"While I’m not familiar with UN efforts at birth control in Africa, I’m going to guess that the refusals may have come from autocratic leaders."

I would encourage you to do your own research. It was the people themselves - not the leaders - who rejected the UN. May have had something to do with the horrendous civil rights violations committed by UN "peacekeepers" ...

"What we need is to elect people more in line with the citizen legislators as envisioned by the Founders."

If you can find them, I'll vote for them. The problem is that - like George Washington and Ronald Reagan - very few honorable people go into politics willingly.

Is this the Thomas Jefferson quote you were referencing?
“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.” I agree.

Thank you for your kind words. I enjoy thoughtful discussion immensely.
While I’m not familiar with UN efforts at birth control in Africa, I’m going to guess that the refusals may have come from autocratic leaders. When in proper context, I think that fisherman might be a better audience if he can be shown why his fish are gone.
I don’t think we diverge that greatly. I agree that todays government involvement equals a mess. That’s because the politicians in todays governments have all manner of self-interests and hidden agendas. What we need is to elect people more in line with the citizen legislators as envisioned by the Founders. We need more people in office who serve first the needs of “The People”. And I agree with your moral populace of John Adams, and would add only Jefferson’s informed populace.

I suppose one might take the view that the issue is just too big and complicated to deal with it. But if you are headed down a mountain at speed and know that 3 miles ahead there is a curve which you can’t take at the speed you are making, you can choose to do nothing, the result of which will be to crash through the guardrail 3 miles ahead, falling to your death over the cliff, or choose to begin applying the brakes to slow yourself down so that you can take the curve at a slower speed.
The same could be said about world population. We can choose to do nothing and charge ahead in our belief that economies and populations can grow forever, or do what we can to begin to apply the brakes so as to develop a sustainable population for the long term without catastrophe.
In short, those of us who believe there is a long term problem should do what we can to raise awareness, hence this thread.
I should note that when I say “long term” I’m talking 200 to 300 years in the future. You and I will certainly be taking the Eternal Dirt Nap, but humanity’s progeny will hopefully still be there, living a fulfilling, sustainable life.

Note: I appreciate thorough answers like this. I'm not afraid of a little reading and I think our society has grown too fond of emotional soundbites as substitutions for robust, intellectual debate. Thank you for taking the time and effort for a cogent presentation!

Regarding global population growth, I share your view that it isn't racist. It simply is. It is almost universally third-world nations who still retain a positive population growth rate. Some posit that this is a result in the choice between materialism and family and I'm inclined to agree.

"...a well informed world population is the best way to make needed changes while safeguarding our rights and liberty."

I whole-heartedly agree.

"This could be fertile ground to teach the idea of population control, it’s repercussions, and options."

The UN found quite the opposite. African nations overwhelmingly rejected pro-abortion laws and birth control lobbies - even when given out with no cost to that nation.

"But this is where the government must step in and help."

Here is where we diverge paths. Any time the government gets involved, its screws things up. There's no solution involving the government which lasts long-term. We need only look at the debacle of Social Security in the US to see what a disastrous policy this is. If you want to talk about retirement funds, privatization is the only workable option. But here's another question: who gets to retire in a third-world country? Answer: Nobody.

There has never been a government solution to society's ills whether those be poverty, crime, or anything else. Politicians use these crises to benefit their own political careers rather than look for real answers. The only solutions have come from changes in behavior of the people themselves.

What we need is to educate people on universal, moral principles. Until we do that, I don't think we'll need to worry about "overpopulation" because the world is going to collapse into war, poverty, and disaster. And if we had an educated and moral populace (see John Adams), you'd have a population willing and able to have these kinds of policy discussions.

I agree. The question remains, however: if coercion is not an option, isn't your concern something you can do literally nothing about and therefore a waste of time and energy?

I think that Galt’s vow is a general statement that I believe strongly. I do not believe, for example, that I should necessarily be required to give up half or more of my earnings in order for the government to pay for someone else, or to give up the things I value to make someone else happy with “How I am.”
However, if there is a question or issue that effects everyone, I don’t think Galt’s oath precludes my voluntary participation in a solution to a such a problem so long as I retain my right to chose participating or not. I don’t think Rand intended Galt’s oath to mean that I should live in a bubble, isolated from the rest of mankind. There are just too many out there with stick pins.

