Population Reduction?

[X]

Similar to Danish Dynamite's thread, but not quite.


Do you think there are too many people on this planet? Do you think that governments should encourage couples to have only one child between them, or even enforce it?

Such are the questions that currently occupy me.

It has occurred to me (courtesy of a thoroughly depressing but probably valuable course in cultural anthropology they make us engineering students take) that the sheer numbers of humans either is or will shortly overwhelm our ability to provide for the people (as a species).

In other words, our numbers do not appear to be sustainable.



My sister thinks I'm nuts (actually, the word she used was "[rule 10]ing stupid"), that there is no problem and everything will be fine.


But still, it nags at me.

I do not think I can justify having more than one child, if I have any at all.


Am I wrong? Is it all rose-coloured clouds?

Or should humanity limit its population, and if so, how do you think we should go about doing it?
I'd be prepared to say that most democratic governments would not survive an attempt to force couples to have only one child. But perhaps it could be encouraged, as large families once were. I don't know if that would even help, but it may.

I apologize if this has been hashed out here before.

[shadron]

China tried it, but, as you say, it wasn't popular, even in an oligarchy. Think, if you wall about some genrations of people without brothers sisters, cousins, aunt or uncles, nephews or nieces. I do suppose it's less birthdays to worry about.

[Francesca R]

;4153531']Do you think there are too many people on this planet? Do you think that governments should encourage couples to have only one child between them, or even enforce it?No and no. A lot of governments actually encourage adults to have children, and the financial breaks increase as you have more than two.

It has occurred to me (courtesy of a thoroughly depressing but probably valuable course in cultural anthropology they make us engineering students take) that the sheer numbers of humans either is or will shortly overwhelm our ability to provide for the people (as a species).It has occurred to a lot of people, from Thomas Malthus through to Paul Erlich. And it is a scenario, but not the only one and probably not even a probable one.

In other words, our numbers do not appear to be sustainable.What evidence are you using?

My sister thinks I'm nuts (actually, the word she used was "[rule 10]ing stupid"), that there is no problem and everything will be fine.It is equally "nuts" to assume everything will be fine, as if by wishful thinking, or "the ingenuity of human kind will fix it up". A lot of people assume that, but it is not a given either.

I do not think I can justify having more than one child, if I have any at all.I think I could justify having as many children as I wanted, although I don't have any. I even admire people who have three or four or five kids. I think they are doing something great. I have never understood animosity to people who have more than two kids.

Or should humanity limit its population, and if so, how do you think we should go about doing it?At a concept level, it seems hugely superior to me to engineer conditions for a higher population to exist than to limit it. (Some Isaac Asimov essay is popping into my mind now, but I can't remember what it's called. Something about humans expanding to fill the galaxy and also becoming more "virtual" than physical at the same time . . . someone will know what I mean)

I'd be prepared to say that most democratic governments would not survive an attempt to force couples to have only one child. But perhaps it could be encouraged, as large families once were. I don't know if that would even help, but it may.You do realise that more democratic governments are (financially) encouraging more children not less, correct? Fertility rates are well below replacement rate in Spain, Italy, Germany and Japan for example. The larger (closer at hand) socio-economic problem facing these countries is a putative decline in future wealth and an excessive burden on the working-age population to support increasing numbers of less productive elderly. That looms larger in the focus of politicians than does exhaustion or environmental endowments (but even then, not spectacularly large since it is a problem beyond most electoral time-frames)

[Madalch]

Redcution? Is that like execution or electrocution, only you're killing people with the colour red?

[Bikewer]

I agree that the population at present is likely too large, and will continue to grow larger.
They had the author of The Population Bomb on Science Friday a few weeks ago; if you recall that book published some ten years ago predicted dire results from the growth of the population.
Ira Flatow asked, "What happened? Your predictions seem to be off."
The fellow pointed out that all of his predictions were coming to pass, just somewhat more slowly.
We are in the middle of an "extinction event" that may rival any of the huge extinctions of pre-history. The death rate in third-world countries from disease and starvation is staggering. We are on the verge of wars being fought over water and other scarce resources in many places in the world..... One could go on and on.

However, there appears to be no solution whatever at this point. Some "developing" nations see a large population as their only resource. Humans are very strongly motivated to reproduce; it's a basic biological drive. Societies still have a strong positive reaction to large families....
I can't imagine any scheme that would result in limiting populations, save for world-wide prosperity. Prosperous folks in technologically-advanced countries tend to have fewer kids, as they are more assured of survival, and are also vastly expensive to raise.

Good luck with that....

[quarky]

death controls are the missing ingredient.
In my utopian fantasy, biological mathmeticians would determine the exit age.
Suppose it turned out to be 70 years old.
A system of social welfare would exist to make your last 5 years of life almost heavenly.
then you die.

A spirituality, of sorts would evolve, so that the death ceremony would be optomistic; good; sane; responsible.

Endless loopholes and exceptions would exist...if someone died at 30, his extra years could be bought or traded to someone else that wanted to live longer.

[Beerina]

;4153531']Similar to Danish Dynamite's thread, but not quite.


Do you think there are too many people on this planet?


No. There's a reason Julian Simon named his book The Ultimate Resource: People (http://juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/), Materials, and Environment.

In a free society, the more the better.

Why? Because there's all the more people inventing things, including solutions to problems. To say nothing of the advantages of production of scale.

"Oh no! Overpopulation!" should be left on the ash heap of history alongside snake oil, psychics, religion, and other frauds.

[TMiguel]

This is a very serious issue, and many are trying to discredit it. People think that over population is when you can’t put more people on the dry surface of the earth, they forget about everything else. The human species puts the environment pressure very high, and it wouldn’t be the first time some species in history had a population boom just to end up starving itself to extinction.
People forget that we also need to eat, what we eat also needs to eat, also needs to reproduce in order to maintain a stable population (even after we eat them, and whatever our food is eating). We currently are not even able to sustain the world’s human population and much less to support a 1/10 of the rest of the population if not for the amazing amount of dedicated infrastructure just to develop food.
And this is just for food, we need air, habitation, sanitation, etc…
Adding the fact that a big chunk of the planet is not capable to support any of this, things don’t look so good for us.
People think that we will eventually work it out. The problem is that such people are dethatched for the real world and forget that some one has to put an enormous amount of effort, time, resources to come up whit such a solution, and that is if we can work it out by the time we need it or even if there is a solution for all that (which you have no guarantee of). If a solution comes along good, but we are only delaying the problem, and what we can not afford to do is to wait for a “hero to come along to get ourselves out of the tracks before the train hits us”.

The way we currently have to work thing out is not pretty, nor good for anyone, but it’s the only thing we got. For now we live along whit to much to worry, but a time shall come where you have to face the problem.

[Amapola]

In all these scenarios, most people (not all, though) don't say anything about water. I live in the mountain west in the US and there is just not enough water. In the west we see that agricultural interests are slowly losing to development interests... water that has for generations been traditionally used for farming is now being sent to population centers. Well, that's a good stop-gap measure, maybe, but you can't just keep doing that. That's not sustainable.

You can come up with better ways to grow food or ways to fit more people in less space, but unless the issue of water is addressed I would not see that as a very good long-term solution. At the coasts, desalination could be used. But the interior of the continents would not be helped much by that.

[Iconoclast08]

TMiguel is correct. While I don't necessarily buy into the Sierra Club/Population Bomb version of the inevitable "standing room only" reality, this is not an issue that should just be ignored or disparaged with the typical "woo-woo-woo-snake-oil-religion-Bigfoot-la-la-la" knee-jerk, crippled B.S. response of this lazy, dismissive ilk:

"Oh no! Overpopulation!" should be left on the ash heap of history alongside snake oil, psychics, religion, and other frauds.

