The root cause of the world's problems

[Tricky]

Thomas Malthus was wrong, but he wasn't very far wrong. He proposed that human reproduction rates were far outstripping the rate at which we increased food production, and that we were due for a major starvation. But thanks to a lot of brilliant people, new crops, new farming techniques and a lot of other innovation, that has not happened, at least not in the time frame he envisioned.

But I propose he was right about one thing; Overpopulation is the major cause of all the problems on this planet. Overpopulation has been a blessing and a curse for technology. It has bred many brilliant minds which have allowed us to find ways around the problems of having a large group of people in a small place, by making agricultural products available to a place with no crops of its own, keeping disease from running rampant, even keeping people occupied when they have comparitively little work to do.

But it is a double-edged sword, and we do not yet know which edge is sharper. Certainly technology has led to pollution (and possibly global warming). For every disease we cure, it seems we find another "syndrome" that results from some strange chemicals that weren't here two hundred years ago.

But a lot of people don't even see the hidden consequences of overpopulation. Sure, it's easy to see starving people in Africa, but look closely, and you will see that these people are having as many children as possible, hoping that some will survive. It is difficult for people living so close to disaster to see the big picture.

What about some of the other things that plague humanity?

War? Wars are fought mostly for territory or resources. There aren't enough of either to go around.

Disease? Disease is most commonly spread as a result of dense concentrations of humanity. Why do you think Hong Kong is the hotbed of SARS?

Famine? This one is pretty obvious.

Natural disaster? You may not think this one has anything to do with population, but it does. Whenever you see a large number of people killed by natural disaster, it is almost always because there was nowhere to go to escape it. In India, typhoons wipe out thousands every few years. Most of them are people who live near the sea in large groups and have nowhere else to go. The Japanese are quite aware that tsunami will come ever so often and destroy the coastlands, but Japan is a very crowded country. People are wiped out in mudslides because they have been forced by overpopulation to build in undesirable places, like on the sides of mountains.

So why is it that so many people, politicians and cultures are against population restriction? I guess because it goes against animal nature. It is natural for all organisms to take a strategy for maximimum reproduction. Nature keeps them under control as a general rule, because they eventually run out of a key ingredient or run out of suitable environment or something else. But with humans, this "populostat" is overriden by our incredible ability to manipulate our environments, at least to some extent. (It has been proposed by many that the increase in homosexuality, which is especially common in large cities, is a result of population pressures, turning many individuals into non-reproducers.)

I don't have an easy solution. Any suggestions?

[Frank Newgent]

Research how the use of trade, firm, or corporation name of a particular prophylactic rubber might pass muster in the Catholic Pages Directory. Any brand commercially endorsed by the Virgin of Guadalupe would help to significantly reduce illegal immigration from Mexico.

Probably have to wait for a Pope Juan Diego...

[Bjorn]

Overpopulation is the major cause of all the problems on this planet. I don't disagree much, but all the problems?

The US have more people per square mile than many poor countries, e.g.:

Zimbabwe
Madagascar
Mozambique
Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Sudan
Algeria
Zambia
Somalia
Papua New Guinea
Angola
Niger
Bolivia
Chad
Central African Republic
Gabon
Guyana
Libya
Suriname
Botswana
Namibia

On the other hand, Bermuda has 40 times more people per square mile than the US, Singapore almost 200 times more, Netherlands 15 times more. Not so poor any of them.

Just trying to say that there must be MANY other causes for all the problems we see. :confused:

War? Wars are fought mostly for territory or resources. There aren't enough of either to go around.Wars have been going on as far back as we have written history - certainly for territory and resources, but not because there weren't enough to go around. Can I mention greed?

Disease? Disease is most commonly spread as a result of dense concentrations of humanity. Why do you think Hong Kong is the hotbed of SARS?Why isn't it New York or LA?

The black plague killed a higher percentage than any other later disease (one third of the population of Europe) - and it was 650 years ago.

