The starting point

* The population of the earth quadrupled during the 20th century from 1,5 billions up to 6 billions men

* The growing of population is running up to 75 millons people a year

* Besides them there are about 50 millions of abortions

What shall we do now?

The 1950ths
When I was born only about half of a century later (I was born in 1955) the population of the earth made 3 billions of people. The verge of overpopulation was reaches. Overpopulation is rising up, when there is less than 10.000 m² farmland for one man´s disposal. Two devastating wars the world had to suffer during the mean time and several smaller wars, genocides etc. couldn´t hinder the duplication of the world´s population.

Awareness of the problem? Negative report! Problembewußtsein? Fehlanzeige! Mao Tsetung said that there couldn´t be more than enough people, if they were living in a communistic country.meinte, Charles de Gaulle dreamt to make France to be a country of 100 million men. The GDR (East Germany) suffered to be the only country of the world having a diminishing population. The idea of imperialism was significant at that time, and the growth - fetishism attacked as well democratic politicians as dictators.

The 1970ths
The federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) hasn´t been getting any natural growing of population since 1972, you could notice the effects of the sudden drop in birthrates - we call it "Pillenknick". The GDR reached higher birthrates because of the strictly suuporting the birthrate politics, but in the long run the GDR could no longer satisfy the necessaries of the growing population. The true unemployment - rate was about 20 - 30 %, nearly the double rate of the west. But the GDR could conceal this matters and continued the failed politics of population, which caused finally the end of the GDR in 1989.

In the west one tried to keep a high rate of population by opening the borders for immigrants joyfull to bear a lot of kids. The rate of unemployment rose up also in a dramatic way in the west because of the uncontrolled immigration and the hight birthrates of the Germans during the 1950ths and 1960ths. I want to remember in this context that today in 2009 we ´ve got more employed people than in 1963 in the Federal Republic of Germany (western federal states). But in 1963 there were only 200.000 unemployed people and 600.000 vacant jobs. We got overemployment.

We should had better react upon the shortness of employes by forced rationalization and by displaycing jobsto foreign countries instead of calling for more and more German and foreign people.

0	It doesn´t play a part, what for a polotical party will rule the land, because nobody may neglect the rules of the market. But nobody is willing to draw the necessary conclusions: Reduction of population! <<< 5 millions of people are unemployeed

Today in the year of 2009 we ´ve got about 5 millions of people being officially registered to be unemployed - in reality the double number - in the new Federal Republic of Germany. But our politicians have not got a better idea for solving the problem than to torment unemployed people and to force them to work for dumping - wages.
In order to oppose unemployment in effective way we would have to got new additional jobs being payed fairly. I accentuate the word "additional", because otherwise we will have to expect a pure predatory competion. One unemployed will take away the job from another.
But we would have to get economic growth in order to make additional jobs. But there isn´t a unlimited economic growth at all. The limits of (econonic) growth have allready been mostly obtained partly even exceeded so that a depression menaces. The recovery of full employment can only be reached by a reduction of the population.

Possible counter arguments:
A reduction of population would reduce demand and thereby increasing the unemployment. Kids a really an important demand factor at all.
But the demand doesn´t depends on the state of population, but the demand is depending on the money people can spent for consumer goods. Otherwise all of the people in Africa or India would have to be very rich. The failing birth - rate can be used to improve the quality of the kid´s social security: Smaller classes at school, studying in a free of charge way etc.. Qualtiy has to get precidence of quantity.

The beginning of the ecology - movement in the 1970ths
caused no real improvement of matters. But the first oil crisis of 1973 incited a lot of people to change their mind. You haven´t to drive a full size car, a smaller car will be sufficient in most cases. The tram and the bicycle had a renaissance. But "less will often bemore", the motto of the ecology - movement, had already been perverted soon. Just the ecologists engaged themselves to open the borders of the overpopulated Federal Republic of Germany for immigrants. So progress could be obtained.

Please, don´t misinterpret what I want to say. On principle I ´m not against immigration, but the sharp disproportion between the number of foreign immigrants and German emigrants can´t be accepted. Besides them I think that it will be without responsibility to allow people to emigrate we can´t offer a secured econmical existence. Open borders are only accepabel to countries having similar (economical ) conditions of live.

A color tv - set consumed as much electricity as an oven in the year 1967. Today we ´ve got cars with V8 motors consuming less than 10 l diesel on 100 km. But all of the successful measures to save energy have been totally ineffective for decades because of the increasing of population. Today, in the year of 2009, we consume more energy and resources than ever in the past. ... and the population of the world is increasing incessant more and more.

