The Dugger's 18 children and counting?

[Donk]

A top predator should be rare. We are the TOP top predator, so how many of us should there be?

 

Arthur Clarke suggested that the ideal number would be "as many people as you are likely to encounter or hear of in the course of a long life." He suggested 100,000 as the optimum for the planet. Now, how do we get rid of the unnecessary 7 billion? :)

[TheBigDog]

Now, how do we get rid of the unnecessary 7 billion? :)

Not it!

[Moontanman]

I find something admirable in large families, the efficiency of one couple caring for so many children and the community of a extended family. When I was a kid, I thought we would have over nine billion people in the world by now, where are they? Less than 10% of the land in the USA is developed, it's not like there isn't enough room.

 

What percentage of land in the United States is developed (both including & excluding Alaska)?

 

You cannot really think that developing all available land is a good idea? Do we really want to live with no wild areas? Do you think that trees and forests serve no useful purpose? Where do you think oxygen comes from?

 

Use surface water, get your own artesian well, water rights and land rights, you've got to get agreement before you buy. Lenders are more cautious, the markets adjust. We see how carbon permits might change our economy.

 

There's efficiency in high density, single family dwellings, and America leads the way. We like it, it means we're getting something right, at least someone is having fun.

 

Surface water is increasingly more polluted, artesian wells do not last forever or even a life time. Ground water is not only receding in many places even ground water is become polluted. large families are bad for the environment as well as for humanity in general.

[BrianG]

You cannot really think that developing all available land is a good idea? Do we really want to live with no wild areas? Do you think that trees and forests serve no useful purpose? Where do you think oxygen comes from?

 

 

 

Surface water is increasingly more polluted, artesian wells do not last forever or even a life time. Ground water is not only receding in many places even ground water is become polluted. large families are bad for the environment as well as for humanity in general.

 

Doubling or quadrupling US population could leave more than half the land undeveloped, at present population density. Germany gets 65% of it's water supply from ground water.

 

Water supply and sanitation in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

You just have to learn to clean up after yourself.

[Guest trailmender]

I followed your instructions. I went to the Hypography home page and searched for Water projection shortages for 36 US states.

 

Your search - Water projection shortages for 36 US states - did not match any documents.

 

Suggestions:

 

* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.

* Try different keywords.

* Try more general keywords.

* Try fewer keywords.

 

You will need to do better. Provide links. Your Q&A site simply asserts its own claim that it surveyed scientists about how many people could live in the US "without harming the environment" not "The scientific consensus is that 150-200 million people is the ideal population size for the US" as you asserted in your post.

 

Bill

 

Bill:

After your reply to my "origional post", I did not notice your Hypography Staff icon, until later, which must mean you are a staff member there.

When I referred to go to your "Home Page", I meant go to an "Internet Home Page" like "Google" or "Yahoo" and search for "36 U.S. states projected to have water shortages". You understandably thought I meant the "Hypography Home Page".

With regard to my referencing stats. from Negative Population Growth, I haved again reviewed their "frequently asked questions page" and believe I referenced them accurately.

[CraigD]

Reasonable legislation should be quickly enacted, both to help slow immigration and to prevent the reckless reproductive behavior of couples.

While it’s obvious, I think, that supporting a population no larger than at present, or even a factor of two or two smaller, is easier than supporting one much larger, I have difficulty imagining what “reasonable legislation” could be enacted to reduce the rate of population increase due to births.

 

Obviously laws, legal precedent, and legislative powers vary from nation to nation and state to state, but considering US law only, there is essentially only one condition under which “reckless reproductive behavior” can be absolutely involuntarily curtailed. As decided by the 1927 SCOTUS decision Buck v. Bell, when one is “unfit” or “incompetent”, and one’s offspring “degenerate”, the state may sterilize a person against her will. While Buck v. Bell remains standing, it’s noteworthy that the last state law depending on it was repealed in 1974.

 

More recently, US courts have offered choices in sentencing for people convicted of crimes that required contraception.