Well, unless this is just being flippant, I am skeptical of your extreme skepticism.

There is a reasonable middle-ground between this type of laziness and the alarmist "Earth is a sinking lifeboat" hysteria on the old Johnny Carson shows. While it is certainly a legitimate point that human technological innovativeness may help reduce environmental stress, it is disingenuous and naive to think that this will perpetually offset population increases and the concomitant increases in consumption per capita per se. Agricultural techniques aren't cheap, and widespread pollution, land desertification, and water contamination doesn't make the struggle any easier.

I think there is enough uncertainty here to be skeptical of overly dismissive claims that overpopulation "just isn't a problem, 'nuff said".

[Francesca R]

Why? Because there's all the more people inventing things, including solutions to problems. To say nothing of the advantages of production of scale.But to think that technological progress will save, or even has saved, populations every time, is to believe in something with quasi-religious faith.

Such faith is better on the ash heap of history, next to the extinct societies that already prove how deluded it is. :)

[technoextreme]

In all these scenarios, most people (not all, though) don't say anything about water. I live in the mountain west in the US and there is just not enough water. In the west we see that agricultural interests are slowly losing to development interests... water that has for generations been traditionally used for farming is now being sent to population centers. Well, that's a good stop-gap measure, maybe, but you can't just keep doing that. That's not sustainable.

You can come up with better ways to grow food or ways to fit more people in less space, but unless the issue of water is addressed I would not see that as a very good long-term solution. At the coasts, desalination could be used. But the interior of the continents would not be helped much by that.
True a lot of farmers in that area use flood irrigation in that area which is a freaking horrible way to farm.
Such faith is better on the ash heap of history, next to the extinct societies that already prove how deluded it is.
Name the societies because I can't even think of any societies that would fit your basis of reality. All I can think of is the exact converse of your opinion. There have been more times in history where a lack of understanding of science killed off huge globs of humanity. Which society are you talking about?

[Bikewer]

Perhaps the technological revolution envisioned in the thoroughly tongue-in-cheek sci-fi book, The Great Explosion.
A lunatic inventor accidentally invents a cheap, reliable FTL drive.

Soon, all the loonies, cults, splinter groups, ethnic minorities, and so forth take off into space in search of "their" perfect planet.

100 years later, the Earth sends out an ambassadorial mission to touch bases with her scattered children. Hilarity ensues....

[X]

Cool! I created a controversial topic! This should be a good thread.



I should probably clarify that my point is more along the lines of what Amapola and TMiguel have commented.

That is to say, resources are finite, and somewhere along the way we won't be able to sustain our numbers.

Hence, by overpopulation, I am referring to numbers greater than can be handled by the Earths resources.

One has to look at all the resources and land use necessary to sustain our way of life.

Overfishing is one example of a very current problem. Why is it a problem? Too much demand.
in this case, sacrifices will have to be made.
But just try getting the individual fishermen to see it that way. A few may, but most will not. Nobody views their particular impact as being large enough to warrant action. But the combined effect of thousands of such small impacts makes for collapsing fish stocks.

Sure, science and technology help, but for how long? And at what cost?

Do you really want to put faith in it "finding a way"?


And I am well aware of government encouragements to have more kids.
The question I asked (or was trying to ask) was should humanity make an effort to curb its population growth? Possibly with the help of government endorsement (either passive or active).


For the record: I have no animosity toward people with large families. I just don't think I can personally justify adding to the net population.

[technoextreme]

;4154975']

That is to say, resources are finite, and somewhere along the way we won't be able to sustain our numbers.

Hence, by overpopulation, I am referring to numbers greater than can be handled by the Earths resources.

Argument from ignorance? What your claiming could happen must happen really soon because no one says that the population is going to keep on increasing. I read that it's going to stop growing in a few years from now.

[Tapio]

People forget that we also need to eat, what we eat also needs to eat, also needs to reproduce in order to maintain a stable population (even after we eat them, and whatever our food is eating). We currently are not even able to sustain the world’s human population and much less to support a 1/10 of the rest of the population if not for the amazing amount of dedicated infrastructure just to develop food.
And this is just for food, we need air, habitation, sanitation, etc…
Adding the fact that a big chunk of the planet is not capable to support any of this, things don’t look so good for us.

Yaa...sounds pretty pessimistic to me, but that's okay. I often find the strength to search for new innovations and solutions, propelled by such thinking.

Anyway, it seems to me you haven't thoroughly thought of what you write on eating. I, for example (and dozens of people I know), haven't eaten the skin, flesh, bone, guts, blood etc. of ANY edible animal for many years, and I'm not about to start doing so as long as I live (unless I'm, due to some catastrophe, forced to hunt just to stay alive). This is also the way we're growing our kids (three under three-year-olds). Of course, when they get older, they can choose to become vegans, omnivores, fruitarians or whatever they like (first needing to prove it to be the better alternative).

Here's (http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/vegetarian.html) one compilation on the physical side of vegetarianism (I've been, and will be examining various other resources as well. This was the most concise one (though there's quite a few points I'd like to see cross-checked) I found at the moment):

That text being solely concentrated on the medical side of it, there's naturally nothing about one of the main reasons why so many people (who have the choice) choose to live "free of meat".

To us vegetarians, one of the most horrendously absurd ways we humans choose to make our life (as a whole) on Earth endangered, is the mass-production of livestock. There's been talk about the sustainability of our planet here, there's been talk about water also.

Check these (http://blog.oregonlive.com/pdxgreen/2008/02/eat_your_greens_earthtalk_talk_1.html) figures out.

I think for someone who believes in a "brighter" tomorrow, and doing in their own life what they would prefer others to be doing also, this might give a booster of some kind. I'm not even going to start on birds and fish and what's happening on that end of the abuse...still have to get some sleep tonight.

Also a phrase from the UN (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink) touches the subject.

So what's all this got to do with overpopulation? Most of you probably get it, but I'll stress the point. I don't think we can stop people from reproducing fast enough. There'll be lots more of us, and the more there are of us, the more how we live affects our environment.

The more we support unsustainable ways of living, the more (lots of more's, eh?) likely we'll end up with a disaster that'll make all the pain in the world today look like a pleasant ride on a bike. One of the most unsustainable ways of living is our (well, not all of ours) overconsumption of meat. Drastically controlling our hedonistic, carnivorous ways may help in giving humankind a second (if not gazillionth) chance.

Vegetarianism (or omnivorism with reduced meat consumption) isn't going to do the trick all by itself, but it looks like one of the most important steps we, as a collective must take, if we're to leave something more to our kids than just a f...ked up world to live fast, and die young in.

Thanks for your time.

[my_wan]

Some quick math tells me that if we moved the entire population of the Earth to Texas we would all have about 1134 square feet or 105 square meters apiece. That's about half the average house size in the US. In principle with highrise apartments, hydroponics buildings etc. it could be managed such that we could all live in Texas alone. Although in principle population can be the culprit in the future it is now an issue of poor resource management. We are simply too economically dependent on resources that are irreplaceable beyond a certain level of use.

There has always been some level of friction between population and available resources. Even tribal societies required large areas to hunt and gather raw materials. When the tribes size exceeded a certain point it was necessary to migrate throughout the year to a varying extent. The industrial revolution lifted traditional constraints and we are just now beginning to recognize that we are once again coming up against those constraints. These constraints are a norm of all life that we humans got a temporary reprieve from at an unknown environmental cost. We are still a long ways from hitting any limit.

The present "green" movement may thus far be based as much on ideology as usable data but it is the start of a direction that the future will absolutely require. I don't think the resource friction is getting any better from this point forward but that's life. We will continue to progress.

[technoextreme]

Yaa...sounds pretty pessimistic to me, but that's okay. I often find the strength to search for new innovations and solutions, propelled by such thinking.