Possible counter arguments: Mögliche Gegenargumente:
Overpopulation and icreasing of population are only problems of the so called "Third World". The population of the classic industrial - states has been subsiding slowly already for years and can only be stabilized by immigration from Third countries (Countries outside of the European Union). Otherwise the system of social security (pensions etc.) will be endangered.
But the population of the industrial countires is consuming the most energy and resources, the possibilities for saving would be the best. The most effective mthode for saving energy is birth - control. Each kid less allows the saving of energy in a calorific power of 5.000 tons of oil. Besides them the European industrial countries and Japan have only got a relative trivial living space and are overpopulated. The social security will be endangered by long standing high unemployment - rates, therefore the increasing of population will be the only possiblity to get back the full employment.
Besides them the population of the industrial countries is growing older more and more.
The average age of the population has been rising up because of medical progress and better sanitary conditions. The number of kids doesn´t depong on the average age, besides the the kids of today will grow old at least.
The limits of economical growth haven´t been really still reached. Besides them misery and suffer are not caused by overpopulation but by the unfair econmical system of the world, an unfair distribution of the fortune.
A "fair distribution" of the fortung - whatever you want to understand by that - would mean poorness for everybody by last consequence and a lot of people and states would neglect their resonsibility for themselves. Each state is only responsible for the social security of its own people by prinsipal. That would be fatal.
The capacity limit of the earth wit about 7 billions of me at the time hasn´t reacht still already. The earth could supply about 20 billions of people theoretically.
There are a lot of different theories about the theme respecting a population from 1 billion to about 20 billions of men. But even if the earth could stand 20 billions of people, we have to ask the question of the quality of life. How shall we find jobs for all the people? Who shall buy the additional produced goods and services? How can the state feed millions of unemployed persons forewer? Where can we find the necessary living space for further gigantic towns without further ruining the nature? The problems of supplying the mankind with energy might be solved by the peaceful using of the nuclear fusion, but a further warming of the atmosphere of the earth would be unavoidable: Melting of the poles, floods, further reducing of the living spaces.

CONCLUSION:
IN FUTURE WE SHALL ONLY BEGET / CONCEIVE AS MUCH KIDS AS WE CAN TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BY ECONIMC AND ECOLOGIC REASONS.
AN AVERAGE VALUE OF ABOUT 0,8 PER WOMAN WOULD BE IDEAL.

Constructive proposals for solution for the reduction of population:

 

There are principially three possibilities in order to reduct the population: War, genocide, and birth - control.
We ´ve got the choice to reduce the population by unreasonable methods (war, genocide) or by humane methods, the birth - control. I by my person vote clearly for birth - control, but I cannot decide this matter alone.
I want to say in this connection it is irrelevant, wheter a genocide will be caused in a direct way by us human beings or in a indirect way by the nature for example in a manner of famines and epidemics caused by human refusal. The consequences would be devastasting in each case and would exceed all historic occurences.
Everbody who opposes birth - control engages himself automatically for war and genocide, because there are no alternative solutions. The duty to take care about birth - control is founded upon the general human rights.

OTHER HELPFUL MESURES WOULD BE...:

* Better sex - instructions world wide. My mother (born in 1925) told me one day, when she was a teenager she had thougt to become pregnant, if she would kiss a man. But who would had instructed her?

* Free contraceptives for everybody.

* The prevention of ababortions by precluded contraception. All other methods are improper, because they sponsor the growth of population still again.

* Only as much children as we can consent by econmic and ecologic reasons shall be borne in future. The ideal birth - rate would be about 0,8 kids per woman at the time.

Possible counter arguments:
It will be misanthropic to regard kids only by economic aspects. Idealistic motivations must have precendence of econmical matters.
Surely, it is self - evident that also a true love to kids is a necessary condition for being allowed to have kids. But not everbody of us is the right person to be a good father / mother. In such cases the total resignation to kids would be the better solution.
But even if you fulfill the qualifications to be a good father / mother in an excellent way, you will be responsible to render possible your kid a life in dignity. You cannot expect from your kid to go to the relief office lifelong, all the more the lasting solvency of the state will not be secured. You cannot accept this responsiblity by no means to several kids. Even if your kids will find a good profession and economic existence in their later lifes, their success would always base automatically on the burden of others loosing their existence.

* The usage of compulsory measures against persons refusing to listen to reasons. (Forced sterilizations not later than the third kid had been borne, forced adoptions etc.) Birth control neglected by willful or careless reasons has to be defined as criminality.