Famine? This one is pretty obvious.I'm not sure about this one - but the Bible mentions starving, so it can't be a recent invention? :confused:

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Bjorn

I'm not sure about this one - but the Bible mentions starving, so it can't be a recent invention? :confused:

Remember Joseph with the amazing technicolor dreamcoat? He interpreted a pharoah's dream to mean 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine. However, I'm no theologian and I'm certainly not a broadway regular.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by corplinx


Remember Joseph with the amazing technicolor dreamcoat? He interpreted a pharoah's dream to mean 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine. However, I'm no theologian and I'm certainly not a broadway regular. I had that one on my mind, but memory was vague and I was worried that I would get it all wrong .... :p

[fishbob]

The term that I think of is "Carrying Capacity".

The planet has a limited carrying capacity for humans. But because resources are limited and not evenly distributed, and different cultures react differently to threats and shortages, there will always be groups of humans that are doing just fine, thank you, while the overall numbers of disease and famine victims increase. Some might look at those doing just fine and not notice those who are not, requiring more time to recognize the seriousness of the issue.

I have no useful suggestions, other than this is a subject that needs to be discussed more.

[a_unique_person]

Don't forget that many areas of the planet have been undergoing dessication, or areas that were productive, due to poor farming practices, become unproductive.

Singapore, as a nation, realised that it's only future lay in being a 'knowledge nation'. Education and a civil society were two of it's primary aims. Therefore, although it has almost no natural resources, it has been doing very well economically.

There is no shortage of land, technically, yet nations will spar of the most seemingly insignificant lumps of rock. The Spratley Islands, for instance, (although there are petroleum resources in the sea under them). One of the rocks is so low in the water, it has had to have some concrete poured over it to make it back into an Island. Antarctica has been carved up and allocated. There was a war fought over the Falkand Islands, which are pretty well worthless. Gibraltar, Midway Islands. The list goes on.

The 'Skeptical Environmentalist' has addressed this issue directly, but I think he misses out in two major areas.

1. Politics
2. Statistics.

He lists Australia, for example, as being one of the richest countries in terms of fresh water, yet most of it is a desert. A statistical anomaly, but an indication of how shallow a purely statistical analysis can be.

[Graham]

I don't think overpopulation is the cause of all the problems on this planet.

IMO, along with the other "plagues of mankind" you mention - war, disease and famine (to which might be added hatred on the grounds of race, ethnicity sexual orientation, etc; crime - major and minor; general poverty and a dozen more, all intermingled and crossreferencing) overpopulation is a symptom of the cause of this planets problems rather than a cause. We don't have a problem because the planet is overpopulated, the planet is overpopulated because we have a problem.

IMO (should I underline that to make sure everyone knows this is just an opinon and that I haven't carried out an in-depth analysis nor can I support my opinion with relevant links, etc), in my opinion the cause of all the problems on this planet is human stupidity.

But not just stupidity pure and simple - a very specialised,greedy, selfish kind of stupidity that makes people think of just themselves (or just their family/ street/ neighbourhood/ country/ whatever). The kind of stupidity that makes Saddam Hussein think it's a good thing to enslave an entire nation for his own benefit. The kind of stupidity that makes the EU put up trade barriers against Third World goods and keeps countires buried under mountains of debt to the World Bank. The kind of tupidity that makes Robert Mugabe drive off the only people with the knowledge and abiity to keep his country fed - the kind of stupidity that makes his people follow him. It's the kind of stupidity that makes people into drug addicts, landing them in jail for life after three strikes for petty theft. It's the kind of stupidity that makes people grudge a few bucks every month for starving kids in Africa - or starving kids down the street.

Stupidity is the cause of overpopulation and stupidity is what makes the world "overpopulated" even though we have the resources and facilities to feed and accomodate everyone perfectly adequetly.

Stupidity - it pervades every level and every aspect of human society.

The solution to overpopulation, therefore, is for everyone to cop themselves on and get a bit of sense.

Some hope of that :rolleyes:

Graham

[Richard G]

Human nature is the root casue of mankinds problems. Barring natural disasters of course.

[RandFan]

Hi AUP,

Personally my favorite skeptic in this area was Julian Simon (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n2-1.html) (the Doom-slayer).

The Carter administration published in 1980 its multiagency assessment of the earth’s future, titled Global 2000. Its famous doom-and-gloom forecast that "the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically. . . . and the world’s people will be poorer in many ways than they are today" received headlines across the nation. Malthusianism was now the official position of the U.S. government.

