The Dalai Lama's Solution to Overpopulation

DaltheJigsaw

federica

I love his giggle at the end....!
Celibacy is only obligatory for some sectors of society, in any religion.... the rest of us should practice some form of responsible abstention, or birth control.

He's absolutely right, of course....
We need to have a non-violent way of controlling population growth - and I would suggest that 'non-violence' also covers child abandonment (such as the discarding of baby girls in China and India), enforced sterilization ,and even harsh governmental penalties designed to make couples decide against having more than one child.

but I do believe that child support in this country (UK) should be individual-means tested, and I do believe that if child support or Family allowance payments continue, they should be limited to the first two children only.
Currently, every time a person has a child, there are government funds allocated for the support of that child.
I think this encourages some sectors of society to take advantage of that..
And it should be stopped....

Thao

I agree with him up to the end where he said we need more monks and nuns. Monks and nuns suffer greatly, as those in monasteries know, all they think about is sex. One example is in the book, Turtle Feet.

Seeking_peace

Even if monks and nuns only thought about sex, they are still leaps and bounds ahead of a lot of people because they have the fortitude to remain abstinent. Too many children are conceived from pure lust to parents who don't teach their children morals. This in turn creates a downward spiral affect that multiplies exponentially. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying this is always true but it is to often true.

federica

I think he was attempting a joke, maybe... which is why he giggled....
The easiest and simplest way for any nation to control its own population expansion is to ordain as many citizens as possible.
otherwise, the solutions are difficult - but he does specify that the methods and motives should be non-violent.
I think he's acknowledging that birth control isn't an easy thing to minister....

sofa

The problem lies especially, ironically, in poverty in Third World Countries. A child there means a force of labour and some guarantee for old age (since people don't have pensions). Also, contraception isn't so widespread as it is in the West.

Here in the West most families don't have more than two children, so here population shouldn't increase that much (but I'm not a demograph so I might be wrong...)

Sile

I agree with him up to the end where he said we need more monks and nuns. Monks and nuns suffer greatly, as those in monasteries know, all they think about is sex. One example is in the book, Turtle Feet.

My friend Ani Jampa is a nun and one of the happiest people I know.

compassionate_warrior

I can't agree with the idea of ordaining as many people as possible. That could be seen as a justification for the Asian custom of giving children to the monasteries. The way to minimizing overpopulation, imo, is to freely allow abortion, provide incentives for couples not to have kids, or not to have more than one, and to make contraception freely available. Provide it for free in developing countries, which some countries already do. Also, studies have shown that providing education to women, including higher education, reduces the birth rate.

One of the best things to happen in the West is the gradual fading away of society's expectation that every married couple would have children. Couples used to feel pressured by this expectation, so some had children mainly because that was the norm. This has changed in the last half-century, or so, and we're seeing more voluntarily childless couples.

I don't think overpopulation can be beat, due to improved food availability and improved medical care. If water shortages, bee deficits, and global food shortages develop, then overpopulation may cease to be a concern. That's not a scenario anyone would look forward to.

federica

I take your points @compassionate_warrior, but you need to think more deeply about the abortion factor.
Killing a potential being isn't a skilful means of contraception, and is open to abuse.
in the UK, it's against health policy to reveal the sex of the unborn child, because many ethnic families were opting to abort baby girls.....

compassionate_warrior

This is a good point, @Federica. Technology has evolved to the point that it can be misused to select for the gender of a child. I don't know if there's any way to control that. Even if doctors were prohibited from revealing the child's sex, doctors can be bribed. There are no simple answers. My point about abortion was that it shouldn't be prohibited, as it currently is throughout Latin America, and, I assume, parts of the Near East.

KnightofBuddha

He's absolutely right, of course....
We need to have a non-violent way of controlling population growth - and I would suggest that 'non-violence' also covers child abandonment (such as the discarding of baby girls in China and India), enforced sterilization ,and even harsh governmental penalties designed to make couples decide against having more than one child.

Wait, you're joking right? You'll have to forgive me for being very creeped out by this if you're not. Are you really suggesting that an enforced One Child Policy is sound? Like the abandonment of young girls in Asia?

Enforced sterilization and penalties? You would not disagree that all the policies above are fascistic right?

DaltheJigsaw

Thanks everyone! I think this is a debatable topic that seems to touch people's ethics/morals. My question to all of you is, ethically or morally are we playing "GOD." When we decide what to do with population control?