I apologize that it has taken this long to reply to your question.
After much research and thoughtful consideration, I must admit that I am unsure how to answer your question, or even if I can answer it. You may well ask why this would be the case. The answer, in both cases, is complicated. In other words, I will need to be long winded.
Population is a global issue. To address the ever expanding population would require a global solution. In the 70s there was a small activist group called Zero Population Growth, or ZPG for short, which tried to convince people to have only two children. This would cause an increase in population in the near term, but over time would stabilize population at something close to the population level at the time. Nice theory, but it didn’t take.
As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Europeans have been reproducing at less than replacement levels for some time. US population would also be below replacement levels were it not for immigration, legal and otherwise.
In the rest of the world the population continues to grow at the rate of about 84 million people per year, births over deaths, and this is where the bulk of the problem lies. (see NumbersUSA.com, The Gumball Video on YouTube.)
Now before you go pulling out the “racist” card, or argue that this is something created to blame “people of color”, please know that it is nothing of the kind. These are facts and can be verified with a little research work.
So how does one implement something that impacts everyone on the planet?

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as having said:
“A well informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.”

Likewise, if I may be so bold as to apply a similar thought to the item under discussion, it could be said that a well informed world population is the best way to make needed changes while safeguarding our rights and liberty. A balancing act to be sure. And what of those who disagree? After all, there are a myriad of people, myself included, who chafe at the top-down implementation of restrictions on personal liberty by those pushing Global Warming.

Jefferson had another thought regarding these:
“The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.”

And….

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.

But let us not think that the third world is a place where population management could take no hold. Even the most uneducated, illiterate, subsistence fisherman has seen the population of his area increase, fish species being depleted or gone completely, and some of the effects of pollution, never mind Global Warming. This could be fertile ground to teach the idea of population control, it’s repercussions, and options. That, then, gets into the subject of what is this fisherman to do when he is too old to fish? Today he has a dozen sons who can collectively take care of Mom and Dad in their old age. Could they be cared for if they had only two children? Maybe. But this is where the government must step in and help. And that’s a whole other topic.

John Jay said in Federalist 2:
“Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.”

And….

WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.

To address your question; the time of our Founding Fathers saw, perhaps, the greatest collection of intellect and ability in those same men, than has ever existed on our planet at any one time. And this collection is even more remarkable in that they were all focused on the same object, at the same time, and worked together to give us The Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the other founding documents we have today. There were disagreements to be sure. But one only need read The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the letters of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to name but a few, to realize just how brilliant these men were.
That said, and to put that in context, those remarkable men were trying to solve the problem of how to govern after winning independence from England. That period was such that the entire North American continent west of the Appalachians available for national expansion (not withstanding native Americans). Thus I do not believe they focused on the concept so what to do if the earth begins to reach its limits. Yet I think that the quotes above may apply to our time. We will need governments world wide to take action based on a majority consensus of “The People”, and it then becomes our job to consider the facts soberly, and to then educate the people to the need for action. Such action may require some relinquishment of the people’s liberties, at least for a time as per John Jay above.
Now I must be off to split a few more hairs.

I don't debate that there will be in the far future the potential for what you're saying to come to pass. The theory of entropy is compelling. Here's a question: how does your proposal square with Galt's Oath not to live for another man?

No.

I fear you’re looking too near term. Yes we have a lot of resource deposits, and the US produces and exports many agricultural products. And to a degree what I put forth is a “what if” scenario. But new resource deposits are harder to get to than the old ones in a number of cases, and good farmland is being taken out of production at an ever increasing rate to build housing, shopping and infrastructure for burgeoning populations.
As to technology, it can provide many benefits for a while. Maybe for a few hundred years. The problem is that eventually tech will run into limits too. If ag tech as per the US were to exist worldwide, it would be a great boon for many areas - for a while. Again, tech will run into natural limits - either limits in terms of exhausted farm land, or the limits on getting fertilizers at more and more expensive prices, which could cause the cost of food to rise to the point where ordinary people, particularly those in the third world, can’t afford it. And there’s still the question of what to do with places like Ethiopia, Somalia, and other parts of Africa and Asia. Those ppl have little or no water to irrigate crops. Ethiopia, for example, has been in a drought and the population on the verge of starvation for decades. Yet they still reproduce and add more people to their population.
More to the bottom line: abundant food leads to increased population. (No, I’m NOT advocating letting anyone starve to death.) the increases in population is fine as long as you can provide them with life necessities such as food. But if you’re going to solve the food-more-people-food-more-people-food viscous cycle, the place to stop it is in the “more people” part of the cycle, and find ways of getting people to accept limits on their populations before we hit the limits mentioned. This would be a whole lot better than letting people starve.