It was all so damned depressing. And, thanks to iconoclast Julian Simon, we now know that it was all so wrong.

For anyone interested in the link for the Skeptical Environmentalist (http://www.lomborg.com).

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The 'Skeptical Environmentalist' has addressed this issue directly, but I think he misses out in two major areas.

1. Politics
2. Statistics. So, should statistics be thrown out the window? Of course statistics must be viewed with a critical eye but they are very important when viewed in context.

Julian Simon used simple statistics to win his bet with Paul Ehrlich.

The ultimate embarrassment for the Malthusians was when Paul Ehrlich bet Simon $1,000 in 1980 that five resources (of Ehrlich’s choosing) would be more expensive in 10 years. Ehrlich lost: 10 years later every one of the resources had declined in price by an average of 40 percent.

As for politics, there are few things (IMO) more demonstrative than the effects of politics on the environment and the economy.

Most of us have the image of Kruschev waving goodbye as he described how Communism would pass capitalism in economic out put. Of course he was wrong. In every measurable way Democracies enjoy a significantly higher standard of living. Democracies have rarely suffered the widespread famine that have been experienced by both (so called) Communism and dictatorships.

It is noteworthy to point out that Switzerland has relatively few natural resources but Makes some of the worlds finest products and enjoys a high standard of living. Conversely, many nations in Africa have many natural resources but have a very low standard of living.

Yes Victor, not all successful countries are both democratic and capitalist. My point is that politics and economics play an important role in both the environment and the quality of life of citizens and that Nations that are not ruled by dictators and allow for the people to have a voice in the way their countries are run enjoy a significantly higher standard of living with less incidents of famine. Democratic nations routinely bail out non democratic ones.

I would be interested to see any commentary as to how the statistical environmentalist is wrong when it comes to Politics.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
But I propose he was right about one thing; Overpopulation is the major cause of all the problems on this planet. Hi Tricky,

Could you define "overpopulation" and show how the word is appropriately used to describe current human populations.

[Dancing David]

My two cents:
Human behave differently when they are alone than when they are in groups.
I believe that most people are altruistic in the one on one, most would try to save a drowning child for example.
But put them in groups and peer pressure becomes a force of great stupidity.

According to marxist anthropology the rise of the warrior class and the rise of kings comes from storage technologies and agriculture, until you can't make a surplus and store it you are so dirt poor that there is no reason to make war.

Peace
dancing david

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Tricky

Famine? This one is pretty obvious.



You'd think so wouldn't you, but in fact famine is only a real problem when allied to ****** politics. All of the really bad famines, (you know, many thousands of people dying, dark-skinned babies with big bellies and stick arms, Rock Stars thinking they can "do" something), have been caused by politics. Sure, failed rains play a part, but without some malicious c*nt of a politician/ leader/ famines don't really get going.

I'm way too lazy to look up the references for this at the moment, but I'll get to it tomorrow!

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Tricky:
Thomas Malthus was wrong, but he wasn't very far wrong.

But I propose he was right about one thing; Overpopulation is the major cause of all the problems on this planet.

Wrong, utterly wrong. In the pantheon of myopic, misinformed and discredited observors and commentators, Malthus is there with the flat earth society.

But it is a double-edged sword, and we do not yet know which edge is sharper. Certainly technology has led to pollution (and possibly global warming).

Guess what counters pollution? Technology and prosperity. Technology has developed more fuel efficient cars, more efficient and ecologically friendly methods of waste disposal and sanitation, while biotechnology offers the prospect of decreased pesticide use in agriculture. Cities in the developed world are less polluted now than they were a century ago, a development that went hand in glove with technological advance.

For every disease we cure, it seems we find another "syndrome" that results from some strange chemicals that weren't here two hundred years ago.

The situation vis a vis infant mortality, infectious disease, life expectancy is infinitely better now than it was two centuries ago, thanks mainly to "some strange chemicals" such as fertilisers, pharmaceuticals and soap. Things have improved so much that nowadays people have the time and health to indulge in fads and hypochondria.

