Talk:Population control

The article We two, ours one was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 03 November 2008 with a consensus to merge the content into Population control. If the merger is not completed promptly, We two, ours one might be re-nominated for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.

WikiProject Environment      (Rated Start-Class)

Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] co2?

66.41.190.64 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC) ALEX I'm surprised that global warming discussions (I have no opin here) even bother with gases and how I drive my car. Seems the real issue, if you believe the globe is warming, is population.

[edit] Headline text

collI've thought of something interesting. Aren't countries that allow citizens to smoke and drinking at whatever age a deceptive method of population control?--Secret Agent Man 01:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "History" section is, while interesting, lacking in references. --- Thanks, Andre. It seems a bit less POV-ish after your edit. I might put back the external Cato link, though.

Other groups such as the Inuit have traditionally killed older members of the population when they become unable to fend for themselves. It is sometimes said that warfare may be regarded as a unconsicous population control measure by a population.

Although infanticide and other killing is morally repugnant, there is evidence that human populations have used infanticide as a population control measure in the past, and that it may be being practiced today in countries such as India and China.

Give me a cite for these claims, and prove that these alleged correlations implies causations --Rotem Dan 14:19 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Haiduc, please don't distort historical facts to satisfy your personal agenda. Thank you.

no country is "silent" on the issue of birth control--UNFPA/WHO/IFFP/World Bank are all over them. the nssm is highly controverisal, because, as amy goodman pointed out in the multinational monitor/boston globe, developed nations view the "problem" of population in developed nations from the perspective of their own interests/convenience. so while a new person in a developed nation puts a much larger strain on world resources than a dozen new persons in a developing country, population growth is only seen as problemmatic in the developing nations, and only by the developed nations... Cindery 12:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

• Stop Terrible Human Over Population Disasters (eCards website to limit human population growth)
• WiseArt Cybernetics (On-line artistic slideshow about limiting human population growth)

Hallo Joyous! I have a question about your message: You ask me not to add inappropriate external links to wikipedia. When I compare the 2 links I added to other existing external links on certain webpages, I see that the 'appropriate' links (i.e the ones you leave alone), are also links to external -third party- organisations, such as our European organisation (STHOPD) is too. Our non-profit organisation works with volunteers and stands for certain principles which are similar to the 'appropriate' organisations on the webpages concerned, such as: Decreasing human overpopulation in an ethical way, having no children, warnings about the worldwide consequences of overpopulation such as the destruction of ecosystems. Please explain to me what would make our links appropriate. Friendly regards, 213.84.166.83 18:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC) MetaMouse.

steps to control it:- 1. poverty remove 2. employment given 3. educationsBold textInsert non-formatted text here

[edit] The listed reference is controversial and is over 30 years old.

The article is mostly opinion with a smattering of vague assertions without citations. This article needs serious scientific attention. Mbabane 01:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right this article needs refs but I'v been looking round for such and the fact is it is quite hard to find books on the subject that do not date from the 70s when it was a really hot topic.Dejvid 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is Proper Delineation?

Hi Everyone. Have been thinking of different ways to incorporate more population control information into Wikepedia and have some ideas here for organization. What do you all think about it? Some of these would be individual articles and some of course would just would be topics within an article. Looking forward to your feedback. Mike Latham. MLatham53

Population Levels Control

Family Population Levels Control xxxxx Historical Family-Population Levels Control in China xxx Modern Family-Population Levels Control in China xxx Historical Family-Population Levels Control in India xxx State Population Levels Control xxxxxx Historical State Population Levels Control in China xxx Modern State Population Levels Control in China xxx Historical State Population Levels Control in India xxx Modern State Population Levels Control in India xxx

OR Population Levels Control

China Population Levels Control xxxxxx _Historical Family-Population Levels Control in China xxx _Historical State Population Levels Control in China xxx _Modern Family-Population Levels Control in China xxx _Modern State Population Levels Control in China xxx India Population Levels Control xxxxxx _Historical Family-Population Levels Control in India xxx _Historical State Population Levels Control in India xxx _Modern Family-Population Levels Control in India xxx _Modern State Population Levels Control in India —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLatham53 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population control and nation-wide economical savings

It has been documented in a great number of publications and reports worldwide that nation-wide population control would feature allot of savings for the economy.^[1][2]

I added this article section to the page; still requires mor references, ... dough. Please improve the section and look for references. Thanks. PS: as it is way too important to delete (it can help countries), don't delete it in any case (eg if you think its not up to wikipedia-standard). In stead, as mentioned, improve the section.

I tried adding the following section

[edit] Savings for who?

