Martin Blank's Journal: Population reduction

One of the things that has caught my attention recently was a mention that a particular species of ant had recently been surpassed as the world-wide largest population by humans. While I doubt the validity of this (it's not hard to put a few million ants in a couple of acres, making billions of ants in a few thousand acres very easy), it does bring up a significant point about the burgeoning population of the world, particularly in Asia where there are now two nations -- China and India -- with census counts exceeding one billion people. Personally, I think those are major disasters waiting to happen, but even if they were hit with mega earthquakes that killed millions, China's annual growth rate adds some eleven million people each year, and India grows by a staggering *sixteen million* people each year. A massive epidemic that killed tens of millions would be required to significantly dent things in those two countries.

Other areas aren't much better off, really. Most of Europe and the Americas are growing rapidly enough either through birth or immigration that their own resources will be strained in the coming decades. Japan is just maintaining its population of 126 million, but that's in an area about the size of California, which has enough trouble with its own 30 million or so inhabitants.

What do we do? There are various methods of reducing populations, such as were shown to varying degrees of brutality in World War II, but most of these can be counted out as being inhumane. Likewise, China's forced policy of one child per family wouldn't go over well. So how would it be handled?

Well, start with the birth rate. A publicity campaign to ask families to have no more than two children (direct population replacement -- two people, two children) would be a great start, possibly when combined with some kind of financial incentive such as scaled tax credits, though such an incentive could not be too punishing to families with three or more children. This would result in an average family size of less than two children per family, because many families would choose to have only one child. This would result in:
  - better childlife for many children, as the amount of money available for various aspects of child-rearing would be higher than in a larger families
  - a higher standard of living would result in a reduced crime rate as the effects settle in
  - reduced stress within families from monetary pressures, leading to a more stable family life with a lower divorce rate

There are other effects to consider, as well. Lower populations would result in more resources available to most people, and lower pollution leading to longer lives. While we're living healthier as we live longer, we still age and get fragile. Luckily, much of the world's economy is turning to service-based economies. From customer service to accounting to computer programming, there is no non-cultural reason that many people who currently retire and live sedentary lives for the last 15-30 years of their lives could not perform these roles. Age discrimination and age-related mental diseases are the main reason that these people find difficulties getting such work. Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, among other age-related effects, could get in the way, but there is significant evidence, at least with the latter disease, that an active mind delays the onset of symptoms, extending a person's useful life. Active elderly are also more likely to be happy and healthy, providing for less stress on the health care systems.

Resources are the leading force for this. Resources are dwindling, particularly inexpensive fresh water. Energy is problematic from a pollution standpoint, particularly in third world nations. There are no clear signs of changes in this, short of reducing energy use, which is not going to happen with current population growth. In fact, even with population decreases, usage will likely increase anyway as more electronics become ubiquitous throughout more of the world.

Based on some rough numbers, if such a policy were put into effect around 2010, it would take about 140 years to reach three billion people in the world at an average population reduction rate of 0.5% per year. This would be devastating in some areas, where others would see significant improvements. I expect Europe would have difficulty coping, as xenophobic nations would be required to allow immigration at higher levels. India would see significant improvements in a few years, I think, as would some African nations. A lot of extremists would probably freak about this, but there are just as many who would look for ways to accelerate it. I think it would balance in the long run.

These are some stream of thought ideas, but I think they could work if implemented in a friendly advice manner instead of as law. Some people will still have families of five or even ten or more, but they would be extreme exceptions, usually quoting some religious verse, and based on freedom of religion, they should be able to.

I'll probably put something more coherent together over time and add it to my manifesto on the proper living of human beings on this planet.