But a lot of people don't even see the hidden consequences of overpopulation. Sure, it's easy to see starving people in Africa, but look closely, and you will see that these people are having as many children as possible, hoping that some will survive. It is difficult for people living so close to disaster to see the big picture.

Here's your big picture:

World hunger will halve by 2030 (www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993457)

Global population decline could be the norm in the near future (www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993444)

War? Wars are fought mostly for territory or resources. There aren't enough of either to go around.

Says who?

Famine? This one is pretty obvious.

Because?

Disease? Disease is most commonly spread as a result of dense concentrations of humanity. Why do you think Hong Kong is the hotbed of SARS?

No, disease is spread by unsanitary conditions and practices, ignorance and poor diet. Eliminate these and you more or less eliminate infectious disease. Which explains why the Netherlands or New Jersey haven't been consumed by cholera or bubonic plague recently.

Natural disaster? You may not think this one has anything to do with population, but it does. Whenever you see a large number of people killed by natural disaster, it is almost always because there was nowhere to go to escape it. In India, typhoons wipe out thousands every few years.

Those people lack the means to protect themselves. The number of them isn't that important. Even in the developed world people choose to live in areas prone to natural disasters, such as Florida or California.

So why is it that so many people, politicians and cultures are against population restriction? I guess because it goes against animal nature. It is natural for all organisms to take a strategy for maximimum reproduction. Nature keeps them under control as a general rule, because they eventually run out of a key ingredient or run out of suitable environment or something else. But with humans, this "populostat" is overriden by our incredible ability to manipulate our environments, at least to some extent.

Nonsense. China, India and Japan have had proactive (coercive even) family planning programs for decades now. Population growth declines as prosperity increases. In industrialised societies families are smaller, because the family unit requires less labour than it would in an agrarian society. The status, education and opportunities available to women also increase. This leads to an inevitable decline in the birthrate.

(It has been proposed by many that the increase in homosexuality, which is especially common in large cities, is a result of population pressures, turning many individuals into non-reproducers.)

Now who proposed this? Hoew would an increased availability of members of the opposite sex contribute to an increase in homosexuality?

Originally posted by Frank Newgent:
Research how the use of trade, firm, or corporation name of a particular prophylactic rubber might pass muster in the Catholic Pages Directory. Any brand commercially endorsed by the Virgin of Guadalupe would help to significantly reduce illegal immigration from Mexico.

Probably have to wait for a Pope Juan Diego...

Guess what? Spain and Italy have the lowest fertility rates in the world. (www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euidag/europa/doc1135/) The Pope isn't even able to make the faithful toe the Church line on his own doorstep.

"In 2000, the highest fertility rates were observed in France and Ireland (each with 1.89 children per women), while the lowest were in Spain (1.22), Italy (1.25) and Greece (1.30)."

Originally posted by Randfan:
Personally my favorite skeptic in this area was Julian Simon (the Doom-slayer).

Julian Simon (rest his soul) was a debunker par excellence. For this reason not many people have heard of him.

Julian Simon used simple statistics to win his bet with Paul Ehrlich.

Read about it here (www.fumento.com/simon.html)

"In 1981, in an exchange with Ehrlich, Simon, who is now 60, offered to make a bet that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials would not rise over the succeeding 10 years.

It has been a tenet of Simon's that such materials become cheaper over time as people become more adept at finding and extracting them, while Ehrlich and other advocates of controlling population and growth claim they must become more expensive because we are gradually running out of them.

At the time the bet was proffered, Ehrlich archly replied, "I and my colleagues . . . jointly accept Simon's astonishing offer before other greedy people jump in."

But as of last September, Ehrlich disovered something more astonishing. He owed Simon money – specifically, according to the terms of their bet, $567.07."

So did Ehrlich eat a lot of crow and disappear? Fat chance! (www.fumento.com/bomb.html)

"But have Ehrlich's preposterous predictions hurt his reputation? Far from it – they've made him both celebrated and rich.

In one year – 1990 – he published a sequel to Bomb called The Population Explosion, received the MacArthur Foundation's famous "genius award" with a $345,000 check, and split a Swedish Royal Academy of Science prize worth $120,000.