Anyway, it seems to me you haven't thoroughly thought of what you write on eating. I, for example (and dozens of people I know), haven't eaten the skin, flesh, bone, guts, blood etc. of ANY edible animal for many years, and I'm not about to start doing so as long as I live (unless I'm, due to some catastrophe, forced to hunt just to stay alive). This is also the way we're growing our kids (three under three-year-olds). Of course, when they get older, they can choose to become vegans, omnivores, fruitarians or whatever they like (first needing to prove it to be the better alternative).

Here's (http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/vegetarian.html) one compilation on the physical side of vegetarianism (I've been, and will be examining various other resources as well. This was the most concise one (though there's quite a few points I'd like to see cross-checked) I found at the moment):

That text being solely concentrated on the medical side of it, there's naturally nothing about one of the main reasons why so many people (who have the choice) choose to live "free of meat".

To us vegetarians, one of the most horrendously absurd ways we humans choose to make our life (as a whole) on Earth endangered, is the mass-production of livestock. There's been talk about the sustainability of our planet here, there's been talk about water also.

Check these (http://blog.oregonlive.com/pdxgreen/2008/02/eat_your_greens_earthtalk_talk_1.html) figures out.

I think for someone who believes in a "brighter" tomorrow, and doing in their own life what they would prefer others to be doing also, this might give a booster of some kind. I'm not even going to start on birds and fish and what's happening on that end of the abuse...still have to get some sleep tonight.

Also a phrase from the UN (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink) touches the subject.

So what's all this got to do with overpopulation? Most of you probably get it, but I'll stress the point. I don't think we can stop people from reproducing fast enough. There'll be lots more of us, and the more there are of us, the more how we live affects our environment.

The more we support unsustainable ways of living, the more (lots of more's, eh?) likely we'll end up with a disaster that'll make all the pain in the world today look like a pleasant ride on a bike. One of the most unsustainable ways of living is our (well, not all of ours) overconsumption of meat. Drastically controlling our hedonistic, carnivorous ways may help in giving humankind a second (if not gazillionth) chance.

Actually, that's not true. Farming is just as destructive to the environment than eating meat is.
The present "green" movement may thus far be based as much on ideology as usable data but it is the start of a direction that the future will absolutely require. I don't think the resource friction is getting any better from this point forward but that's life. We will continue to progress.
True. I honestly hate calling it the "green" movement because it tends to get it associated with oddball people.
So what's all this got to do with overpopulation? Most of you probably get it, but I'll stress the point. I don't think we can stop people from reproducing fast enough. There'll be lots more of us, and the more there are of us, the more how we live affects our environment.
It's really quite ironic that you are quoting an organization that estimates that worldwide population growth will stop within our lifetimes.

[quixotecoyote]

Perhaps the technological revolution envisioned in the thoroughly tongue-in-cheek sci-fi book, The Great Explosion.
A lunatic inventor accidentally invents a cheap, reliable FTL drive.

Soon, all the loonies, cults, splinter groups, ethnic minorities, and so forth take off into space in search of "their" perfect planet.

100 years later, the Earth sends out an ambassadorial mission to touch bases with her scattered children. Hilarity ensues....

Sounds interesting enough that I just put in an interlibrary loan request for it.

[my_wan]

True. I honestly hate calling it the "green" movement because it tends to get it associated with oddball people.

"Oddball people" tend to throw fear at an issue and say, "OMG, it all has to be fixed this week for all eternity or else we are doomed, how could people be so dumb". Never mind that it was unfathomable to the people that resolved the past problems that they would be blamed for the problems the solutions eventually caused. The fact is no matter how thoroughly we fix the problem now the future will resurrect it. Oddballs have no relevance with respect to the legitimacy of the issues or the solutions.

[TMiguel]

Population increase is do to the born/death rates, as far as I know it has nothing to do with the people’s subconscious on how many people should our community have. In some developed countries (mainly in Europe), with familiar planning and all that, the population is in fact decreasing, but globally (i.e. the world altogether) that is not happening. If the growth rate is going to decrease it is not because people think that we are enough now, but ratter because of some stupid war or epidemic.
I personally don’t see India, China or whatever developing or under-developed country to have something like birth control, familiar plan, or even a social economic and political change to stop them breading like rabbits.

It does matter if you find away to better use our resources (by the way it is not just food we are talking about), but that is just delaying the problem because sooner or latter the population will outgrow whatever friendly solution we can come with (it is just a matter of time), and even that can only go so far (somewhere you will get to a limit and you can’t go forward anymore).
Of course we shouldn’t run around like crazy thinking that the end of the world is near, neither do I believe that in a near future this is going to be a big problem (well not much more then it currently is now), but that status quo will not last long.

For those who where looking for a previous example of a earlier civilization that got completely wiped (potentially for overpopulation), you might want to take a look at the Mayans.
Ps. Useful wiki links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization

[TMiguel]

I do agree that many environmental associations are painting the picture to black, but that is not an indication that there isn’t a real problem.

Some quick math tells me that if we moved the entire population of the Earth to Texas we would all have about 1134 square feet or 105 square meters apiece. That's about half the average house size in the US. In principle with highrise apartments, hydroponics buildings etc. it could be managed such that we could all live in Texas alone.


That is a bit stretchy idea, but it is mathematically possible. But the mistake here is to think that the size of the planet required to support us is about the size we can build our house in. Even if we eat all vegetables, we would still needs lots of area to create crops to last us for a year of production (plus excess for next year crop production, plus some excess so you don’t starve if some crop gets screwed), then you need an amazing quantity of available fresh water for you and your crops. Then what happens to the waste? (i.e. damaged tools, fesses, stuff that you can’t eat and dead people; supposing that you live naked with noting else but tools and you don’t eat dead people’s bones), you will need a huge area for waste land, plus the support of other types of decomposing creatures to live. Then you need air to breath, and that requires lots and lots of tress. Add the fact that things can not be done everywhere.
Even if there is no other technology, no other kind of exploration or any kind of goods we have now, all of a sudden the American continent (plus any other continent of your choosing) seams a little too crowded.

[technoextreme]

I do agree that many environmental associations are painting the picture to black, but that is not an indication that there isn’t a real problem.



That is a bit stretchy idea, but it is mathematically possible. But the mistake here is to think that the size of the planet required to support us is about the size we can build our house in. Even if we eat all vegetables, we would still needs lots of area to create crops to last us for a year of production (plus excess for next year crop production, plus some excess so you don’t starve if some crop gets screwed), then you need an amazing quantity of available fresh water for you and your crops. Then what happens to the waste? (i.e. damaged tools, fesses, stuff that you can’t eat and dead people; supposing that you live naked with noting else but tools and you don’t eat dead people’s bones), you will need a huge area for waste land, plus the support of other types of decomposing creatures to live. Then you need air to breath, and that requires lots and lots of tress. Add the fact that things can not be done everywhere.
Even if there is no other technology, no other kind of exploration or any kind of goods we have now, all of a sudden the American continent (plus any other continent of your choosing) seams a little too crowded.
Your simplifying it to the other side of the argument. It's somewhere in between your argument and the idea that we can live in Texas.

[my_wan]

I do agree that many environmental associations are painting the picture to black, but that is not an indication that there isn’t a real problem.

That is a bit stretchy idea, but it is mathematically possible. But the mistake here is to think that the size of the planet required to support us is about the size we can build our house in. Even if we eat all vegetables, we would still needs lots of area to create crops to last us for a year of production (plus excess for next year crop production, plus some excess so you don’t starve if some crop gets screwed), then you need an amazing quantity of available fresh water for you and your crops. Then what happens to the waste? (i.e. damaged tools, fesses, stuff that you can’t eat and dead people; supposing that you live naked with noting else but tools and you don’t eat dead people’s bones), you will need a huge area for waste land, plus the support of other types of decomposing creatures to live. Then you need air to breath, and that requires lots and lots of tress. Add the fact that things can not be done everywhere.
Even if there is no other technology, no other kind of exploration or any kind of goods we have now, all of a sudden the American continent (plus any other continent of your choosing) seams a little too crowded.

