On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:21:25 AM UTC-4, David P. wrote:
> The Hidden Dividends of Stopping Population Growth
> by Kelvin Thomson, May 24, 2022, Overpopulation Project
>
> Most people concerned about rapid population growth are
> concerned about its impact on our environment, on other
> species, and on future generations. They realise it is
> unsustainable; that we are trashing the joint, and leaving
> a poor legacy for our children and grandchildren.
>
> But there are many other reasons why stopping rapid
> population growth is a good idea that would benefit us
> here and now. Two surveys this year point to two that
> don’t get a lot of comment, but are seriously important:
> honest government and the overall wellbeing of citizens.
>
> Less Corruption
> -----------------
> Transparency International’s Corruption Index for 2021 found
> that the top 10 nations in combating public sector corruption,
> in order, were Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore,
> Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany. Readers
> won’t need a whole lot of statistics thrown at them to realise
> that, with the exception of Germany, the thing these countries
> have in common is that they have small populations. Most have
> populations of between 5 & 10 million people, & only Number 10
> on the list, Germany, has a population in excess of 15 million people.
>
> Unfortunately, the global picture on corruption is not very good.
> Transparency International – who give each country a mark out of
> 100 for integrity (the better the performance the higher the mark)
> found that the global average remained unchanged for the 10th year
> in a row, at just 43 out of a possible 100 points. Indeed,
> 27 countries are at their lowest score ever.
>
> One of those is my home country of Australia. Back in 2011 we were
> in the top 10, ranked 8th with a score of 88 out of 100. But in the
> last decade we have fallen from 88 to 73 points and dropped to 18th
> place globally. It is the steepest fall in standing of any developed
> nation. During that time, we have also been running rapid population
> growth, at rates among the fastest in the world (26% population
> increase, 2005-2020). The decline in our standing could be a
> coincidence, but I doubt it.
>
> The good government rankings of the 10 most populous countries are as follows:
>
> Corruption in the 10 countries with largest population in falling size
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Corruption Perception Score (0: highly corrupt, 100: very clean):
> China 45, India 40, USA 67, Indonesia 38, Pakistan 28,
> Brazil 38, Nigeria 24, Bangladesh 26, Russia 29, Mexico 31
>
> RANK: China 66, India 85, USA 27, Indonesia 96, Pakistan 140,
> Brazil 96, Nigeria 154, Bangladesh 147, Russia 146, Mexico 124
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> These generally poor rankings suggest that countries with large
> populations have a greater problem with corruption than the small
> population ones. But it’s also possible to see negative effects
> of population growth in the ‘top ten small countries’. From 2005–
> 2020, the top countries Denmark and Finland grew by 6-7%, while
> populations of Norway and Sweden grew by 14-17%, due to higher
> immigration. All Scandinavian countries saw their Corruption Index
> score fall after the large immigration surge in 2015–16, but Sweden
> more than others. And it’s not only corruption in government that
> is seen to rise: at least in Sweden, black-market employment has
> increased, especially in construction work, and 20% of the citizens
> report they use personal contacts to bypass queues in the welfare system.
>
> In countries with large populations, such as the ones in the
> graph and table above, a likely cause of increased corruption is
> the greater distance between elected representatives and their
> constituents in large electorates compared to smaller ones. The
> more voters there are in an electorate, the less possible it is
> to get elected by meeting voters personally. Instead, you need
> money to campaign. The more money politicians need, the more
> obligations they acquire, and the more they turn a blind eye to
> corporate misconduct and wrongdoing.
>
> The late Professor Albert Bartlett, Professor of Physics at the
> University of Boulder, Colorado, wrote a book called The Essential
> Exponential for the Future of our Planet, with a chapter called
> “Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation.” When he moved to Boulder
> in 1950, the population was 20,000. There were 9 city councillors.
> By the time he was writing, Boulder’s population had grown to
> 100,000, and there were still 9 councillors. He wrote: “in effect
> today we have only 20% of the democracy we used to have in 1950,”
> because it's harder for the individual to get access to a representative.
>
> Prof. Bartlett said the massive increase in electorate sizes for
> members of Congress made it impossible for them to personally
> represent their constituents. They ended up getting their campaign
> support, and ideas, from lobbyists and well-funded propagandists.
> “As a result,” he wrote, “we often get one dollar one vote versus
> what used to be one person one vote.” There is a crowding out
> effect, and people become alienated.
>
> This corresponds with my own experience. When I first stood for
> public office, it was in a City Council with around 6000 households.
> While I benefited from being a Labor Party candidate, because the
> Labor Party was well regarded in the area, the small ward sizes made
> it absolutely possible for independents of good community standing
> to be elected as Councillors. This was true even if they could not
> afford, or chose not to, spend money on their election campaigns.
>
> This kept the political parties honest. If they selected a poor
> candidate, voters would choose someone else. Secondly, Councillors
> often got elected with little “baggage” – obligations to campaign
> donors and workers. Their primary obligation was to the voters, as
> it should be. Campaign expenditure was low. I engaged in low cost
> or no cost campaigning such as doorknocking and street stalls.