Last year Erlich slammed his critics (myself included) in a book the very name of which screams chutzpah, The Betrayal of Science and Reason."

This is the real problem. People like Ehrlich and Malthus make wide ranging and alarmist predictions and forecasts that are subsequently shown to be wide off the mark, yet their word is still accepted as gospel. Why?

[Ladewig]

Tricky-
Disease? Disease is most commonly spread as a result of dense concentrations of humanity. Why do you think Hong Kong is the hotbed of SARS?

In the 21st century, infectious (newsworthy) disease is most commonly spread by the rapid, world-wide avenues of travel. If the population were one third of its current levels and distributed in the same proportions, there would still be epidemics and pandemics because travel times are now a fraction of incubation times.

Hong Kong is a hotbed of SARS partly because so many people travel to and from there and partly because the pork and poultry are the two main sources of protein. When pigs, fowl, and humans live in close proximity, there is a greater likelyhood of virii mutating and spreading.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Here's your big picture:

World hunger will halve by 2030 (www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993457)

Global population decline could be the norm in the near future (www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993444)


Hmmm. Since you're big on technology being the answer to what ails the world, how do the above pictures change if AIDS (and SARS?) are conquered in the (near?) future?

:p

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by dsm:
Hmmm. Since you're big on technology being the answer to what ails the world, how do the above pictures change if AIDS (and SARS?) are conquered in the (near?) future?

:p

Did you miss the bit about falling birth rates and the fertility rate falling below replacement level? :confused:

[dsm]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Did you miss the bit about falling birth rates and the fertility rate falling below replacement level? :confused:


Not really, but there didn't seem to be anything there describing how much of an effect AIDS is having on their projections and what effect the elimination of AIDS would have on their projections.

[Skeptic]

I don't recall who said it (Schopenhauer?), but somebody once said that most of the trouble in the world come from man's inability to sit quietly in a closed room.

There's something to that.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Tricky:


Wrong, utterly wrong. In the pantheon of myopic, misinformed and discredited observors and commentators, Malthus is there with the flat earth society.



Guess what counters pollution? Technology and prosperity. Technology has developed more fuel efficient cars, more efficient and ecologically friendly methods of waste disposal and sanitation, while biotechnology offers the prospect of decreased pesticide use in agriculture. Cities in the developed world are less polluted now than they were a century ago, a development that went hand in glove with technological advance.



The situation vis a vis infant mortality, infectious disease, life expectancy is infinitely better now than it was two centuries ago, thanks mainly to "some strange chemicals" such as fertilisers, pharmaceuticals and soap. Things have improved so much that nowadays people have the time and health to indulge in fads and hypochondria.



Here's your big picture:

World hunger will halve by 2030 (www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993457)

Global population decline could be the norm in the near future (www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993444)



Says who?



Because?



No, disease is spread by unsanitary conditions and practices, ignorance and poor diet. Eliminate these and you more or less eliminate infectious disease. Which explains why the Netherlands or New Jersey haven't been consumed by cholera or bubonic plague recently.



Those people lack the means to protect themselves. The number of them isn't that important. Even in the developed world people choose to live in areas prone to natural disasters, such as Florida or California.



Nonsense. China, India and Japan have had proactive (coercive even) family planning programs for decades now. Population growth declines as prosperity increases. In industrialised societies families are smaller, because the family unit requires less labour than it would in an agrarian society. The status, education and opportunities available to women also increase. This leads to an inevitable decline in the birthrate.



Now who proposed this? Hoew would an increased availability of members of the opposite sex contribute to an increase in homosexuality?

Originally posted by Frank Newgent:


Guess what? Spain and Italy have the lowest fertility rates in the world. (www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euidag/europa/doc1135/) The Pope isn't even able to make the faithful toe the Church line on his own doorstep.

"In 2000, the highest fertility rates were observed in France and Ireland (each with 1.89 children per women), while the lowest were in Spain (1.22), Italy (1.25) and Greece (1.30)."

Originally posted by Randfan:


Julian Simon (rest his soul) was a debunker par excellence. For this reason not many people have heard of him.



Read about it here (www.fumento.com/simon.html)

"In 1981, in an exchange with Ehrlich, Simon, who is now 60, offered to make a bet that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials would not rise over the succeeding 10 years.