Yes the math also assumes everybody gets that 105 square meters as surface area. For it to be workable would require high rise apartments taking much less real estate per person. It would also require vertical farms. http://www.verticalfarm.com/ Crops getting "screwed" would be excessively rare grown this way with an immediate turnaround if it did happen. Composting is not just a "waste land" it is an extremely valuable resource for the farms. It can also be tapped for the methane and heat production from decomposition. I remember my grandmother living off her garden about that size, not counting the chickens running everywhere and a few goats, and the only thing she bought was flour, sugar, baking soda, and a few spices. You would be shocked at how much of your food needs can be grown inside your house with lots of oxygen production to boot. Climate control would be extremely efficient if on all sides you are buffered by more climate controlled areas. Energy efficiency would be extreme by todays standards. Refrigeration could be centrally piped to freezer units and leakage controlled to cool the refrigerator and the housing unit itself. The simple fact is that it is technically doable even on such a large scale. Technically we are not even limited to land areas.

Presently in the US it is illegal to reuse treated water directly. It must reenter the waterways and re-pumped from the reservoirs for reuse. This needs to change. If we lock up our water use in a closed or nearly closed loop normal weather will replenish natures water cycle from oceanic evaporation, etc., without us having any or little impact. Our effect on water tables would then be minimal to none. Desalinization would be far more economical if it wasn't dumped back into the environment after a single use. It would also require us to take a more direct responsibility for the contaminates and keep them separate from the environment. Watershed policy encourages, even legally mandates in many cases, that runoff be channeled directly to the basins. This concentrates environmental contaminates, discourages natural ground uptake of the water exacerbating groundwater level loss, and produces flooding in places that would never occur otherwise. Closing our own water cycle would also essentially make us drought proof.

Of course no matter what we do continued population growth will eventually undo any previous solution. It always has been this way and will always remain that way for all life on Earth. It is however, presently and for the foreseeable future, a management issue rather than a population issue. I don't want to be around if that changes too drastically.

[quarky]

Oil has fueled the big growth spurt. Especially in agriculture.
As of now, there is nothing to take its place, but even if there was, and we had fantasticly efficient technology, including our food systems, and we could all fit in Texas...why would that be a good thing? Or why would anyone hope for a future with several times more people?

The myopic aspect of this, even if it was desirable and morally good to populate the whole planet, as thick as that texas with 6 billion people...well, we'd still come right up against the same problem...a maximum sustainable mass of people. At which point, the need for an exit strategy becomes apparent again.

I think we're in fantasy land about our technological know-how. Its very glitzy, and impressive, yet it can barely manage to feed everyone that's already here, and that's with the monsterous benifit of cheap fossil fuels.

Computers are very awesome, and so are airplanes, but that's about it. The nuts and bolts stuff is still very crude. We depend utterly on photosynthesis; a thin layer of topsoil; and ample water. It may look like something much more splendid, but its not.

The notion of our destiny in outer space is laughable, and sad. We are nowhere with that project. It would be a soothing comfort if it was true...this infinite space to breed in. Other planets suck, and they will suck for a very, very long time, if not forever.

meanwhile, we're killing off everything that's beautiful and meaningfull...because we love people so much that we must do all we can to stuff 20 billion more in here?!

why?

[my_wan]

The myopic aspect of this, even if it was desirable and morally good to populate the whole planet, as thick as that texas with 6 billion people...well, we'd still come right up against the same problem...a maximum sustainable mass of people. At which point, the need for an exit strategy becomes apparent again.

It was intentionally myopic to make the point that it's a management issue. Part of that management would be population management in my view. I take our natural environment to be more precious than anything we can do or invent. If we maintain a steady population doubling rate then even this whole galaxy is not big enough in the foreseeable future. Even if we make it to another galaxy it will be filled within a single generation or population doubling period. It's no more unlimited than our forefathers thought the natural world was unlimited. If we don't manage our population nature will just as it has in the past.

Nature manages population at a friction level. Any overly successful species will swamp its resources then either adapt new resources or fall back and start again. It is within our capacity to manage ourselves below this friction level but it will get managed with or without our consent.

[Tapio]

Actually, that's not true. Farming is just as destructive to the environment than eating meat is.

You are wrong. Oh, of course renegade farming done with no knowledge on how things work can constitute to poor results for the environment. If you ment this, I agree. Otherwise I'll take your comment as plain provocation, which I'm not going to go for.

True. I honestly hate calling it the "green" movement because it tends to get it associated with oddball people.

I think it's quite strange how people who genuinely want to keep as good care of this planet as possible on human standards are so often called silly names. Reminds me of school. The smartest one's are always bullied.

It's really quite ironic that you are quoting an organization that estimates that worldwide population growth will stop within our lifetimes.

Hmm. I think I wasn't clear enough. There's a definte language barrier here. I could have written: Mielestäni ihmisten lisääntymistä ei voida estää tarpeeksi nopeasti, jotta sillä voitaisiin vaikuttaa suuren väkimassan tuottamiin tuhoihin. Kun meitä tulee olemaan täällä melko paljon melko pitkään, on mielestäni tärkeää miettiä kestäviä ratkaisuja. If you spoke Finnish, you would've understood what I meant, and the irony you now noticed wouldnt've been present.

I'll try again. I meant, that since there's no way of reducing overall population quickly enough for it to prevent the damage being done NOW, we should think for more sustainable alternatives. NOW. Even if we could stop people from having more than one child, NOW, there would still be left so many of us for quite a while, that we'd still have to think of what should be done with many things bringing us closer to extinction (meat eating being one of top priority).

The UN report link was just to give some light on how well known all what I wrote about is, also on an international level. Is this more clear, mr. extreme?

[technoextreme]

i'll try again. I meant, that since there's no way of reducing overall population quickly enough for it to prevent the damage being done now, we should think for more sustainable alternatives. Now. Even if we could stop people from having more than one child, now, there would still be left so many of us for quite a while, that we'd still have to think of what should be done with many things bringing us closer to extinction (meat eating being one of top priority).

The un report link was just to give some light on how well known all what i wrote about is, also on an international level. Is this more clear, mr. Extreme?
WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT POPULATION GROWTH FOR MUCH LONGER. FOR ALL ACCOUNTS AND PURPOSES IT WILL STOP. I learned this because I read about it in the other thread from the freaking UN.
I think it's quite strange how people who genuinely want to keep as good care of this planet as possible on human standards are so often called silly names. Reminds me of school. The smartest one's are always bullied.
There is a difference between rational thought versus ideology. I tend not to develop an zeal over certain issues because I know it will cloud my ability to think. That UN report attributes a ton of issues and dumps the blame solely on meat eating which is absurd.

[BenBurch]

I do believe our number, even if sustainable, is too many.

We need to encourage all people to have no more than two children, which, being lower than the replacement rate, will ensure a population decrease. I would do this by taxing people less if they stay under the two children mark.

[arthwollipot]

I don't think that the sheer number of people is the problem. I think that the problem is twofold - population distribution and allocation of resources.

There are too many people packed into some areas while other areas are empty. As I just randomly posted in some other thread for no reason other than it crossed my mind at the time, Australia has approximately the land area of the continental United States, but around 10% of the population. A lot of Australia has no-one living on it. At the same time, there are people packed into tiny spaces in India, China and Africa. The high population density in those places is what causes the problems.