 

In 1984 CA Appeals case People v. Pointer, a woman convicted of child abuse who had been ordered by trial court not to conceive any children during her probation overturned that sentence on the grounds that less restrictive alternative were available.

 

The 1990 CA Superior court decision People v. Johnson, in which a woman convicted of child abuse was offered the option of 1 year in prison followed by probation during which she was required to be implanted with the Norplant contraceptive, or 7 years in prison. Johnson appealed this decision, but while awaiting hearing, violated her probation and was sent to prison for 5 years, mooting the appeal.

 

As part of various new state and federal “welfare reform” laws in the 1990s, the informal practice of denying welfare benefits to women unless they consented to Norplant implants is said to have become commonplace.

 

(Source: The Impact of Norplant on Minority Women)

 

In short, at present in the US, only people convicted of a crime or receiving welfare may be in any way compelled by law to not conceive children, and must be offered an alternative that does not require they not conceive.

 

However, as long as Buck v. Bell stands, there is standing for US law that prohibits reproduction in any case that such reproduction threatens the wellbeing of society, relying on the legal precedent set by the 1905 SCOTUS case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld the state’s right to require vaccination.

 

For a law to be passed and withstand review, that prohibits people having many children, however, would require legislatures, lower courts, and ultimately the SCOTUS, ideologically diverse bodies all, to accept that overpopulation is at present or soon a threat to the wellbeing of society, and that no less restrictive option exists. I don’t think this is likely to happen for many decades, if ever.

 

A less restrictive option that has been moderately successful in the worlds largest country, and which could, I think, withstand the legislative process and legal review in the US and many other countries, is the PRC’s one-child policy, which imposes financial penalties on couples who have more than 1 child, with some regional and gender-based exceptions.

[maikeru]

Doubling or quadrupling US population could leave more than half the land undeveloped, at present population density. Germany gets 65% of it's water supply from ground water.

 

Water supply and sanitation in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

You just have to learn to clean up after yourself.

 

And everyone else too?

[TheBigDog]

Fertility is not the main cause of population growth in the last century. It is longevity.

In the 20th century, the world saw the biggest increase in its population in human history due to lessening of the mortality rate in many countries due to medical advances and massive increase in agricultural productivity attributed to the Green Revolution.[43][44][45]

 

In 2000, the United Nations estimated that the world's population was growing at the rate of 1.14% (or about 75 million people) per year,[46] down from a peak of 88 million per year in 1989. In the last few centuries, the number of people living on Earth has increased many times over. By the year 2000, there were 10 times as many people on Earth as there were 300 years ago. According to data from the CIA's 2005–2006 World Factbooks, the world human population increased by 203,800 every day.[47] The CIA Factbook increased this to 211,090 people every day in 2007, and again to 220,980 people every day in 2009.

 

Globally, the population growth rate has been steadily declining from its peak of 2.19% in 1963, but growth remains high in Latin America, the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa.[48]

 

In some countries there is negative population growth (i.e. net decrease in population over time), especially in Central and Eastern Europe (mainly due to low fertility rates) and Southern Africa (due to the high number of HIV-related deaths). Within the next decade, Japan and some countries in Western Europe are also expected to encounter negative population growth due to sub-replacement fertility rates.

 

In 2006, the United Nations stated that the rate of population growth is diminishing due to the demographic transition. If this trend continues, the rate of growth may diminish to zero, concurrent with a world population plateau of 9.2 billion, in 2050.[49] However, this is only one of many estimates published by the UN. In 2009, UN projections for 2050 range from about 8 billion to 10.5 billion.[50]

Indications are that the global population is slowing and will plateau. There is plenty of food and water; the issue is not supply, it is distribution.

NPG has surveyed scientists over 30 years and asked: What’s the optimum population size before you start exceeding an area’s carrying capacity and harming the environment? The scientific consensus is that 150-200 million is the ideal population size for the U.S. That’s about the size of the U.S. 50 years ago.

trailmender, I understand that this website dedicated to US overpopulation states in its FAQ that there is a scientific consensus, my question is how they derived that. Would you accept a similar opinion consensus from a website dedicated to debunking global famine or the debunking the HIV/AIDS link without supplying some supporting evidence? Simply put, your FAQ is not a FACT just because "they" say so.

