining our current lifestyle and current numbers, by employing some unspecified technology. If that's your position, we'll just have to disagree.

And this idea that the US is just a hair's breadth or a few "less draconian remedies" away from shit like limiting the number of kids people can have....

I don't think it's just a hair's breadth away. I do think it's at least possible that, at some time in the future, things will get bad enough that there will be some serious proposals along those lines. Obviously, those (still hypothetical) proponents will face enormous obstacles. Depending on what happens over the next 50 years, though, the idea may seem less outlandish than it does today.

why dont you make a list of all the "legitimate" instances in which we limit, or try to, the personal life choices of individuals, when they arent directly harming or endangering others.

The first one that occurs to me, because it was in the news on Election Day, is the minimum wage. Lisa runs a McDonald's franchise. She wants to hire Joe, a 22-year-old of sound mind, to flip burgers at $5 an hour. He wants to take the job. Personal life choices of two consenting adults, rah rah freedom, except that our government steps in and prohibits it. I consider that restriction on choice to be legitimate (even if Communist China has comparable laws).

Sorry, no, I'm not going to try to make a complete list of all such instances. Go to a libertarian website to see the aspects of the twentieth century that they object to and you'll have a good first draft, subject to addition and deletion.

And also make a list of the authoritarian bullshit- from arresting pot smokers in their own homes to arguments against gay marriage equality- that is justified in the name of controlling people, because of those same sorts of nebulous "social consequences" arguments.

Sorry again. I refuse to take responsibility for arguments I haven't made. Some other people make bogus arguments based on social consequences, so I must eschew all valid arguments based on social consequences? No. People make bogus arguments based on, for example, the First Amendment (see Citizens United and McCutcheon), but that won't stop me from defending the Constitutional rights of peaceful protesters in Ferguson. When it comes to laws that control people, I support minimum-wage laws, and I oppose anti-marriage-equality laws and marijuana prohibition. (I also oppose limits on family size, so I'm not sure why we're having this conversation.)

No, I think that "the fact that people dont think there is a problem is the problem, or proves that it exists" is crappy reasoning, and I like pretzels as much as anyone.

Let's momentarily leave the charged subject of population. Many DUers see income inequality and anthropogenic climate change as problems. No one would say that public opinion is the problem (the straw man you attack), but certainly part of the problem in each case is that millions of Americans don't think it's a problem, and therefore resist policies to address it. I think the same is true of overpopulation.

Lastly, again...leaving aside promoting wanted children in the places with high rates of pop. Growth, access to contraception etc... Which I suspect has wide agreement-- what sorts of "effective action" do you envision being taken politically, here, you know, before the draconian shit "has to be" implemented ... because the fertility rate is still a whopping 1.9 or whatever?

If your point is that there are no easy solutions, I completely agree. Your comment, juxtaposed with those of people in this thread saying that there's plenty of unoccupied land, reminds me of an observation I read long ago. It was along the lines of: "The land problem is easier to solve than the energy problem; the energy problem is easier to solve than the water problem; and anything is easier to solve than the population problem." Still true, alas.

I have no magic bullets. You suggest there's wide agreement on "promoting wanted children in the places with high rates of pop. Growth" but I'd note two points. First, I do see more room for improvement even in the developed countries. There are unwanted children born here, too. Second, even as to the countries with high rates of growth, the developed countries should be providing much greater assistance to people who want to plan their families -- the free choice we all agree on -- but who currently don't have access to the means to do so. In that context, the OP's question is a valid one. You and I can say we agree on free access to contraception, etc., and plenty of other people may say they agree, but among politicians it's just not seen as a priority, and not an issue worth pressing.

And, yes, that attitude is part of the problem.