There's also the uneven allocation of resources. This is a huge problem in Africa. It's not that there isn't enough food to feed all the people in Africa. It's that they can't get to the food, or the food is not getting to them. This is because of conflict, corruption, or simply incompetent management.

So no. I don't think the number "6.5 billion" is the problem. The fact that it's such a big number causes complications, but I don't think the blame for war, famine, pestilence and death can be attributed to just the number of people.

[psy kick]

But are there not a disporportionate number of elderly now and at some point in the nearish future, they will naturally die, and it will bring the population to a more reasonable level? At least in America?

[arthwollipot]

But are there not a disporportionate number of elderly now and at some point in the nearish future, they will naturally die, and it will bring the population to a more reasonable level? At least in America?That won't work. The issue here is that people are living longer, because of improved health care. That's not something that's really going to go away. The mean lifespan of population will rise to a certain point then stop - it's not going to change direction and come down again because we've lost the skills or the technology for keeping people alive longer.

[TMiguel]

There are too many people packed into some areas while other areas are empty. As I just randomly posted in some other thread for no reason other than it crossed my mind at the time, Australia has approximately the land area of the continental United States, but around 10% of the population. A lot of Australia has no-one living on it.
Mainly because Australia is a Desert, or some natural habitat for a rare specie.
You can't expect people to live in desert worst then the Sahara.

That won't work. The issue here is that people are living longer, because of improved health care. That's not something that's really going to go away. The mean lifespan of population will rise to a certain point then stop - it's not going to change direction and come down again because we've lost the skills or the technology for keeping people alive longer.
If they live longer they can work longer, the issue is not if the newbie can support the elderly, but either if there is going to be enough for both of them.

[arthwollipot]

Mainly because Australia is a Desert, or some natural habitat for a rare specie.
You can't expect people to live in desert worst then the Sahara.The Australian desert is not worse than the Sahara. Agreed, it would need serious infrastructure work in order to support urban-sized communities, but we don't have the endless miles of sand that the Sahara has. We actually have plants and animals in our deserts.

[TMiguel]

The Australian desert is not worse than the Sahara. Agreed, it would need serious infrastructure work in order to support urban-sized communities, but we don't have the endless miles of sand that the Sahara has. We actually have plants and animals in our deserts.
It was an exaggeration to create a dramatic effect, the Australian Desert is not as big or has lifeless has the Sahara, but sure is hotter.

[quarky]

In the U.S., moving people into deserts has been a disaster. It requires enormous resources from elsewhere...like water and power for airconditioning.

Not that it will ever happen, but what we need are incentives to die younger.

[BenBurch]

In the U.S., moving people into deserts has been a disaster. It requires enormous resources from elsewhere...like water and power for airconditioning.

Not that it will ever happen, but what we need are incentives to die younger.

If the future plays out as I expect it will, famine will provide that "incentive."

[TMiguel]

Not that it will ever happen, but what we need are incentives to die younger.
LOL!
No that anyone cares, but the age of the community is not a problem. That can simply be fixed whit active/non-active ratios of the population whit the production-per-capita ratios. The problem is the total capacity of production versus total population.

[Tapio]

WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT POPULATION GROWTH FOR MUCH LONGER. FOR ALL ACCOUNTS AND PURPOSES IT WILL STOP. I learned this because I read about it in the other thread from the freaking UN.

Yes. That's what I meant. I too have read the "freaking UN" papers. My point was, that although population growth will stop, there will still be left a considerable amount of people here on Earth for quite a while BEFORE any effects of people not having as many kids will be visible.

So it's still an urgent issue to re-evaluate and -create our way of living.

There is a difference between rational thought versus ideology. I tend not to develop an zeal over certain issues because I know it will cloud my ability to think. That UN report attributes a ton of issues and dumps the blame solely on meat eating which is absurd.

The UN isn't blaming it ALL on meat eating. But if you REALLY look at the figures (have you, really, from various sources?) you will see (unless you're just completely unable to understand what your reading, no offense) that by reducing meat eating we could support our level of population in a more effective manner.

[G-K-4]

I personally don’t see India, China or whatever developing or under-developed country to have something like birth control, familiar plan [family planning], or even a social economic and political change to stop them breading like rabbits.
First of all, I encourage you to rethink your assertion that "we" have children while "they" breed like animals. :mad: I take it that you are neither Chinese nor Indian?

Second, you do not see the changing demographics of the developing world because you are not looking. Your stereotypes of these two particular countries is plain wrong, at best out-of-date. China's rate of fertility per woman was 5.7 in 1970. In 2002 it was down to 1.4. India went from 4.9 in 1981 to 2.8 in 2004. That's a very significant reduction. The replacement rate, to maintain a constant population, is about 2.1.

You can find these statistics and many more in the data table at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldfertility2007/worldfertility2007.htm

As for breading, which is what you actually wrote, I personally like bread.


In some developed countries (mainly in Europe), with familiar [family] planning and all that, the population is in fact decreasing, but globally (i.e. the world altogether) that is not happening. If the growth rate is going to decrease it is not because people think that we are enough now, but ratter [rather] because of some stupid war or epidemic.

Oh, but the worldwide human population growth rate actually is declining. It Has been for years. Sure, the absolute number of people is increasing, but not as quickly as it once did. We're still pressing the gas pedal, but we aren't pressing it as hard as we once were.

I refer to the spreadsheet already cited. In the period 1970-1975, total fertility per woman was 4.5. In the period 2000-2005 it was 2.6. That's significant. It's still higher than replacement rate, so the world's human population is growing, but not as fast as it was in the bad old days. And the middle forecast is that we'll get down to replacement in the middle of this century, around 9.1 billion people.

BBC: World population growth 'falling' (23 March, 2004) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3560433.stm


How does this happen? How can we encourage people to have fewer kids? A lot of it comes from empowering women, socially, educationally, economically, and politically. When we help women around the world protect their human rights many positive consequences follow. These affect the birthrate.

UNFPA: Empowering Women
http://www.unfpa.org/gender/empowerment.htm


And are these high human populations putting a lot of stress on our biological support system? Yes, but. Yes, but the antiquated consumption habits of the still-merely-industrialized societies arguably cause more harm than a simple headcount would suggest. It's not just numbers but consumption patterns. We in the Global North need to develop economies that circulate resources in a loop, develop land-use planning that is practical for permanent settlement, and develop socially so that our comfortable people seek "better" instead of simply "more". But maybe that's a debate for another thread.

[TMiguel]

First of all, I encourage you to rethink your assertion that "we" have children while "they" breed like animals. :mad: I take it that you are neither Chinese nor Indian?
This was a figurative exaggeration to create impact, not a discriminatory act of any sort.


Second, you do not see the changing demographics of the developing world because you are not looking. Your stereotypes of these two particular countries is plain wrong, at best out-of-date. China's rate of fertility per woman was 5.7 in 1970. In 2002 it was down to 1.4. India went from 4.9 in 1981 to 2.8 in 2004. That's a very significant reduction. The replacement rate, to maintain a constant population, is about 2.1.

Oh, but the worldwide human population growth rate actually is declining. It Has been for years. Sure, the absolute number of people is increasing, but not as quickly as it once did. We're still pressing the gas pedal, but we aren't pressing it as hard as we once were.
Reducing the rate at which it happens just delays the escalating problem, it does not solve it. Has for those data, I want to know where you get it, because if you go to Wikipedia for example India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) had more then 10% increase of population in the last 7 years, which by rough estimate it will double its population in less then 70 years. As you see, some how your data is not coherent.

As for the modernization of consumption habits, as it has been stated before, will only last for a while.

[quarky]

If the future plays out as I expect it will, famine will provide that "incentive."

Exactly. Or war, disease, etc.

Yet if we are to take seriously our urge to eliminate those 'evils', we will need to find a viable exit plan.