 

Bill

[BrianG]

And everyone else too?

 

Public sanitation is a good idea, you have a good point.

 

TheBigDog just mentioned longevity as a cause for population growth, here in Germany, our population is declining, but not our life spans.

 

Germany Population

 

Germany Life Span

[TheBigDog]

TheBigDog just mentioned longevity as a cause for population growth, here in Germany, our population is declining, but not our life spans.

 

Germany Population

 

Germany Life Span

Looking at the chart it would appear that the current negative population growth in Germany is a temporary phenomena related to the normal variability demonstrated over time. It has been lower in the past, much lower. And then been above nearly 1% growth as recently as two decades ago. It would appear to me that Germany's population has been pretty stable for the last half century.

 

Bill

[BrianG]

http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/erp/1997/chart3-1.gif

 

Maybe it's stable, immigration helps make up for a steady declining fertility rates.

[Michaelangelica]

I have a cousin with 10 kids and she has a sister-in-law with ten kids.

I rate them as very lucky and happy people.

I rate her (my cousin) as the second best mother i know.

[BrianG]

I understand many people are wary of large families, in my experience they are either extraordinarily good or terribly bad. I think we could all learn from Duggers and others, that's one of the things I love about the Palin family.

[Guest trailmender]

While it’s obvious, I think, that supporting a population no larger than at present, or even a factor of two or two smaller, is easier than supporting one much larger, I have difficulty imagining what “reasonable legislation” could be enacted to reduce the rate of population increase due to births.

 

Obviously laws, legal precedent, and legislative powers vary from nation to nation and state to state, but considering US law only, there is essentially only one condition under which “reckless reproductive behavior” can be absolutely involuntarily curtailed. As decided by the 1927 SCOTUS decision Buck v. Bell, when one is “unfit” or “incompetent”, and one’s offspring “degenerate”, the state may sterilize a person against her will. While Buck v. Bell remains standing, it’s noteworthy that the last state law depending on it was repealed in 1974.

 

More recently, US courts have offered choices in sentencing for people convicted of crimes that required contraception.

 

In 1984 CA Appeals case People v. Pointer, a woman convicted of child abuse who had been ordered by trial court not to conceive any children during her probation overturned that sentence on the grounds that less restrictive alternative were available.

 

The 1990 CA Superior court decision People v. Johnson, in which a woman convicted of child abuse was offered the option of 1 year in prison followed by probation during which she was required to be implanted with the Norplant contraceptive, or 7 years in prison. Johnson appealed this decision, but while awaiting hearing, violated her probation and was sent to prison for 5 years, mooting the appeal.

 

As part of various new state and federal “welfare reform” laws in the 1990s, the informal practice of denying welfare benefits to women unless they consented to Norplant implants is said to have become commonplace.

 

(Source: The Impact of Norplant on Minority Women)

 

In short, at present in the US, only people convicted of a crime or receiving welfare may be in any way compelled by law to not conceive children, and must be offered an alternative that does not require they not conceive.

 

However, as long as Buck v. Bell stands, there is standing for US law that prohibits reproduction in any case that such reproduction threatens the wellbeing of society, relying on the legal precedent set by the 1905 SCOTUS case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld the state’s right to require vaccination.

 

For a law to be passed and withstand review, that prohibits people having many children, however, would require legislatures, lower courts, and ultimately the SCOTUS, ideologically diverse bodies all, to accept that overpopulation is at present or soon a threat to the wellbeing of society, and that no less restrictive option exists. I don’t think this is likely to happen for many decades, if ever.

 

A less restrictive option that has been moderately successful in the worlds largest country, and which could, I think, withstand the legislative process and legal review in the US and many other countries, is the PRC’s one-child policy, which imposes financial penalties on couples who have more than 1 child, with some regional and gender-based exceptions.