ImmersedOne

It is kind of funny to hear a Buddhist Monk suggest that we need more monks and nuns, but it actually is true.

Also, to continue on the big theme I've been having recently, the best solution for population control: LEAVING THE PLANET!

compassionate_warrior

No, we're practicing good management. What we need to do is practice good management of the planet's natural resources, as well.

@ImmersedOne Why do you feel it's true? Are you willing to volunteer for the celibate life?

DaltheJigsaw

No, we're practicing good management. What we need to do is practice good management of the planet's natural resources, as well.

That is a good point! How do you feel about abortion?

compassionate_warrior

That is a good point! How do you feel about abortion?

See my first post, above.

KnightofBuddha

No, we're practicing good management. What we need to do is practice good management of the planet's natural resources, as well.

Wow, I actually thought some of you were joking at first. But it really is as creepy as it sounds. Presumably, you don't think the government should have anything to say about what two consensual adults do in the bedroom. Stay out of the bedroom! And I agree. But forced sterilization? Dictatorial control of the population? That gives me the chills. What could be more totalitarian than government bureaucrats deciding who may or may not have children?

So do you think the eugenic policies of the Third Reich were wrong only in that they were applied to certain parts of the population, and not the whole?

federica

@KnightofBuddha,
No.
what i mean is that Non-violence means not doing those things.
It's phrased badly, you're right.

But what i meant was that these are violent ways of doing things so they should be singled out as being violent, just as much as he feels abortion is.

ImmersedOne

@ImmersedOne Why do you feel it's true? Are you willing to volunteer for the celibate life?

In the past, I have seriously considered becoming a monk. The way in which my thinking has progressed, however, is not consistent with the monk lifestyle. I am, of course, not suggesting that it be forced on anybody. Having it be presented as a viable option for those interested, however, would be good. It CAN BE helpful on the spiritual path, and I bet there are many people who would become monks/nuns if it were seen as a realistic option. It would be helpful simply because it is conducive to spiritual well-being, and not contributing to draining the planet of its natural resources, and of course the more celibate people there are(by choice), the less babies will be born; and this is, after all, the topic of population control.

KnightofBuddha

No.
what i mean is that Non-violence means not doing those things.
It's phrased badly, you're right.

But what i meant was that these are violent weays of doing things so they should be singled out as being violent, just as much as he feels abortion is.

Ah, I see now. The problem Europe seems to have right now is a lack of population growth. If you have a welfare state with twice as many seniors as young workers, your society is bound to collapse. Zero population growth is only workable when their is an absence of an entitlement state.

AMH

I think, if I am right, that Federica says these practices of discarding babies and forcing sterilization are another form of violence. The only thing she said was govermental support of families larger than 2 children should be stopped/limited.

I am glad he giggled, some of us are not wired for a life of celibacy. No it is not just sex, there is a lot of reasons to want one close partnership for the long term. But hopefully there will continue to be an expansion of safe and available birth control.

compassionate_warrior

I think it's easy to speculate that celibacy would solve overpopulation, as long as it's someone else who's taking on the discipline. I don't see anyone here volunteering. It's that NIMBY mindset. Something is find as long as we're not the ones who have to do it, or deal with its effects.

person

Ah, I see now. The problem Europe seems to have right now is a lack of population growth. If you have a welfare state with twice as many seniors as young workers, your society is bound to collapse. Zero population growth is only workable when their is an absence of an entitlement state.

Or a liberal (not in the political sense) immigration policy.

KnightofBuddha

Besides, the massive population growth is in the developing world. It would have to be imposed quite draconianly from the outside to have any effect if you were to stop the growth in population. And since many families depend on multiple children for subsistence income, it would create an economic disaster for them.

KnightofBuddha

Ah, I see now. The problem Europe seems to have right now is a lack of population growth. If you have a welfare state with twice as many seniors as young workers, your society is bound to collapse. Zero population growth is only workable when their is an absence of an entitlement state.

Or a liberal (not in the political sense) immigration policy.

That has been the solution the past few decades. BUT, the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries have proven pretty incompetent at assimilation, with awful cultural practices like genital mutilation, child marriage, and polygamy brought there as well. Not too mention frightening growths in hostility to Jews in Scandinavia.

compassionate_warrior

since many families depend on multiple children for subsistence income, it would create an economic disaster for them.