The problem exists, or will, despite the possibility of lowering the birth rate.
Its true that a stasis could be reached , through minimizing reproduction, but that would lead to a society of mostly old people. (assuming continued advancements in longevity, safety, etc)

Here's another way to look at it:
Suppose we learn to beat aging entirely, and remain productive and fertile for hundreds of years...at a stable global population.

Its easy to see where that would lead, not fun.
Where we're headed is less extreme, but similar flavor.

[Hindmost]

Reasonable projections on population indicate 8-9 billion people by 2050. A more immediate view...every four years, the equivalent of the US population is added to the planet. Considering that over 80% of our energy needs come from finite resources, there just has to be a tipping point. Malthus and his ilk just have the time table a bit off.

Technical inovation can stall some of the problems, but not eliminate them. Energy is still subject to the laws of thermo and it will be difficult to extract enough energy for the total population. Food production and distribution relies on cheap energy. The world economy was based on cheap energy.

The DOE projects that energy use will grow by 50% by 2030...that's a bunch of quads.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html


glenn

[G-K-4]

This was a figurative exaggeration to create impact, not a discriminatory act of any sort.

I see. Please be more careful in future.


Reducing the rate at which it [population growth] happens just delays the escalating problem, it does not solve it.

They say you have to walk before you can run. I would add that you have to stop speeding up before you can stand still. Reducing the rate at which population grows hastens the day when it slows to the replacement rate.

Securing women's rights worldwide is a concrete, positive strategy with both immediate and long-term benefits. It's certainly more productive than worrying about mass death.

And after we achieve zero population growth 40 or 50 years from now, I would expect the global trend to resemble those we have today in North America and Western Europe. Global fertility could be below replacement level in the second half of this century. Then we as a species can begin discussing how large we choose our population to be.

Will it have taken too long to get to that point? Yes. Will we lose a huge amount of the natural world? Yes. But does this mean that the problem will continue to escalate forever? No. Nor does this mean that the first steps to fixing the problem have not already been taken.


Has for those data, I want to know where you get it, because if you go to Wikipedia for example India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) had more then 10% increase of population in the last 7 years, which by rough estimate it will double its population in less then 70 years. As you see, some how your data is not coherent.

I refer to the spreadsheet already cited. To wit: the data table at
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldfertility2007/worldfertility2007.htm

For more data about India, call up the table for that country from here: http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=3

You will see that their population growth rate for 2000 was 1.62% and for 2005 it was 1.46%. These are small percentages, but small percentages of very large numbers of people. (1,046,235,000 in 2000 and 1,134,403,000 in 2005.) I just checked the math and the numbers do check out. That's why you've been seeing big jumps.

However...

You will also find in that table that India's population growth rate peaked at 2.3 a third of a century ago. Fertility rates have been declining for more than half a century. These are different numbers, and you may want to read up on their definitions ( http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=7 ). But even though I am not a professional demographer it seems pretty clear to me that India's population growth is decelerating, even as their population is growing. In my amateur, back-of-the-computer, rough calculation, around 2080 India's population may peak at around 1,670,000,000, unless something awful happens in the meantime. I don't expect it to double from what it is now.


One last thing. To help you visualize this social change around the world, look at this video from the TED conferences. http://videos.howstuffworks.com/ted-conferences/1734-hans-rosling-talks-at-ted-about-the-world-population-video.htm

The presenter has some interesting graphics, and there are more at his organization's website. (Just remember that some of the axes on their site are logarithmic.) But this video itself shows the shifts in fertility plotted against life expectancy. It's very encouraging.


My ultimate point is that we don't have to wait until some future decade, or wait for life-wasting catastrophe, to improve the population trends. Empower women everywhere, and the current good trends will improve faster and build on each other.

-------------

Hey, that was my 300th post!

[angelsaramark]

X, propaganda is an age old art form. Try reading about Bernays (made the world eat bacon and eggs for breakfast) who is the father of modern propaganda. Regarding influenced persons, this forum is replete with clean brains from population reductionaries to Global Warmingiacs to whatever the unseen hand with a hidden agenda wants disseminated. So be quick to think deeply, be suspicious, study it out and then discard it or act. Global warming among other things, is a way for Al Gore to sell carbon indulgences and it's no more credible than the Catholic Church selling get out of hell not-for-free cards. Any idea coming from the top down (big guy) is generally not in the interest of the little guy.

[my_wan]

X, propaganda is an age old art form. Try reading about Bernays (made the world eat bacon and eggs for breakfast) who is the father of modern propaganda. Regarding influenced persons, this forum is replete with clean brains from population reductionaries to Global Warmingiacs to whatever the unseen hand with a hidden agenda wants disseminated. So be quick to think deeply, be suspicious, study it out and then discard it or act. Global warming among other things, is a way for Al Gore to sell carbon indulgences and it's no more credible than the Catholic Church selling get out of hell not-for-free cards. Any idea coming from the top down (big guy) is generally not in the interest of the little guy.

Angelsaramark, this is off topic and a derail. Under the guise of speaking on the issue of "propaganda" you used classic propaganda techniques. You mixed "population reductionaries" with "Global Warmingiacs" to not even marginally excuse the switch and bait to your topic of choice. You put a label on your skeptics to imply a stereotype of all your skeptics, "Global Warmingiacs". You then defined an archetype to go with your label and defined the motives, "sell carbon indulgences". You continued to imply the motives through renaming defined concepts, credits/indulgences, etc. You tailored your appeal to the audiences general lack of religion for emotional impact. Finally you finished with big guy equals bad and little guy equals good to appeal the the emotions of the mass.

Seems you do know a little about propaganda. Get lost, study your critics point of view as if it were fact that you honestly believe, then maybe you can come back and make a reasonable case. Till then just get lost.

[Iconoclast08]

<snip> this forum is replete with clean brains from population reductionaries [sic] to Global Warmingiacs [make me sic(k)] to whatever the unseen hand with a hidden agenda [my emphasis] wants disseminated. <snip>

Honk if you're in the Illuminati.

:)

[Miss_Kitt]

Some interesting posts here.

First of all, I agree with G-K-4's assertion that the global population increase RATE is slowing, though the population is of course still growing. As a society becomes more developed; as women become more educated and empowered; as medical knowledge and supplies become more available; as a nation "grows up", the rate of reproduction slows dramatically. Indeed, in many countries (including America) the native-born population is already below replacement rate, but immigration (and the offspring of those who have immigrated) keeps the population growing slightly. Similar demographics face the Scandanavian countries and Western Europe. Japan, with its cultural aversion to immigrants, is facing a gigantic working-age population shortage.

Another factor impacting global population growth--not unimportant, however sad it may be-- is that much of Africa is in the grip of an unimaginable AIDS epidemic. Add in the warfare, organized or guerilla, that is also decimating the (normal reproductive age) population, and you are slicing off a big contribution to world population growth. You are also removing one of the areas that would in a more benevolent circumstance be a big contributor to the solution. The developing world is not terribly efficient in its use of resources--though idiocies like growing rice in California certainly occur in the developed nations--and education, planning and implementation of more sustainable agricultural practices will be a boon.

Regarding a comment made earlier about overfishing, a recent article in The Economist referenced a study comparing fisheries that are controlled by some form of ownership-sharing agreement versus those that aren't. To paraphrase, once fishermen have a guarantee of a certain percentage of the harvest, they suddenly have a vested interest in expanding the population and keeping it healthy over the long term. A similar approach to water rights needs to be applied; and the concept of fisheries ownership needs to be expanded.

The problem of a growing human population on a limited globe is certainly challenging, but I think it is not insurmountable. I think that omnivorous diet is natural to Homo sapiens, but certainly the standard American (and most Europeans) 's diet is too high in meat for either health or wise use of resources.