Population control works great as a theory, but it has to be remembered that those who would vote on such measures are just as usually those who would receive the most benefits.
Case in point:

Gosney and Popenoe tell of a women, born in Turkey, who had two insane sisters and had had an insane brother who committed suicide.^[3] She had lived in California with her sickly tailor husband, and they had seven children. When asked if the would be willing to be sterilized, she consulted her husband, and then said no, that they received aid from the state for each child, and if they had two more they would receive just enough aid to live without working. So she didn't wish to be sterilized.
There was no insanity in that answer. It is probably the most realisitc argument that has appeared against sterilization. But sound as the argument was from the woman's selfish point of view, it could have little weight with a taxpayer or with a parent whose child might marry one of the prospective nine.
That is an extreme case, of course, but the question is in order: Is it permissible for anyone who is a burden on his fellow citizens to increase that burden by reproduction?
- excerpt ^[4]

My point is, we can try to pass population-control laws, but you have to remember. Before a law is passed, someone has to vote on them. There is a very good likelihood that the voters on a population control issue are BENEFITTING from their current ability to make babies, my article was SUPPOSED to be a case-in-point. Why was it removed? Randomblink (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It makes a bunch of unsourced claims (e.g. that Pop control works great in theory), it represents a local view (e.g. those places where policies are enacted by vote), it seemed more like somebodies opinion or commentary (POV), and it was not clear what the point was (far too much irrelevant detail - family background, etc.).

It needs something to be an example of. There is nothing in this section of the article indicating that this is a wide-spread or significant aspect of population control. So far the example is much larger than most sections of the article, so would give undue weight to this aspect.

That some people benefit from population growth should be easily established. Consider for instance property developers, those who profit from cheap labor, etc. They are often better financed, better organized and more politically connected than somebody like the woman in this example, so are likely to have more influence on policies. This example would need a lot of context around it before it would be clear that it gives appropriate weight to this aspect.

From your explanation, it sounds like the issue you are trying to address is matters of population policy implementation, rather than economic benefits/costs of population control, so might be more appropriate in a different section. Zodon (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the phenomenon you are trying to cover pretty well covered/exemplified by the Tragedy of the commons? Zodon (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population control trough eugenics

Is it possible to have a section called "Population control trough eugenics" or something in which it is mentioned that population control measures can be combined with eugenics ?

KVDP (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: i'll already include it, you may add references, ... later

[edit] Why is US Title X relevant here?

Why does the US Title X family planning program warrant any more than a brief mention here? As far as I have been able to find its focus is on the personal side - reproductive rights (e.g., assuring access to family planing) and reproductive and preventive health services. While this may have impact on population, it isn't clear that population control is part of its intent. A neutral citation showing connection to pop. control would help. Zodon (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive Cuts

I've cut rather a lot of text that was either conjecture, or based on unreliable sources. I'm not saying that the text is wrong, but it was simply not supportable with the sources that where available. The worst part was the lists of people, when you make claims about these, you have to adhere to WP:BLP, which means that the sources/references need to be good reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Since many of the organizations you cut are or have been active in population stabilization it is not obvious that wholesale cutting is appropriate. If you want better citations, putting in citation needed tags would be more helpful. (Once it is gone, new editors won't know there is something needs fixing.)

It isn't clear how BLP applies to many of the people whom you deleted [1], since they aren't living. (A quick peek at the pages on the relevant people reveals that many of them confirm the listing made here.) Restored the ones that (per Wikipedia) aren't living, if you think further citation is needed for those people suggest adding cn tags. The other living people (needing references) are in this edit. [2] Zodon (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As said in the text above - the text may be correct. But the sources where not reliable. I have nothing against the list if its sourced adequately. Neither do i have any objections to listing people (historic or living) as long as it can be documented (in reliable sources) that they where for (or against) population control.

The major problem here lies in the sources - who where to say the least horribly inadequate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

From a quick check on some of the organizations listed - it seems that whoever collected it, confused population control with family-planning. While there may be a connection between these, family control is voluntary and most certainly can't be put under a text saying that they support "heavy pressure on governments for mandatory population control" - i'm cutting that list once more - please put those back that you yourself can support the inclusion of, and (optimally) a reference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - seems you've startet to find references for them - so i'll leave it alone. Just cut per family planning mentioned above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide

Could genocide be a form of population control?67.180.237.81 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not usually.

• Genocide indicates systematic destruction of a particular group. Population control is usually not intended to eliminate the population, just to control the number (e.g., slow growth, stop growth, controlled decrease to a sustainable population, etc.)
• Genocide is usually applied to some other group, whereas population control generally applies to the population as a whole. (e.g. Genocide might be applied to some other group within a country, population control would be applied by the country to itself.)
• As a practical mater, genocide is usually applied to a minority, and thus is less likely to be effective at reducing or stabilizing population. (Natural increase in the majority population, especially if they have additional resources liberated from the minority population, would tend to replace the numbers reduced by genocide.) Zodon (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference - CultureQuake

I'm new here, don't know all the conventions about placement, etc., so I'm just dropping this in here. In addition to referenced already cited, there's a new book that could also well be mentioned, _CultureQuake_ by Chuck Burr (2007:Trafford Publishing). Guess I should establish an editing id but haven't yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.69.153 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)