>
> The growing size of electorates works in favour of candidates with
> money – either their own or somebody else’s. Presidents and Prime
> Ministers in large countries are nowadays almost always extremely
> wealthy. Ordinary people have no hope of getting a meeting with
> these leaders, whereas they most certainly could get a meeting
> with me and my Council colleagues.
>
> More Happiness
> ----------------
> Not only are small populations more honest and better represented
> politically, apparently they are also happier. The World Happiness
> Report is an annual publication from the Sustainable Development
> Solutions Network, using Gallup World Poll data to evaluate
> happiness and wellbeing across nations. The World Happiness
> Report 2022, ranking countries’ happiness on a 3-year average
> from 2019-2021, found that the 10 happiest nations were, in order:
> Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Luxembourg,
> Sweden, Norway, Israel, and New Zealand.
>
> Once again, a dominant characteristic of these countries is small
> populations. Of the 146 nations ranked, Afghanistan and Lebanon
> were last and second last. The next 8 spots were filled by rapidly
> growing African nations, with crowded India next at No 136.
> -----------------------------
> The happiness rankings of the 10 most populous countries are as follows:
> Happiness Rank: China 72, India 136, USA 16, Indonesia 87, Pakistan 121,
> Brazil 38, Nigeria 118, Bangladesh 94, Russia 80, Mexico 46
> -------------------------------------
> Increasing population size leads to more traffic congestion, less
> job security, decreasing housing affordability, decreased tree canopy
> cover and access to open space, and loss of the mental health benefits
> of interacting with nature.
>
> I'm not suggesting there is a simple, unvarying relationship between
> population size and honesty, integrity, and happiness. Many other
> factors play a role in good government and individual wellbeing.
> And given the number of countries we are talking about, inevitably
> there will be exceptions. But the correlation is clear enough to
> warrant both further research, and more attention from policy makers.
>
> Given the importance of honesty, integrity, and happiness in our
> lives, it makes sense for every country, everywhere, to put a stop
> to population growth. And of course, doing so also represents an
> important contribution to global sustainability.
>
> https://overpopulation-project.com/the-hidden-dividends-of-stopping-population-growth/

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 2:19:04 AM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:21:25 AM UTC-4, David P. wrote:
> > The Hidden Dividends of Stopping Population Growth
> > by Kelvin Thomson, May 24, 2022, Overpopulation Project
> >
> > Most people concerned about rapid population growth are
> > concerned about its impact on our environment, on other
> > species, and on future generations. They realise it is
> > unsustainable; that we are trashing the joint, and leaving
> > a poor legacy for our children and grandchildren.
> >
> > But there are many other reasons why stopping rapid
> > population growth is a good idea that would benefit us
> > here and now. Two surveys this year point to two that
> > don’t get a lot of comment, but are seriously important:
> > honest government and the overall wellbeing of citizens.
> >
> > Less Corruption
> > -----------------
> > Transparency International’s Corruption Index for 2021 found
> > that the top 10 nations in combating public sector corruption,
> > in order, were Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore,
> > Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany. Readers
> > won’t need a whole lot of statistics thrown at them to realise
> > that, with the exception of Germany, the thing these countries
> > have in common is that they have small populations. Most have
> > populations of between 5 & 10 million people, & only Number 10
> > on the list, Germany, has a population in excess of 15 million people.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the global picture on corruption is not very good.
> > Transparency International – who give each country a mark out of
> > 100 for integrity (the better the performance the higher the mark)
> > found that the global average remained unchanged for the 10th year
> > in a row, at just 43 out of a possible 100 points. Indeed,
> > 27 countries are at their lowest score ever.
> >
> > One of those is my home country of Australia. Back in 2011 we were
> > in the top 10, ranked 8th with a score of 88 out of 100. But in the
> > last decade we have fallen from 88 to 73 points and dropped to 18th
> > place globally. It is the steepest fall in standing of any developed
> > nation. During that time, we have also been running rapid population
> > growth, at rates among the fastest in the world (26% population
> > increase, 2005-2020). The decline in our standing could be a
> > coincidence, but I doubt it.
> >
> > The good government rankings of the 10 most populous countries are as follows:
> >
> > Corruption in the 10 countries with largest population in falling size
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Corruption Perception Score (0: highly corrupt, 100: very clean):
> > China 45, India 40, USA 67, Indonesia 38, Pakistan 28,
> > Brazil 38, Nigeria 24, Bangladesh 26, Russia 29, Mexico 31
> >
> > RANK: China 66, India 85, USA 27, Indonesia 96, Pakistan 140,
> > Brazil 96, Nigeria 154, Bangladesh 147, Russia 146, Mexico 124
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > These generally poor rankings suggest that countries with large
> > populations have a greater problem with corruption than the small
> > population ones. But it’s also possible to see negative effects
> > of population growth in the ‘top ten small countries’. From 2005–
> > 2020, the top countries Denmark and Finland grew by 6-7%, while
> > populations of Norway and Sweden grew by 14-17%, due to higher
> > immigration. All Scandinavian countries saw their Corruption Index
> > score fall after the large immigration surge in 2015–16, but Sweden
> > more than others. And it’s not only corruption in government that
> > is seen to rise: at least in Sweden, black-market employment has
> > increased, especially in construction work, and 20% of the citizens
> > report they use personal contacts to bypass queues in the welfare system.
