Why Does no Politician Address Overpopulation?

[nanook12]

What would you propose? Everything that comes to mind would cause tremendous moral backlash (killing people? neutering them? Child limit per family/capita?) warmongers like trump have better things to feed off, such as ignorance and fear of others, whereas others such as Sanders try to appeal to the people's sense of responsability towards others/ political correctness, etc.

In other words: No politician would get any profit from it

I don't know what to do about it, but the lack of a solution should not marginalize the topic. It is a big issues that needs a lot more attention.

[Draenox]

Beacuse it's not a problem atm in the western world, it's actually the opposite

This, in some western countries the population growth has been on a downward trend the past years.

In Denmark they had a week-long campaign which focused on getting people to have more children, since if we dont we will have a disproportionate amount of elders compared to young adults within a few decades.

[Revi]

I see this logic often. The problem with it is that is assumes demand and jobs increase as a one to one ratio. For example, the demand 100 new immigrants let into the country would create 100 new jobs. Maybe fail to see that 100 new immigrants may only produce 50 new jobs, so there is actually a net loss of jobs per person. This avenue seems more reasonable because employers will push the employees they have much harder before they hire a new person in order to maximize their profit.

If there's a sudden surge if immigrants the growth is not gradual so it will be a bit different, but it should even out eventually if they employ at the same rate as everyone else.
But seeing as we can go from communities of 50 people with high employment to cities of tens of millions with high employment, a steady population growth seems to always work out. I read the opposite from economists, that population stagnation is worse for employment because our economy depends on growth.

[Captain N]

Western countries dont have an over population issue. Its the developing world that does. Many first world countries have the opposite issue.

I think Endus posted something the last time this topic was brought up showing that. Something about the US having a negative population growth if it wasn't for immigration.

[Revi]

But you cannot grow indefinatly more food.

The problem with food is more one of what we eat, how we distribute it and how much we waste. Lower population would definitely help the climate, but changing the way we do things is a better solution.

[Sesshomaru]

It has been addressed. Chinese government anyone?

As far as I remember, they've now abolished the 1-child policy and gone to a 2-children policy or something in the liking. Might be wrong, though.
It's all in matter of in which the parents are able to "bribe" the ones upholding the policy, as a coworker of mine, a 29~year old woman have 4 (FOUR) other siblings back in China.

Else, on topic, if only I could somehow explain my thought process, I could've written tons, but alas, I'm horrible at explaining.

[GennGreymane]

I think Endus posted something the last time this topic was brought up showing that. Something about the US having a negative population growth if it wasn't for immigration.

Which would be true.

First world countries tend to have men and women working/in school. Women who work or are in school wont have too many kids or will wait till later in life. Thus populations tend to go down or stagnate.

[Deleted]

Because if politicians made people aware that our way of life is doomed to end in a 100 years people would freak out.



But you cannot grow indefinatly more food.



And once we threaten to not sell them any more food, what do you think they will do?

Invade Alaska.

[Nyoken]

I'm pretty sure that's why they haven't released the cure to cancer yet.......

[GennGreymane]

Invade Alaska.

Then Canada gets annexed, and then shit happens, and then me and you can walk in the waste land to 50s music.

[Captain N]

Which would be true.

First world countries tend to have men and women working/in school. Women who work or are in school wont have too many kids or will wait till later in life. Thus populations tend to go down or stagnate.

Makes a lot of sense considering nowadays the typical American household almost requires both partners working.

[unbound]

Overpopulation would definitely result in major competition for jobs, wage stagnation as there would be an abundance of cheap labor, and accordingly would spike inequality levels really high. Overpopulation could be the real cause of Americas woes, yet no one is addressing it.

It is actually the root cause of a number of issues that we face today and will be an ever increasingly problem in the future. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to provide to people.

Republicans will never address this as long as they are deeply tied to the religious right who is keenly interesting in out-breeding all other religions (don't worry most other religions feel the same way).

Democrats and others will likely not address it any time soon as it is a very difficult and complex discussion. While the concept is easily understood, trying to explain the problem to the masses and potential solutions to address the problem will go over like global climate change. You'll have many that will deny the problem, many that will deny the solutions are acceptable, and most that will simply ignore it because, just like your trash, your part is small...and people aren't interested in long-term problems that involve large-scale cooperation.

Heck, anyone with a functional brain knows that there can be only so much oil left on the planet (no one really knows if there is enough oil 20 year or 50 years or even 100 years, but it will run out), but how many huge SUVs and huge trucks do you see being driven around by people that absolutely have no need for the vehicle? I see them all over my area...and everything shuts down with an inch or two of snow, so unless you are an emergency worker or doctor, nobody in this area needs those things. They are burning oil for their own pleasure rather than leaving some around for their kids while we haphazardly try to catch up with electrical cars. Do you honestly think those people are ready about a conversation regarding overpopulation?