It has been a tenet of Simon's that such materials become cheaper over time as people become more adept at finding and extracting them, while Ehrlich and other advocates of controlling population and growth claim they must become more expensive because we are gradually running out of them.

At the time the bet was proffered, Ehrlich archly replied, "I and my colleagues . . . jointly accept Simon's astonishing offer before other greedy people jump in."

But as of last September, Ehrlich disovered something more astonishing. He owed Simon money – specifically, according to the terms of their bet, $567.07."

So did Ehrlich eat a lot of crow and disappear? Fat chance! (www.fumento.com/bomb.html)

"But have Ehrlich's preposterous predictions hurt his reputation? Far from it – they've made him both celebrated and rich.

In one year – 1990 – he published a sequel to Bomb called The Population Explosion, received the MacArthur Foundation's famous "genius award" with a $345,000 check, and split a Swedish Royal Academy of Science prize worth $120,000.

Last year Erlich slammed his critics (myself included) in a book the very name of which screams chutzpah, The Betrayal of Science and Reason."

This is the real problem. People like Ehrlich and Malthus make wide ranging and alarmist predictions and forecasts that are subsequently shown to be wide off the mark, yet their word is still accepted as gospel. Why?

Two words:

Friggin' Brilliant!!! :D

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Research how the use of trade, firm, or corporation name of a particular prophylactic rubber might pass muster in the Catholic Pages Directory. Any brand commercially endorsed by the Virgin of Guadalupe would help to significantly reduce illegal immigration from Mexico.

Probably have to wait for a Pope Juan Diego...

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Guess what? Spain and Italy have the lowest fertility rates in the world. (www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euidag/europa/doc1135/) The Pope isn't even able to make the faithful toe the Church line on his own doorstep.

Thanks for setting me straight. I had no idea Mexico's fertility rate had plummeted since joining the European Union.

In the real world and in the four centuries of history occurring simultaneously and popularly known as Mexico, the overall fertility rate is 2.7 children per woman. (http://www.crlp.org/ww_lac_mexico.html) Next country south would be Guatemala (http://www.engenderhealth.org/ia/cbc/guatemala.html)which also has one of the highest fertility rates in Latin America, with each woman bearing an average of five children over her lifetime. At its current growth rate of 2.9%, the country's population will double every 22 years.


I still consider a Pope Juan Diego to be more likely than Pope PaddyJoe Finnegan.

[Smalso]

Funny how this topic came up just as a commentator appeared on my teevee screen and explained exactly what the problem is. It's because we have not accepted Jesus Christ as our personal savior. Hmmmm....

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent:
Thanks for setting me straight. I had no idea Mexico's fertility rate had plummeted since joining the European Union.

What a tasty little strawman! So what is happening in Mexico? May our Lady of Guadeloupe deliver us from the fires of Hades, but there's bad deeds afoot!

Fertility control in Mexico! (www.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/pop-mex.html)

"In 1973 Government pro-nationalist sponsored family planning programs increased the availability of contraception. Between the years 1976 and 1982 the administration under President Lopez Portillo launched several health programs targeting rural residence, namely the Rural Health Program (SSA) and the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS). During this period over 3,000 rural health clinics, and 73 regional hospitals were constructed to aid regions with less than 2,500 inhabitants.


Between 1975 and 1980 average fertility in Mexico dropped from 6.0% to 4.5%. The prevalence of birth control use in rural areas increased from 14% in 1976 to 27% in 1981 and 33% in 1987. The figures suggest that family planning programs were responsible for lifting Mexico from ‘natural fertility’ environment where social and economic factors determine the number of children, to one where couples limit their number of children by using pre-modern and/or modern methods of contraception. However, an empirical study conducted by Chen, Hicks, Johnson and Rodreguez found that fertility rates were already on the decline when the government implemented family planning polices. The increased standard of living in Mexico was discovered to be more responsible for the decrease in population growth rates than the heavy-handed methods of birth control, encouraged by the government."