> >
> > In countries with large populations, such as the ones in the
> > graph and table above, a likely cause of increased corruption is
> > the greater distance between elected representatives and their
> > constituents in large electorates compared to smaller ones. The
> > more voters there are in an electorate, the less possible it is
> > to get elected by meeting voters personally. Instead, you need
> > money to campaign. The more money politicians need, the more
> > obligations they acquire, and the more they turn a blind eye to
> > corporate misconduct and wrongdoing.
> >
> > The late Professor Albert Bartlett, Professor of Physics at the
> > University of Boulder, Colorado, wrote a book called The Essential
> > Exponential for the Future of our Planet, with a chapter called
> > “Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation.” When he moved to Boulder
> > in 1950, the population was 20,000. There were 9 city councillors.
> > By the time he was writing, Boulder’s population had grown to
> > 100,000, and there were still 9 councillors. He wrote: “in effect
> > today we have only 20% of the democracy we used to have in 1950,”
> > because it's harder for the individual to get access to a representative.
> >
> > Prof. Bartlett said the massive increase in electorate sizes for
> > members of Congress made it impossible for them to personally
> > represent their constituents. They ended up getting their campaign
> > support, and ideas, from lobbyists and well-funded propagandists.
> > “As a result,” he wrote, “we often get one dollar one vote versus
> > what used to be one person one vote.” There is a crowding out
> > effect, and people become alienated.
> >
> > This corresponds with my own experience. When I first stood for
> > public office, it was in a City Council with around 6000 households.
> > While I benefited from being a Labor Party candidate, because the
> > Labor Party was well regarded in the area, the small ward sizes made
> > it absolutely possible for independents of good community standing
> > to be elected as Councillors. This was true even if they could not
> > afford, or chose not to, spend money on their election campaigns.
> >
> > This kept the political parties honest. If they selected a poor
> > candidate, voters would choose someone else. Secondly, Councillors
> > often got elected with little “baggage” – obligations to campaign
> > donors and workers. Their primary obligation was to the voters, as
> > it should be. Campaign expenditure was low. I engaged in low cost
> > or no cost campaigning such as doorknocking and street stalls.
> >
> > The growing size of electorates works in favour of candidates with
> > money – either their own or somebody else’s. Presidents and Prime
> > Ministers in large countries are nowadays almost always extremely
> > wealthy. Ordinary people have no hope of getting a meeting with
> > these leaders, whereas they most certainly could get a meeting
> > with me and my Council colleagues.
> >
> > More Happiness
> > ----------------
> > Not only are small populations more honest and better represented
> > politically, apparently they are also happier. The World Happiness
> > Report is an annual publication from the Sustainable Development
> > Solutions Network, using Gallup World Poll data to evaluate
> > happiness and wellbeing across nations. The World Happiness
> > Report 2022, ranking countries’ happiness on a 3-year average
> > from 2019-2021, found that the 10 happiest nations were, in order:
> > Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Luxembourg,
> > Sweden, Norway, Israel, and New Zealand.
> >
> > Once again, a dominant characteristic of these countries is small
> > populations. Of the 146 nations ranked, Afghanistan and Lebanon
> > were last and second last. The next 8 spots were filled by rapidly
> > growing African nations, with crowded India next at No 136.
> > -----------------------------
> > The happiness rankings of the 10 most populous countries are as follows:
> > Happiness Rank: China 72, India 136, USA 16, Indonesia 87, Pakistan 121,
> > Brazil 38, Nigeria 118, Bangladesh 94, Russia 80, Mexico 46
> > -------------------------------------
> > Increasing population size leads to more traffic congestion, less
> > job security, decreasing housing affordability, decreased tree canopy
> > cover and access to open space, and loss of the mental health benefits
> > of interacting with nature.
> >
> > I'm not suggesting there is a simple, unvarying relationship between
> > population size and honesty, integrity, and happiness. Many other
> > factors play a role in good government and individual wellbeing.
> > And given the number of countries we are talking about, inevitably
> > there will be exceptions. But the correlation is clear enough to
> > warrant both further research, and more attention from policy makers.
> >
> > Given the importance of honesty, integrity, and happiness in our
> > lives, it makes sense for every country, everywhere, to put a stop
> > to population growth. And of course, doing so also represents an
> > important contribution to global sustainability.
> >
> > https://overpopulation-project.com/the-hidden-dividends-of-stopping-population-growth/
> Is extinction one of the dividends?
> Today's news headline:
> "Elon Musk Sees Extinction of Italians on Persisting Low Birth-Rate".