[tylenol]

Bill Burr has been bitching about the population "problem" in his last 3 specials as he put it

I think his idea was to basically make babies illegal till you get the population down to about 30,000 and if it goes above 30,000 you do the same thing they do with animals, have a legal hunt in which you kill humans till you are back at 30,000 people, his plan basically means people are eliminated but no one has to die

His major points are pretty good, the pros are things like this:
The odds of you getting to play in a major sport when there are only 30,000 people are insane
Everyone gets to go to every championship sports game
You can literally drive your own tank
You wouldn't need to recycle
You can shoot bald eagles right in the head if they are shitting on your tank if you want
While driving said tank you could throw toxic waste out the top of the tank

It sounds like a good idea but I'm sure there are some cons here

[Revi]

Bill Burr has been bitching about the population "problem" in his last 3 specials as he put it

I think his idea was to basically make babies illegal till you get the population down to about 30,000 and if it goes above 30,000 you do the same thing they do with animals, have a legal hunt in which you kill humans till you are back at 30,000 people, his plan basically means people are eliminated but no one has to die

His major points are pretty good, the pros are things like this:
The odds of you getting to play in a major sport when there are only 30,000 people are insane
Everyone gets to go to every championship sports game
You can literally drive your own tank
You wouldn't need to recycle
You can shoot bald eagles right in the head if they are shitting on your tank if you want
While driving said tank you could throw toxic waste out the top of the tank

It sounds like a good idea but I'm sure there are some cons here

>.<

His bit is intentionally written as something a crazy idiot would say. That's why it's funny, it's part of his persona sometimes.

[Azadina]

Bill Burr has been bitching about the population "problem" in his last 3 specials as he put it

I think his idea was to basically make babies illegal till you get the population down to about 30,000 and if it goes above 30,000 you do the same thing they do with animals, have a legal hunt in which you kill humans till you are back at 30,000 people, his plan basically means people are eliminated but no one has to die

His major points are pretty good, the pros are things like this:
The odds of you getting to play in a major sport when there are only 30,000 people are insane
Everyone gets to go to every championship sports game
You can literally drive your own tank
You wouldn't need to recycle
You can shoot bald eagles right in the head if they are shitting on your tank if you want
While driving said tank you could throw toxic waste out the top of the tank

It sounds like a good idea but I'm sure there are some cons here

30000? Well, better start nuking the planet, because more will survive all out nuclear war than that amount.

[PC2]

Because if politicians made people aware that our way of life is doomed to end in a 100 years people would freak out.

If we don't fix the population issue soon it won't matter what happens in 100 years anyways.

[Deleted]

Overpopulation would definitely result in major competition for jobs, wage stagnation as there would be an abundance of cheap labor, and accordingly would spike inequality levels really high. Overpopulation could be the real cause of Americas woes, yet no one is addressing it.

Back when the Neanderthals roamed the world, at one point, there were only about 20.000 of them. This was the golden age! Employment was 100% and wealth must have been enormous.

Likewise, as recently as the 19th century, there were far less humans, around 1 billion compared to the horrible 7 billions we now have to put up with. Much prosperity! Wow! Such high wage!

Oddly however, the most densely populated country in the world is Singapore, which also is the 3rd wealthiest country in the world (#1 and #2 is Qatar and Luxembourg which are hugely more densely populated than the US).

Even more oddly, the most densely populated US state is New Jersey, which is also the one with the 2nd highest household income (Maryland is #1, and is incidentially the 5th most densely populated state). How can this be possible! If you just spread out people over a large enough area, and generally don't have so many people, there will be lot's of jobs, right? RIGHT!?

Something is off here. Perhaps - and I'm just throwing a thought out - *perhaps* it could be possible that wealth and jobs and prosperity is in fact *created* through trade, cooperation and network effects? Crazy idea, I know.

[PC2]

Oddly however, the most densely populated country in the world is Singapore, which also is the 3rd wealthiest country in the world (#1 and #2 is Qatar and Luxembourg which are hugely more densely populated than the US).

Singapore is an island city state. I wouldn't compare them to the average nation state that has much more logistical complexity.

[Skulltaker]

The problem with food is more one of what we eat, how we distribute it and how much we waste. Lower population would definitely help the climate, but changing the way we do things is a better solution.

Do you know how long it took humanity to get from 2 billion people to almost 8? My grandfather turned 101 last year. It happened in his lifetime. When I told him, he wouldn't believe me.

And also, do you know what happened to species that overpopulated their habitat? They vanished. Basically over night. Going for overpopulation is a lot like dricing down a very steep road that heads for an abyss. You accelerate, until you are over the edge. And no matter what you do, nothing can save you once you cross over the red line.

When it happens it won't be a question if we can reduce wasted food, there will be huge regions in the world where there is no food to waste. When food gets scarce, people get aggressive. We are not talking about a few thousand people here, we are talking millions. And one of the nations with the biggest population problem also sits on a very VERY huge pile of nuclear weapons and a ever growing army.

Of course, changing what we eat and raising awareness regarding food waste will help, but it only postpones the inevitable. If we keep growing at this rate it will end badly.

[Nanaboostme]

More people = more jobs created. You don't reach a point where you can't create more jobs despite more people being born.

Resource is the backbone. There's a threshold where there will not be enough resource to supply all of us which is the path we've been heading with no backup as of now