You are alleging a "what-if" scenario to be a certainty. It is one possibility of many. And this line of reasoning isn't new - we've had people claiming a population crisis since the 60's when there were HALF as many people on the earth as there are today.

Here's a separate but critical question to answer: accepting the assertion from the Declaration of Independence that all men have the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (and I will add in the original right of Property), how does one square these rights with your concerns?

In the thread, that was the question proposed by Bopalla. You interjected and so took on the role of defending that particular assertion. If that was not what you had in mind, please respond elsewhere to maintain conformity.

By the way I am neither socialist nor communist, but in fact I am a red blooded American conservative. The things that I’m talking about potentially happening at some point in the distant future, or perhaps not too distant future, will happen or can happen regardless of what sort of government is in place, including socialism, communism or democracy.

Au contrare, mon amis!
The theory being tested is NOT whether socialism would cause them to “propagate”, i.e. grow their populations more than they otherwise would. This theory is not being tested per se, The hypothesis being discussed is that with finite world resources, the ever-increasing demands for them cannot by definition continue to increase forever. Increasing food supplies can increase populations for a time, but not forever, because food supplies need water to grow, and there are limitations on water as well. The Florida v Georgia suit over the Chatahoochee water went on for ten years until the Supreme Court ruled for Florida. Point being that as populations grow, and demands increase, we will see more disputes over water.
While the US agriculture situation is currently as you describe today, the fact is that to maintain this situation requires fertilization and refertilization, which requires more and more of the limited resources that are used to produce the fertilizer. This also produces an increase in population, which demands more farming, which demands more water and fertilizer, which demands more resources, which produces more population increases, which….see where I’m going?
The truth grain in my hypothesis is that the easiest way to avoid this cycle - and this is only one such cycle to deal with - is to maintain or reduce today’s population and reduce the ever-increasing demands on food, water, and resources.
I should note that as I write this, there are developers in my city and county buying up productive surrounding farmland at $100,000 or more per acre to build housing developments. This is due to population increase in our area.
Finally, I was told many years ago by Dr. Karl Raitz, professor emeritus at the University of Kentucky, that a population - any population; mice, men, aardvarks - will increase its numbers until it outruns its food supply, at which time the population will crash, and mass starvation will follow.
If we are as smart as we think we are, we will find ways to controlling our population without striping everyone’s rights and freedom, so as to avoid the devastating end result of ignoring this problem and our planet’s limitations.

The assertion being tested was that "socialism causes some nations to propagate to a larger extent than [if they had selected another governmental ideology.]" I'm not following what the Florida-Georgia lawsuit has to do with this premise - if anything. Most of the examples you cite are examples of how socialist ideologies create problems and lack the important feedback mechanisms which could aid in correcting them in the first place. And I don't see any of them where socialism = population expansion. Please let me know what I missed here...

As to the world's population growth creating a potential disaster, it's a "what-if" scenario. Here's a reality: the US produces enough agricultural products that not only are Americans incredibly wasteful, but we are net exporters of ag products. Why? Again because of technology. A single farmer can feed a thousand Americans (3.4 million farm workers out of 365 million people according to the USDA https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-product... - and then some. So let's posit another "what-if" scenario: what if this same technology existed the world over?

"The earth contains a finite amount of iron ore, bauxite, and other resources."

While strictly true, we aren't even beginning to scratch the surface of existing deposits. While I'm not saying that any given resource is infinite, we should be very careful about making broad categorizations about the scarcity of earth's resources since most are very rough estimates. Please understand that I do not advocate for waste, I simply point out that we have to be realistic about the availability.

"In each case we are bumping into the limits imposed by nature, and all technological responses are only stopgap."