This is where making education accessible to all comes into the population plan.

person

I think HHDL was half kidding about more monks and nuns. There wouldn't be enough people that would want to do that to make much of a difference and I've heard him say several times that the monasitic community would be better with a higher quality of renunciates rather than more of them.

KnightofBuddha

Why the obsession with controlling population? Doom mongers for centuries have been warning that the population bomb was about to blow because of a lack of resources. Thomas Malthus and many others. It's "control" has been the excuse for abominable behavior in the past.

compassionate_warrior

I've heard him say several times that the monasitic community would be better with a higher quality of renunciates rather than more of them.

He has, indeed. Now you have me curious to watch the vid to see if it looks like he was kidding. He may have meant that purely from the perspective of overpopulation, more celibacy would be helpful. But from a monastic standpoint, maybe not so much.

KoB: we're not "obsessing". We're commenting to an OP. This is how forums work. Keep it light.

ImmersedOne

I think it's easy to speculate that celibacy would solve overpopulation, as long as it's someone else who's taking on the discipline. I don't see anyone here volunteering. It's that NIMBY mindset. Something is find as long as we're not the ones who have to do it, or deal with its effects.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with becoming a monk/nun? Because I, and noone else, is suggesting that it be forced on to anybody. So since I don't believe anyone else should do it against their will, of course I wouldn't do it against my will either. It's just a viable option, if you so choose. In America, for instance, it is very difficult to become a monk. It's simply not a realistic option for most people. If it were more viable, then more people may CHOOSE it.

compassionate_warrior

In order for it to make a significant difference to overpopulation, a lot of people would have to volunteer. I don't see that as realistic. It's easy to talk about it in the abstract, but in the end, real people, and quite a lot of them, would need to actually commit to it. If we figure approximately 20% of the global population, that would mean 20% of us here. LIke I said, I don't see anyone rushing to sign up. I'm just keepin' it real.

person

Why the obsession with controlling population? Doom mongers for centuries have been warning that the population bomb was about to blow because of a lack of resources. Thomas Malthus and many others. It's "control" has been the excuse for abominable behavior in the past.

The planet can only take so many. If everyone in the world lived a lifestyle like the average American it would take something like 5 or 6 earths to provide enough resources. With technological advancement we can probably manage more people but the more there are the more strain it puts on resources and the more susceptible people are to resource fluctuations and natural disasters.

I don't think the solution is any kind of governmental restriction. The issue of population growth today is solely in the third world. Its been shown that by educating and empowering women, the lowering of birth rates follows. So the solutions are things like education and micro loans to help women develop an income stream. Also a lowered infant mortality rate gives people more confidence that their children will survive thus reducing the desire to have many, so things like vaccinations and mosquito nets.

As it sits right now the projections for peak population is around 9,000,000,000 in 2050. I think that is managable with the right effort. With the wrong effort it could be disastrous though.

KnightofBuddha

Right, and after 2050, it is widely believed that the population will begin to decrease by some margin. Which seems to negate the whole "crisis" of overpopulation. By the free market, resources will be allocated in such a way to provide it far better than government coercion and action.

ImmersedOne

Right, and after 2050, it is widely believed that the population will begin to decrease by some margin.

How's that?

KnightofBuddha

Because as has been stated, with Africa especially becoming more industrialized, educated and modernized, its birth rate will dramatically decline. The first world countries are already in terminal population decline and well below replacement levels. European populations will only stay at their level due to massive immigration and thus the gradual changing from ethnically European to Middle Eastern and African majorities in the Old World.

person

I guess what I'm saying is that there are actions which can be and are being taken to slow and reduce population growth. Much of it comes through NGOs but things like education, vaccinations, mosquito nets don't get to those who need them by market forces.

KnightofBuddha

True. To use Africa as an example again, corrupt regimes and failed states are ill-conducive to Westernization and advancements in sciences and markets.

suopohe

The problem with over population is low productivity and poverty. Look at the western countries, the population is slowing or declining if there's no help of immigration.

The poorest countries have the higher birth rate because of lack of education and low productivity.

Dakini

Another thing that would help is if couples who want kids adopt kids who are already born and need parents, instead of bringing new kids into the world. Like Knight plans to do. Probably, though, that would mainly happen in developed countries, where the population is already declining.

Oh well. :-/

suopohe

As for adoption, we need to know the reason for the child's need for adoption.
Is it because the parents don't 't want girl and have another kid in a hope it's a boy?

