Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling for August 08, 2009

Wars just for necessities, for food, or water. Haves and have nots. We need to find some version of Al Capp’s Shmoos (ask your grandparents, kids).

Moral: let’s stop the population increasing, folks

solution: spaceships.

The smart and well educated do practice birth control. It’s the other 90% who prove Darwin wrong.

If only the major religions didn’t keep pushing for having as many kids as possible.

We need FREE Voulntary Birth Control of all available options available to everyone regardless of perceived ability to pay. After two kids, I finally got “Fixed” for a pre-deductable amount of $5414.19. I couldn’t afford this without our insurance, and still can’t really afford it in this economy. A far greater expense would be one more baby. I grew up with a neighbor who had more kids than I could count. More than ten, less than twenty. As an immigrant whe had never heard of birth control, she was amazed that my mother had only one child. If she had known there was a choice, she would have stopped at two or three.

People get their knickers in a twist about China’s “one-child-only” policy, but it seems inevitable that something similar lies in OUR future. I’d allow two, which would at least allow each generation to replace itself, with a slow reduction due to natural infertility or personal choice to remain childless.

Of course, one of the big slams on China’s policy in praxis (as opposed to theory) is that, given their overwhelming preference for male children, selective abortion and even infanticide of females is a result. That’s a cultural aspect that can’t be endorsed.

On the other hand, if an entire generation grows up and discovers that there’s only one woman around for every four men, it would probably reach that conclusion on its own pretty dern* quick.

I guess you guys don’t like people.

Well, I’m doing MY part; my swimmers don’t get anywhere near those bleeep ova. You may praise me now.

Hey! All I typed was d * a * r * n! This is a tough room.

Malthus believed that increasing population inevitably outstrips agricultural production. This might have been true when the only way to increase food supply was to increase cultivated acreage. But Malthus could not envision the Industrial Revolution’s impact on agriculture: mechanization, industrially produced fertilizers, rapid transport across great distances, refrigeration, advances in food packaging, etc., let alone the Green Revolution and agri-genetics. In short, Malthus had no idea of the modern world.

More people are not a burden. They are part of the solution: more workers = more productivity, more inventors = more discoveries, more geniuses = more advances than we can imagine, just as my grandparents could not have imagined computers and satellites. Those doubled populations will live better lives, not worse.

Pschearer, you really need to read the cartoon again. It already refuted your point even before you posted it.

Fennec, the built-in censor also won’t allow “t-i-t”.

Guess the site managers aren’t into breast feeding.

I’m with pschearer, Malthus was wrong. And no, the comic didn’t prove him wrong - the issue is far more complex than it shows. More people means more innovation means more efficient usage of what we have. Furthermore, even if we don’t adjust, we won’t run out of oil or food or any other reasource all at once. It will get more and more expensive for a long time. So, driving will get harder and harder and people will adjust.

Malthus wrote in 1800, when the world’s population was 1 billion people. Since then the world’s population has doubled, doubled again, and nearly doubled a third time. Are we living awful, resource scarce lives?

It’s well known that population growth doesn’t increase consistently as people become more affluent. It follows an “s curve.” The most affluent countries, expecially european ones, have low birthrates. Expect this trend to continue as third world countries grow larger middle classes.

And finally, the basic premise of the cartoon is a lie. We aren’t on track to double in thirty years. The UN predicts the population will be 9.7 billion people in 2050, a 45% increase from today. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)

pdsewell: “Are we living awful, resource scarce lives?”

We, like you and me? Not yet.

We, like the human race? Yes, many are.

People really will be part of the solution.

Soylent Green, anyone?

Well it’s easy to see who the “f-the world” people are!

pschearer & pdsewell have clearly been well brainwashed to be able to believe the incredibly ignorant (& fatally flawed) propaganda they are spewing.

I particularly love the part about how we are all living BETTER lives because of overpopulation. They have apparently never heard of places like Africa & Ethiopia etc etc etc etc…

Not surprising.

To think about others one needs a heart & soul, not an empty brain & a loud mouth.

My personal solution (when I am eventually elected Queen of the Universe) would be the automatic implantation of (a removable) birth control device into EVERY human (male or female) right after birth. The only way procreation would then be possible is when 2 consenting adults who BOTH wanted children (& therefore had undergone the removal process) got together. No more 13 year olds giving birth, no more “oopsy” babies…just a chance at a world where EVERYONE had a chance for clean air, fresh water, plentiful food & a loving home.

Zirconia, here’s a better method I learned in a college economics class, and while admittedly impractical, doesn’t require non-existent birth control methods:

Let’s say we want the birth rate to max out at 2.2 kids per couple. When someone is born, they’re given 110 tickets. In order to have a child, a couple must turn over 100 tickets. This, of course, allows each couple to have 2 kids, with 20 tickets left over.

We also set up a marketplace for tickets. If a couple wants a third child, they have to buy 80 more tickets. If a couple only wants one child, they have 120 tickets to sell.

I think it’s an elegant solution. Larger families will be those more able to support their families. Smaller families will benefit financially.

And if we later find we need to adjust the birth rate, we just increase or decrease the number of tickets given out.

I know, I know, in practical terms it could never work, but it’s still an interesting concept.

Your contempt for human life is disturbing. When I was in Ethiopia last fall I never got the impression that everyone would be better off if half the people weren’t there. Furthermore, the “propaganda” I’m spewing wasn’t an argument about birth control, it was an argument about demographics supported by the UN’s own research.

pdsewell: “Your contempt for human life is disturbing.”

Now there’s a statement that’s simultaneously laughable and pitiful.

Every Sperm Is Sacred, right, pdsewell?

Anyone who doesn’t think we should have 2-3 times more humans on the planet must hate humans?

Hmm, I need a word stronger than pitiful to describe your thought.

Homo sapiens is overdue for a pandemic, or pandemics, that will thin the herd drastically. I’m not in favor of the problem solving itself that way, but I doubt I’ll get a vote.

A timely article:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/12/world.population/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

Don’t worry! Nature is a self-correcting system. When we start to excede the carrying capacity for the planet, the problem will correct itself like it always does. With our technology we can certainly extend the carrying capacity (this too, is nature) but we can’t keep doing it forever.

Of course I don’t think most of us are going to like the correction very much …

Makes it all the sadder that we can’t do a gradual correction now.