 

You make a good point about the PRC's "one child rule".

However, I'm wondering if it would be difficult to get something like that passed in the US?

According to (Wikipedia), China's "one child rule" currently applies to less than 36% of the Chinese population and involves monetary penalities for people who have more children.

Approx. 76% of the Chinese population is in favor of their population policy, (Wikipedia).

The US has about 5% of the world's population and uses approx. 25% of it's resources, having grown 83% in the last 50 years. (Negative Population Growth).

My view is that the US should be a leader and role model for intelligent population growth.

Instead, the overpopulation issue here, seems to be rarely mentioned, in the the national dialogue.

[TheBigDog]

You make a good point about the PRC's "one child rule".

However, I'm wondering if it would be difficult to get something like that passed in the US?

According to (Wikipedia), China's "one child rule" currently applies to less than 36% of the Chinese population and involves monetary penalities for people who have more children.

Approx. 76% of the Chinese population is in favor of their population policy, (Wikipedia).

The US has about 5% of the world's population and uses approx. 25% of it's resources, having grown 83% in the last 50 years. (Negative Population Growth).

My view is that the US should be a leader and role model for intelligent population growth.

Instead, the overpopulation issue here, seems to be rarely mentioned, in the the national dialogue.

It could be that your math far removed from reality. Amazing how we are so "overpopulated" and nobody would notice except for a few alarmists. A mysterious scientific consensus is not fact. We have the capacity in the US and globally to support FAR more people than we already do. And global population is forecast to top off in the next half century and then begin to drop, even as our technology will continue to make our use and reuse of resources more efficient.

 

As global prosperity grows through improved distribution and exploitation of resources, so will the trend for lower fertility rates. An equilibrium will be found all by itself.

 

Bill

 

Bill

[Guest trailmender]

It could be that your math far removed from reality. Amazing how we are so "overpopulated" and nobody would notice except for a few alarmists. A mysterious scientific consensus is not fact. We have the capacity in the US and globally to support FAR more people than we already do. And global population is forecast to top off in the next half century and then begin to drop, even as our technology will continue to make our use and reuse of resources more efficient.

 

As global prosperity grows through improved distribution and exploitation of resources, so will the trend for lower fertility rates. An equilibrium will be found all by itself.

 

Bill

 

Bill

 

Bill: Alarmist is a fairly strong word and is not easily quantifiable.

True, some of the supporting data for my origional post came from Negative Population Growth.

I added my sources to my origional post, at your request, for my "sourcing".

With regard to npg.org, they are a membership organization founded back in 1972 and their work involves overpopulation issues. (Source: Wikipedia). They advocate a gradual reduction in US and world population. (Wikipedia). They have a current membership of about 30,000 and are located nearby to Washington, D.C.

I'm not aware of reasons to doubt their data.

With regard to China's "one child rule", my view is that it might be more than is currently needed in the US, which is why I wondered if it would be plausible here.

Perhaps you could consider your own advice and provide some sourcing regarding your view, that a population equilibrium will be found all by itself.

[TheBigDog]

Perhaps you could consider your own advice and provide some sourcing regarding your view, that a population equilibrium will be found all by itself.

In 2006, the United Nations stated that the rate of population growth is diminishing due to the demographic transition. If this trend continues, the rate of growth may diminish to zero, concurrent with a world population plateau of 9.2 billion, in 2050.[49] However, this is only one of many estimates published by the UN. In 2009, UN projections for 2050 range from about 8 billion to 10.5 billion.[50]

Wiki uses the UN as its source.

Does the growth rate becoming zero mean we have established an equilibrium? No, but it is a turning point. The population at some point will stop growing and then begin shrinking, and then at some point it will stop shrinking and begin to grow again. In the middle of the top and the "begins growing again" is what I would call the natural equilibrium. It is not a single number. It is a range demonstrated over time by actual population. It may be that the 6.7 billion or so of the current populationi is already within that equilibrium range. It may still be below it.

 

Bill