Remember there's the invisible force in economy, there's a price for raising kids and demand for raising kids. If the cost goes up so high, then the demand should drop.
It's unfortunate many people ignore this and struggle to live in poverty.

Sile

From Simply Shrug:

Every man, woman, and child living and breathing on the face of the Earth could fit in relative comfort within the land territory of the state of Texas.

In fact, Texas has 261,797.12 square miles of land--more than the area we need to house all 7 billion of us at typical New York City densities.

Now granted, NYC is not the wide-open spaces, but it is a density that millions live with in a space-loving nation like the US, so it shouldn't be considered too packed.

http://bit.ly/fTIcNA

[He goes on to calculate water and food needs, coming to the conclusion that "We could all have water with just the Columbia River alone. And we could easily feed ourselves with just the farmland within the US as it exists."]

caz

I like His Holiness Idea

federica

As for adoption, we need to know the reason for the child's need for adoption.

More often than not it's either an underage mother, or a financial consideration.

person

From Simply Shrug:

Every man, woman, and child living and breathing on the face of the Earth could fit in relative comfort within the land territory of the state of Texas.

In fact, Texas has 261,797.12 square miles of land--more than the area we need to house all 7 billion of us at typical New York City densities.

Now granted, NYC is not the wide-open spaces, but it is a density that millions live with in a space-loving nation like the US, so it shouldn't be considered too packed.

http://bit.ly/fTIcNA

[He goes on to calculate water and food needs, coming to the conclusion that "We could all have water with just the Columbia River alone. And we could easily feed ourselves with just the farmland within the US as it exists."]

Nice info :thumbup:

I think it goes to show how poorly we distribute and use resources.

AMH

I agree with adoption as part of the process. I was 'fertile myrtle' back in the day so it was work to only have 3, but we made a deal with our childless by choice friends that we were using one of their replacements, lol.

Comparing to the other discussion about adoptees having issues especially racial, well can we ever know and judge what their life would have been otherwise? One of my school families has 3 foster/adopt siblings. The kids struggle but mom and mom are great. Who knows how much their behavior would be affected by staying where they were before the foster/adopt family.

BTW I would love to be at the place where a non-white family adopts a white child. That would be awesome

Sile

Rare, but happens:





http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2004090402_raceadopt25.html

AMH

very cool, I figured it was happening somewhere. Nice stories

compassionate_warrior

Who knows how much their behavior would be affected by staying where they were before the foster/adopt family.

There have been efforts to encourage more people of color to consider being foster parents and adoptive parents. Federal law requires that Native American children be placed with Native American parents whenever possible. There are other choices besides leaving the child wherever they were before adoption, or adopting to another country, culture, etc. This is a particularly hot topic in Russia currently. I wonder about the well-to-do families in China; couldn't they adopt some of the abandoned girls? Radical thought.

compassionate_warrior

After watching the film, I believe HHDL is in favor first and foremost of good management of resources. He says here family planning is needed, yet on other occasions he's said that sex is for procreation only. He may have a different standard for non-practitioners of the Dharma, that's probably fair to assume. It does sound somewhat like he was making a wry joke at the end, about more monks and nuns. We don't know if this was the full text of his talk on overpopulation, or just a small clip. I don't think we can fully judge what his beliefs are from this brief clip. I wish there were more.

vinlyn

I think, if I am right, that Federica says these practices of discarding babies and forcing sterilization are another form of violence. The only thing she said was govermental support of families larger than 2 children should be stopped/limited.

I am glad he giggled, some of us are not wired for a life of celibacy. No it is not just sex, there is a lot of reasons to want one close partnership for the long term. But hopefully there will continue to be an expansion of safe and available birth control.

We shouldn't make any assumptions about his giggle. Having worked with hundreds and hundreds of ESOL students, they often giggle when they are somewhat uncomfortable with the language. It's often nervousness and being self-conscious.

federica

While I agree with your reasoning, having been privileged enough to be in his presence during a talk in London, I doubt very much HH the DL giggled to cover any discomfort, nerves or self-consciousness.
Given his world status, his constant roving amongst the "noblest in the lands", high public profile and the respect and reverence with which people hold him, i think he is a confident and practised enough DL to be able to comment on some matters without succumbing to such base emotions.
I think @Simonthepilgrim, who had a personal audience of over half an hour with him, (longer maybe?) would back me up on that....

My 2 cents.....