Technological advances have allowed for more efficient mineral extraction which has greatly increased the available economically-viable deposits. Take the oil in shale deposits and sand for example. Inventions such as these can hardly be described as "stop-gap." Human ingenuity finds a way to solve the problem.

"I am NOT a communist or authoritarian or socialist."

Then just how do you intend to enforce population control?

It should also be noted that the nations with positive population growth aren't the First-World nations. Even the United States just this year dropped below replacement rate for births. Europe has been upside down for decades which is why they have been importing from the Middle East and Africa. China's one-child policy has produced an entire generation where 1/3 of their men have to go looking outside their country for companionship. And good luck persuading Third-World nations to adopt such a mindset when they have repeatedly and pointedly told the UN to take their birth control products and abortion providers and leave - for good. For those peoples - and for many others around the world - children (and grandchildren) are the single biggest source of joy which exists. And you're going to tell them they can't have that? Good luck...

No.
Let me see if I can be clearer.
In the arena of population, resources, water, food and the limits thereof, there is little that we can control directly. The earth contains a finite amount of iron ore, bauxite, and other resources. There is a finite amount of fresh water, unless there is massive investment in de-salinization. The amount of food that the earth can produce is limited by availability of water, and suitable soil. We are already abandoning some farmland due to it’s exhaustion of nutrients, and removing arable land to build housing developments around major cities.
In each case we are bumping into the limits imposed by nature, and all technological responses are only stopgap.
However, the one thing we can control is population. By controlling population we control demand, and thus reduce pressure on food, water and available resources.
Reduction of population would allow for the development of population limits which, along with technology, recycling, and other measures, can result in the development of sustainable systems of all essentials for the long term.
I am NOT a communist or authoritarian or socialist. I’m not advocating such systems which by their nature crush freedom and human rights. Rather I am simply trying (perhaps poorly) to point out the realities we face, and hope that awareness of these limits in the hope that voluntary alternatives can be developed. Like it or not, there is not room on the planet for unlimited population and unlimited growth.

I’m not suggesting socialism causes overpopulation. And you are right about the poverty and destruction it does cause. My intent is to say that socialism in all its forms is no solution to the fact that we will ultimately run into the finite limits of food, water, and resource production.

Me too! Nice catch.😂

In 2018 Florida-Georgia lawsuit over water rights to the Chatahoochee river basin was settled by the Supreme Court in Florida’s favor.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p....

China, the US, and India are the world’s largest polluters.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/cou...

The city of Los Angeles has no water, and must import its water from the Colorado River, Lake Meade and other sources to its north. The growers along the way are being limited in their use of available water.
https://theproducenews.com/california...

Egypt and Sudan are in a dispute with Ethiopia over the letter’s planned Blue Nile project.
https://apnews.com/article/ethiopia-s....

The world’s population growth is potential disaster.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGC...

Increasing populations only exacerbate these and other problems. While the world is technically not overpopulated, most population increases take place in areas where most already live in poverty. These areas add some 84 million more people births over deaths from the world’s population each year.

It's an interesting theory. Do you have any examples?

International wealth redistribution/socialism etc has caused some countries/societies/cultures etc to propagate to a larger extent than they would have done if they had been left to develop at their own pace?

Not sure what point you are trying to make. In order to analyze one nation's culture, one would have to take into account their governing style and the major cultural influences, not to mention their level of technology and standard of living. In each category one must rate that nation. For example, the United States of America is certainly top-level when it comes to average standard of living and technology, but their culture and their governing style are deteriorating rapidly. Contrast that to a nation like Poland which is recovering from decades of totalitarian rule and has rejected socialism outright. They may be advancing technologically but not top-tier like the United States, but their cultural influences and governmental style have them rising - not falling.

A phenomenon in the United States should also be noted in this conversation: the migration of people AWAY from socialist governments and TOWARD more conservative/capitalist ones. California recorded net population losses in every single county in the last Census. After decades of robust growth and an explosion of Representation in the House, they actually lost a seat.

Subsidizing irrational/backwards/primitive countries/societies/cultures etc, does not prop up their populations, i.e. the outcome would be the same without outside help/aid?

=1 for the Kennison reference. That show was one of his best performances.
"See this?!? Its SAND! Nothing grows here.... nothings gonna grow here!"
"You want to help these folks? Stop sending them food. Send them luggage!"
I was in tears.