Investing in more sustainable practices, and using tax incentives to promote them--the current US agricultural policies and the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) discourage efficient use of land and other resources--should be able to get us to a point of reasonable equilibrium.

Famine, historically, has been more a product of food not getting to those who need it (often with the government / warlord / crony network obstructing it for political or personal gain) rather than a lack of food being grown. Throw in some bad policies, like punishing those who store food to sell in times of shortage as "speculators" and you can rapidly destroy a previously functional food economy.

So I guess I can be counted into the, "Neither rosy glasses nor gloom and doom" column on this.

[arthwollipot]

It was an exaggeration to create a dramatic effect, the Australian Desert is not as big or has lifeless has the Sahara, but sure is hotter.Really? I don't know. It might be, but I wouldn't have thought so.

In the U.S., moving people into deserts has been a disaster. It requires enormous resources from elsewhere...like water and power for airconditioning.Yes, and therein lies the problem with my proposal. :(

Hmm. "Carbon indulgences" is a nice term. I happen to be skeptical of carbon trading as a "solution" to climate change, so I may even use that.

[Tapio]

G-K-4, very good statements indeed! I'm especially interested in the ways we can offer sufficent education to women in developing countries.

A while ago I saw a documentary on how the situation of killing baby girls (or just letting them die) in Asia has gone from bad to worse. It was stated that this horrible behaviour is due to several reasons, of which the most important one had all to do with irrational, age-old beliefs (combined with marriage related issues, that also have their root in irrationality), surprise surprise.

Anyway, in this (fairly well made and seemingly reliable) documentary they gave an estimated number on how the amount of women in Asia is "missing" approximately 200 000 women compared to the amount of men (argh, this English is killing me, I hope you get the point). In the doc they found several villages around the countrysides of India, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh that don't have a single girl baby/child anywhere nearby, but are inhabited solely by men of whom most haven't even seen a live woman, other than their mother, in years.

This is all making the situation for the few women in these areas intolerable. You can only think of a situation where dozens of young men are living with virtually no contact with women and one day they are visited by a rare family with a couple of young daughters...the reports on what's happening over there are, well, uncomprihensibly horrible.

I don't have time right now to dig up statistics on the subject, but I've seen enough evidence (other than this one documentary also) to believe that the problem is real. If so, this must affect the birthrate in Asia. On the long run, drastically. The only way to prevent this madness from continuing is education, education, education. (On the oher hand, people campaining for tight birthcontrol must shout out in glee when hearing all this)

To me the saddest part of the documentary was, when a project to educate people on this subject was started in a certain area in the countryside of Pakistan, it all stalled (and eventually had to be stopped at some places) with the village elders (all men) not allowing any of the "heretic" material to be tought to their daughters. For them it was the "will of God" that, for example, if a woman gives birth to two baby girls in a row, the second one is to be killed soon after birth with a lethal dose of nicotine.

The picture of a young mother, numb with pain, with her own daughter in her arms, whom she had just murdered, and around her the older women of the village, all weeping desperately, is something I'll remember for the rest of my life.

Thoughts on this and the effect it has on the OP?

[Moochie]

Apparently, all our arguments may be moot:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081029/WWF_report_081029/20081029?hub=SciTech


M.

[technoextreme]

The UN isn't blaming it ALL on meat eating. But if you REALLY look at the figures (have you, really, from various sources?) you will see (unless you're just completely unable to understand what your reading, no offense) that by reducing meat eating we could support our level of population in a more effective manner.
Actually, I'll put this in a blunt way after I discovered the stupids that come out of the organization. The UN supports woo. I'm not going to believe anything that comes from an organization that has the objectivity of a two year old. Now please show me better evidence (Read: An actual research paper).

[Tapio]

Hi techno!

I'm not an expert, so if you have enlightening comments regarding these texts, please, bring them forth! If they're not close enough (or you can't find your way through them to something that is) to what you meant by "actual research paper", please tell me what will qualify.

Here's the first four articles I found. If your not happy with them, I'll search for more (there are actually surprisingly many studies done on the subject).

New Scientist (http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19526134.500)

The International Development Research Center (http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-30610-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html)

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&adxnnlx=1201557617-s0Ldyv9%20%20REuiHDyMfVkfA)

The University Of Chicago (http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060413.diet.shtml)

Now, would you care to show me the evidence on what you told about the UN, and elaborate a bit more on how you seem to think everyone in there is involved in this woo supporting in such a manner, that you won't trust anything they report? This matter interests me in great detail.

[technoextreme]

Now, would you care to show me the evidence on what you told about the UN, and elaborate a bit more on how you seem to think everyone in there is involved in this woo supporting in such a manner, that you won't trust anything they report? This matter interests me in great detail.
I posted another link in the forum. It basically comes down to one sentence. They are providing fodder for creationists. At that point I'm not going to believe anything because you're supporting causes that end up hurting scientists than not. The only reason why I'm skeptical is because I know it's not a zero sum game. Any organic matter is capable of producing methane. Cows or plants.

[CapelDodger]

Sounds interesting enough that I just put in an interlibrary loan request for it.

Check out Jack Vance - the Demon Prince series, Araminta Station, Big Planet. Jack Vance combines the splintering effect with Deep Time, and applies a remarkable imagination to the mix.

[CapelDodger]

LOL!
No that anyone cares, but the age of the community is not a problem. That can simply be fixed whit active/non-active ratios of the population whit the production-per-capita ratios. The problem is the total capacity of production versus total population.

Exactly. If the older population invests in the productivity of the younger generation there's no problem.

[Dragoonster]

Reasonable projections on population indicate 8-9 billion people by 2050. A more immediate view...every four years, the equivalent of the US population is added to the planet. Considering that over 80% of our energy needs come from finite resources, there just has to be a tipping point. Malthus and his ilk just have the time table a bit off.

Technical inovation can stall some of the problems, but not eliminate them. Energy is still subject to the laws of thermo and it will be difficult to extract enough energy for the total population. Food production and distribution relies on cheap energy. The world economy was based on cheap energy.

The DOE projects that energy use will grow by 50% by 2030...that's a bunch of quads.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html


glenn

Yep. We're far from overpopulated now, but we certainly will be in the future, without any widespread effort to reduce birth-rates. I think initiatives like China's one-child policy are a peek into the future rather than an aberation, even if growth rates slow, any positive growth will eventually stretch capacity.

I don't think we'll have to worry about it for decades, perhaps centuries or even millenia. But it's not woo, and will probably be a future problem if there aren't enforced population measures. Or of course, if a "free-energy" system whose input comes from off-planet is developed.

An interesting look at this "energy crunch" is the Kardashev Scale. It's very far-forward thinking, but may still be relevant if Type I civilizations are subdivided further. Such as an oceanic Type I and how close we are to burning its resources out.

Without any tech to get Earth folks to a Type II, the question is how close we're able to get to Type I without a massive kill-off, ruthless though necessary population controls, or terrible environmental repercussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

[Tapio]

The only reason why I'm skeptical is because I know it's not a zero sum game. Any organic matter is capable of producing methane. Cows or plants.

Most certainly. Of course, methane isn't nearly the only thing we have to take into concern. As far as I can understand, one of the main points for re-evaluating our global livestock(and poultry, fish etc.) industry is, that we're using (and destroying) so much valuable space and energy (not even mentioning the amount of water and hardware) to grow food for our food, instead of straight forwardly growing us food.. Am I making any sense? In the end, the former way of getting people fed definetely produces more waste of every kind than the latter. This is what I understand all the studies and articles on the subject are trying to prove.

I'll stress this one more time. I'm not a fanatic stop-all-kinds-of-animal-use person. From all that I've studied on this subject, it's just become clear to me that on a large scale we need to re-evaluate and -create the ways in which we use meat as food for humans. And that this is a necessary thing to do if we are to keep the planet in a somewhat enjoyable condition for the next generations.