Possible counter arguments :
The usage of compulsory measures would encroach to much upon the human rights of the person under consideration. Sexuality belongs to the very private intimate aereas of men and therefore a strange regulation from outside will prohibit by itself. The human rights and the natural right of reproduction would be injured. The state may not be allowed to mix in such matters too.
There is a wide social agreement that murder, oppression, robbery, black mailing etc. may not be tolerated and that the perpetrators shall be punished in a proper way. If we would tolerate such an antisocial behaviour, the ability to know right from wrong of people will be demaged in a very serious way and the internal peace will be dangered. The state has to define willful or careless neglected birth controll to be criminality.
In reality birth control would never be successful on a volunteer way, therefore we men are still to much driven by our physical needs. Besides them it will be imaginable that especially religious people, political extremists and racists will not care about birth control on a volunteer way indeed. An important part of our descendants would be begot / borne by those ones and indoctrinated in accordance with their destructive views. The consequences for state and society would be fatal.

* The privileged protection of marriage and family. A legal state is obligated to protect all kinds of partnerships fror life in the same way. Also a fiscal preferment of families of conventional kind has to be denied.

* The payment of child - allowance only for the first kid. The Zahlung von Kindergeld nur noch für das erste Kind. The payment of child - allowance strikes rather delicat by ethical reasons, because it is a modern kind of trafficking in human beings.
The saved money should better spent for educational establishments instead of.

* The prohibiton of artificial insemination. An artificial insemination is the perversion of science of medicine. It is the task of medical men to preserve health and lives of people and to develope techniques for contraception as a surrogate for the old natural selection, but medical men may not produce additional and surplus life.

* Totally taking the stigma away from homosexuality by moralic and legal aspects. But the demand in addition to favour homosexuality would be senseless. The nature fixes for people to be hetero- or homosexual, an individual person hasn´t got any influence.

* The introduction of an unconditional basic income, unconcerned a man is working or not. The introduction of an unconditional basic income ist already necessary by educational reasons in order to make the authorities to understand that people are a question of costs in priority and only secondary a power and production factor.

* The prohibition of forced labor of all kind. Also for unpayed jobs for unemployeeed persons, civil service duty, universal conscription. Reasons see above.

* Deportation of foreigers (= citizens from Third countries outside of the European Union) who do not care about birth controll. It will be clear that foreigners who ´d committed crimes have to be deportet.

---

 

GENERAL OTHER COUNTER ARGUMENTS:

The demand to reduce the population remembers to Nazi methods. Shall we tolerate such a behaviour?
The hint to alligated Nazi - methods is popular in our country in order to hinder necessary discussions, for example also at the theme "death grant". But we may not deal with matters in such a simple way.
The aim of the Nazi´s politics of population was in truth to reduce and as far as possible to eliminate certain parts of the population (Jewish people, homosexual people). But at the other side the "arischen Herrenmenschen" (Aryan master minds) favoured by the Nazis should propagate themselves in a very drastic way in order to rule the whole of the earth one day.
The Nazis were determined to go to any lenght from the genocide in one case up to the planned polygamy at the Aryans.
But a responsible poltics of population has in view to oblige each part of the population and each single person to care about birth controll.

Wars and genocides

But those famines and epedemics are mostly caused by wars. Farmers couldn´t culivate their fields any longer, because they had to become soldiers. Besides them harvests were destroyed by acts of sabotage. In consequence the production of food declined and famines broke out. Than people weakened by famines became often a victim of the epedemics which depopulated great parts of the land in a very effective way.
Intervals of times of increasing of population in time of peace and decreasing of population in war - times always changed up to the beginning of the industrial period.
We made the experience during the 20th century that only the First World War caused a high decreasing of population in the German Reich of Kaiser Wilhelm, but already the Third Reich got a natural increasing of population during the Sencond World War. Only the most worst year of the war 1944 caused a little decreasing. At the other side Belgian Congo (Africa) lost half of their population during the Belgian tome of colonialism.
Does it mean that wars and genocides are an unsuitable method to reduce the population today? I´m sorry to say "no", because the facts only prove what kind of horrible wars and genocides beating all cruelties of the past would be necessary today in order only to stop the growing of population.:
* The losts of population during the Second World War would have been compensated in only eight months by the growing of population of today.
* The losts of population caused by the Nazo - genocide in less than two months.
The wars and genocides of the 20th century couldn´t hinder a quaduplication of the population of the earth indeed, but without them everything would have been getting worse and worse! If there hadn´t been any wars and genocides in the mankind´s history, there wouldn´t be any human beings on the world already for a long time.
We may not ignore this facts. We should be happy that today we´ve got the possibility to hinder wars and genocides by active birth - control. The future of the mankind will be decide, wheter we want to take our responsibilty serious today.