Tom Toles for November 02, 2011

Competition for resources for the masses, especially for food and shelter, led to wars in the past by Kings and Dictators.

If the entire world’s population were wiped out except for China, the planet would then have the population it did in 1850. If China AND India were spared, and the rest went, the world population would be set back to 1950. At the moment, Asia alone has as many people as the world had in 1980. Asia, Africa, and Latin America have the lion’s share of people under 30 years of age. People of European descent form an ever-shrinking minority, though still dominant and disproportionately rich (though that is changing,too). It used to be that none of this mattered very much to most people for whom little mattered beyond their local, or at most national sphere: but with a globalized, free trade economy, we are all ever-more interconnected and interdependent. Decisions made in Washington, Beijing, and even Athens, have a direct and increasing effect on the livelihood of people in Hanoi, Rio, and Lagos. We are all becoming “Citizens of the World” whether we like it or not.

More frightening than the population issue is the suggestions on how to deal with it.

At the very least it will cost money to promote education and provide birth control at the expense of more taxes. At worst, I see the specter of population control enforced by the badge, uniform, & gun.

I predict the latter will occur, which is rather ironic considering how many promote the right of women to have abortions because it is their body and choice, yet if they want to have a baby, well, in the near future they may need a permit or a license to do so from a governing body. In short, sex is none of the government’s business as long as it does not create another mouth to feed.

Considering the current plans of mice and men of governments that have brought us unnecessary wars, restricted civil liberties, and on the verge of a world wide financial collapse, I find it hard to muster any confidence that a national or world body can deftly solve the world population issue without resorting to at best, benevolent tyranny to do so.Will governments institute a “War on over- population” to augment the current “War on drugs” and “War on terrorism?” Oh yeah, that’ll work.

You mean like the US? Especially the conservative religious folk who have done their best to eliminate sex education, birth control, and abortion? One new proposed law (in Oklahoma, I think) would make any form of birth control other than condoms illegal because it contends that a fertilized egg is human.No, conservatives have not been “warning about this problem,” unless you want to invoke the racist ideas that the rabble were outbreeding the advanced peoples (the “marching Chinese” theory), an idea which was indeed put forward by conservatives. Liberals have been talking about everyone conserving Earth’s resources and avoiding overpopulation for rather longer than you claim for conservatives.

There isn’t a problem in the world today that could not be solved by stopping humans from breeding and drastically reducing the population.

Tower, why are you repeating what is apparently a lie about conservatives warning us about overpopulation? You said the same thing on the 10/30 Oliphant cartoon…and when I called you on it and asked for evidence, you deleted your post and ran away…just to repeat it here. Consider yourself challenged again.Oh, and in case you pull the same tactic, here’s a cut-n-paste of your post: “Besides, we conservatives have been warning about this problem since the 1980’s and the liberals told us we did not know what we were talking about. Now they are the ones claiming there is a problem and saying we do not know what we are talking about.”

Gee, You’re really compassionate aren’t you?

This concept that we’re running out of room/food/whatever has been around for a long, long time (Thomas Malthus, 1766-1834). The problem is that most dire predictions are just not true, and that we’ve continued to progress in agriculture and distribution to more than keep pace. As an example, in 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote the book, “The Population Bomb,” in which he predicted a Malthusian catastrophe of mass starvation in the 1970s and 80s, which simply didn’t happen. Over the last 30 year, food production has trebled, even in developing nations, and India is now a net exporter of food.The real issue for starvation is distribution, and this has more to do with despotism in countries were food and ware is scarce. In many countries, aid is intercepted by warlords and dictators, and goes to their privileged few, rather than to those in need. In addition, some of the highest birth rates take place in the most impoverished countries. If we really want to solve the problems of starvation and water scarcity, we should move to make commerce more available to the individual in these countries.

Sorry, but the current San Joaquin valley water situation is not a result of either salt or sediment, but rather, government regulation of the water supply. California actually has an aquifer in the southern part of the state that has a huge reserve, and that has not been released, Additionally, the normal irrigation channels from the delta have been shut down for somewhat dubious environmental claims.

I would point out that the issue is not so much “hogging” as it is despotism and criminality in third world countries that is causing poverty, starvation, et cetera.

Wow! Paul Ehrlich was a “conservative”? Interesting. That population control, and many environmental laws were passed in part as a result of his book and other warnings, did “change the model”. As to that aquifer under southern California, are you speaking of the PROPOSAL to pump Colorado river water into an empty space? There is no “surplus” of water anywhere in California. Much of the water the central valley got was wasted growing cotton, and poisoning the land.

The “green revolution” has had consequences, like growing lots of crops with lower nutritional value, and “franken foods” that threaten other crops, like corn. Speaking of corn, most of the variety now being pushed is for ethanol production, as cellulose, not food. Monsanto is making money, and suing anyone who calls attention to the dangers of their “creations”.

About those lions, zebras, tigers, antelope, and other critters that occupy, or “occupied” the lands we desire, or took. Biodiversity has purpose, monocultures, either grains, or species like well, humans, are dangerous to create. It isn’t just “population”, per se.

I’m making an exception to this comment because you are slandering Sanger, who was neither a racist nor a conservative. She was a progressive who did a lot to help underpriviliged African-American women get medical help when white people wouldn’t give it to them, and that’s what Planned Parenthood was often about. Get it right — you’re repeating an outright lie propagated by the right.http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/was_planned_parenthoods_founder_racist/

I guess that means you are for abortion of those fetus’ you choose?

Nah. That’s big gubbermint.

Okay, after reading through the thread, I think we are both correct. You are speaking of the long term, and I am talking about current governmental policy. Yes, we do have a long term problem with salt/sediment, as drainage in the western portion of the southern San Joaquin valley is poor. However, the most conservative (as in the largest) estimates I see is that it affects about 20% of the irrigated land in the Central/San Joaquin Valleys.My point was that current drought-like conditions have more to do with changes in distribution as controlled by the government. I acknowledge you’re correct for the long term concern.

In what seems to be a fervent desire to blame the USA, you completely missed the point. No dictator intercepting aid that the West is sending to help impoverished peoples is being funneled back to the US.

With all the deaths that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others have caused, with all the abortions in the world, it’s amazing how we can still be in this situation.