[Hindmost]

Yep. We're far from overpopulated now, but we certainly will be in the future, without any widespread effort to reduce birth-rates. I think initiatives like China's one-child policy are a peek into the future rather than an aberation, even if growth rates slow, any positive growth will eventually stretch capacity.

I don't think we'll have to worry about it for decades, perhaps centuries or even millenia. But it's not woo, and will probably be a future problem if there aren't enforced population measures. Or of course, if a "free-energy" system whose input comes from off-planet is developed.

An interesting look at this "energy crunch" is the Kardashev Scale. It's very far-forward thinking, but may still be relevant if Type I civilizations are subdivided further. Such as an oceanic Type I and how close we are to burning its resources out.

Without any tech to get Earth folks to a Type II, the question is how close we're able to get to Type I without a massive kill-off, ruthless though necessary population controls, or terrible environmental repercussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

I think we are closer to a tipping point when it comes to over population. Although there is sufficient land to grow food etc, we need lots of energy and lots of water to oroduce, transport and refrigerate all of it.

This special issue of the Scientific American may be interesting. After hearing about it on their podcast, I am going to download it.

http://www.sciam.com/special-editions/

glenn

[The_Animus]

Population is directly related to food supply. Increased food supply = increased population. Stable food supply = stable population. Decreased food supply = decreased population.

[Dragoonster]

Population is directly related to food supply. Increased food supply = increased population. Stable food supply = stable population. Decreased food supply = decreased population.

Yep, and this'll be the first population crunch, perhaps in this century, and unless we check it with foresight before it happens.

In the future though to take the place of direct foodstuff we could all be wearing IV bags full of vitamins/nutrients that are either synthesized or taken directly from mining/distillation operations. Food supply could become energy supply, where the resource is non-organic elements in the earth itself (or built from nuclear/subnuclear/space/etc). It might be possible for humans to survive as the only organic matter on the planet...if helpful bacteria could be replaced, and if we could also replace the CO2 and other helpful global environmental effects of other organics. Not a nice outlook, and avoided with population controls, or mitigated by off-planet migration. But who knows if our species is capable of doing so at the right times, long-term.

No matter what happens, a lot of non-human species and environments are going to be extinguished, continuing the rise of the last couple millenia and last couple decades. Maybe we'll recreate them too down the road, maybe they'll even be allowed to expand on their own again. In the spirit of this futurist and paranoid post, the priority now should be saving information from our dying planet. The huge seed bank being built is one such thing, not sure if there's a DNA bank?

[Soapy Sam]

All environmental problems, including AGW are a direct consequence of human overpopulation. It doesn't take billions either. For the postglacial megafauna of N.America, the overpopulation limit for humans was only a few tens of thousands of people.

Human birthrate is such an obviously hot potato that no politician dares to mention it.

The single most overwhelmingly positive contribution anyone can make towards limiting environmental impact is to die without issue. Plant some trees while you wait.
Now let's hear how that message can be made palatable to any voter in any nation anywhere.

[Scazon]

The single most overwhelmingly positive contribution anyone can make towards limiting environmental impact is to die without issue.

Come now, that only reduces the population by one or two. Arm the blind! take away their white sticks, and give them Uzis to get along the pavement, and RPGs for use when crossing the road, and subtle little knives for use in crowds. In the land of the armed, the blind man is king!

[CapelDodger]

Angelsaramark, this is off topic and a derail. Under the guise of speaking on the issue of "propaganda" you used classic propaganda techniques. You mixed "population reductionaries" with "Global Warmingiacs" to not even marginally excuse the switch and bait to your topic of choice. You put a label on your skeptics to imply a stereotype of all your skeptics, "Global Warmingiacs". You then defined an archetype to go with your label and defined the motives, "sell carbon indulgences". You continued to imply the motives through renaming defined concepts, credits/indulgences, etc. You tailored your appeal to the audiences general lack of religion for emotional impact. Finally you finished with big guy equals bad and little guy equals good to appeal the the emotions of the mass.

An excellently succint analysis, IMO.

Seems you do know a little about propaganda.

Only by experience, I think.

Get lost, study your critics point of view as if it were fact that you honestly believe, then maybe you can come back and make a reasonable case. Till then just get lost.

I notice there's been no comeback. A good sharp metaphorical poke-on-the-nose can work wonders :). Especially when it's delivered in such an unemotional manner.

What was he thinking :rolleyes:?

[CapelDodger]

Yep. We're far from overpopulated now, but we certainly will be in the future, without any widespread effort to reduce birth-rates.

Cold-bloodedly, it's infant survival rate that's the issue. The greater the infant survival rate the lower the birth-rate - once the society involved gains confidence in it. Improving infant survival doesn't immediately lead to a fall in birth-rate (which is generally controlled by societal norms such as age of marriage) so the effect is a large generation or two of new parents. Even with much lower birth-rates that still means a growing population. Which is the situation we're in now.

I think initiatives like China's one-child policy are a peek into the future rather than an aberation, even if growth rates slow, any positive growth will eventually stretch capacity.

To my mind it already has. China is a place where a government could impose a policy to avoid a predicted problem; there is nothing remotely like the Chinese government for the world as a whole.

I think population growth will be reversed by a sharply deteriorating infant survival rate in exactly the places where it was sharply improved over the last fifty years or so. One of history's nastier jokes.

[The_Animus]

Not a nice outlook, and avoided with population controls, or mitigated by off-planet migration.


Population controls don't work. We can educate people about birth control and give out condoms and prescribe pills and patches all we want. Aside from forced sterilization or extreme government policy like China's one child the population will continue to grow.

More food = more population is a fact of nature and present regardless of species in the community of life. Our ever increasing population requires ever increasing food, water, space, power, and materials with which to build all the buildings necessary to house our culture and to produce the vast amount of useless crap material possessions used to pacify the people and distract them from the ever increasing dissatisfaction with life as a result of the ever increasing problems due to our ever increasing population.

Yeah that probably shouldn't have been one giant sentence but regardless of poor sentence structure if you get the message that's good enough for me.

[angelsaramark]

Suffice it to say that I've been paid in the past to sell the idea of an overpopulated planet. They aren't paying me anymore. Do you think the world might have any problems that aren't being highlighted by the mass media?

[The_Animus]

I think it affects literally everything. Pretty much you name an issue and overpopulation is in some way involved. Crime, drugs, war, religion, corruption, famine, conflict over resources, laws. I think it's completely influenced our social interaction. Compared to when human settlements, tribes, etc. were small communities in which you were one of a few and thus important to the community, now you are one in tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions. You don't matter at all anymore. Before you'd live around and associate with the same people for pretty much your whole life. Now it's just your family and your partner and not even that sometimes. You constantly have people come into your life and leave again as your friendship dies, new job, go to different school, move to a new area, etc.

[Hindmost]

Population controls don't work. We can educate people about birth control and give out condoms and prescribe pills and patches all we want. Aside from forced sterilization or extreme government policy like China's one child the population will continue to grow.

More food = more population is a fact of nature and present regardless of species in the community of life. Our ever increasing population requires ever increasing food, water, space, power, and materials with which to build all the buildings necessary to house our culture and to produce the vast amount of useless crap material possessions used to pacify the people and distract them from the ever increasing dissatisfaction with life as a result of the ever increasing problems due to our ever increasing population.

Yeah that probably shouldn't have been one giant sentence but regardless of poor sentence structure if you get the message that's good enough for me.

Like a bunch of bacteria in a petri dish. We are running out of sugar.

glenn

[arthwollipot]

I have to say here, I never considered China's one child policy to be "extreme". I generally considered it to be a prudent way to address a serious problem. Remember, this is the nation of the Great Leap Forward (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/great_leap_forward.htm).