Is there to be no stopping Satan in his tracks! (http://csf.colorado.edu/envtecsoc/2003/msg00386.html)

"The United Nations divides the world into two groups, less
developed countries and more developed countries. The most
surprising news comes from the poorer countries. In the
late 1960's, these countries had an average fertility rate
of 6.0 children per woman. Today it is 2.9 - and still
falling. Huge and continuing declines have been seen in
countries like Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Iran,
Turkey and (of great importance to the United States)
Mexico."

But there may still be time to stop Beelzebub in Guatemala! (http://research.biology.arizona.edu/mosquito/willot/323/project/population/fertrates.html)

Least Change Guatemala 1973 6.4 1991-1995 5.1[/QUOTE]

[Frank Newgent]

Poorer countries, apparently according to even non-functioning links, still enjoy fertility rates of 2.9. Doubling a country's population every 25 years or so. Let them eat straw. How's crow?

[GrapeJ713]

Overpouplation myth. I read a very good book on this very subject a few years ago. All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague, and Poverty (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871136112/qid=1051367533/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7372131-6816118?v=glance&s=books)
P.J. O'rourke, a respected journalist that has plenty of source material in the book, basically stated that based on the facts. Every single famine in history was caused by a tyrannical government. Example: Zimbabwe - the dictator forced white farmers from large corporate farms and gave it to 'the people' in smaller lots. The new farmers weren't as smart as the old farmers and crop production went down drastically = famine. There is plenty of room on the planet, plenty of places to grow food especially with new technology that increases crop yields. The world population has actually gone down lately now that literacy and free markets have risen and more people are smart enough not to have so many kids.

[hammegk]

Depends on how you are happy living.

If 1st world is your choice, intelligence is both the cause and amelioration of "problems", imo.

Thinking about it, ditto for rest of planet.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent:
Poorer countries, apparently according to even non-functioning links, still enjoy fertility rates of 2.9. Doubling a country's population every 25 years or so. Let them eat straw. How's crow?

How's about whatever they're eating now? I mean, I haven't noticed any famines in Latin America lately?

What part of the sentence "Declining birth and fertility rates" do you not understand?

Have you any criticisms of the links suggesting that population growth will tail off in another few decades?

http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/region/aid/aid96/Health/latfr96.html

Fertility rates in Latin America will be just above replacement level by 2020. But don't tell the Pope!

Originally posted by Shane Costello

This is the real problem. People like Ehrlich and Malthus make wide ranging and alarmist predictions and forecasts that are subsequently shown to be wide off the mark, yet their word is still accepted as gospel. Why?

I don't know why, but whatever it is, it would help to explain why so many paranormal groups are gloom-and-doom about the future, too. Most psychic predictions involve terrible futures.

Doom-and-gloom appeals to a certain part of some people, for some reason.

This is something I have quietly observed and pondered for a very long time. This appeal is so great that people will overlook even the widest gaps in evidence if it feeds their fear. See Planet X.

My pet theory is that these people feel they have lost control of their own lives and are pessimistic about their personal futures, and transfer that feeling to all of mankind. All of mankind is out of control and doomed.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
Research how the use of trade, firm, or corporation name of a particular prophylactic rubber might pass muster in the Catholic Pages Directory. Any brand commercially endorsed by the Virgin of Guadalupe would help to significantly reduce illegal immigration from Mexico.

As an advocate for the marketing of rubbers commercially endorsed by the Virgin of Guadalupe I did not forsee grim nemesis. Mexico's median age of 23.3 years (http://www.globalaging.org/elderrights/world/lavera.htm), no doubt, indicates a work force becoming older. Work force. Oh, that's right. What work? Come to think of it, replacing chicken or beef with lard at supper time wouldn't make me horny either.

Mexico can't seem to produce the necessary number of jobs to provide for the 1.2 million Mexicans who enter the labor market yearly. As a result, it is exporting a large part of its "population dividend" -- younger workers -- to the U.S. In the 1970s, Mexico had a population of about 50 million, and 30,000 of them left annually for the U.S. Today, the population is about 100 million, and about 380,000 leave.

It's so sad when one has to explain a joke.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Fertility rates in Latin America will be just above replacement level by 2020.

I hope that you're right. But in the meantime, if you are quite certain, I would suggest considering this (http://www.randi.org/research/).

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent:
Mexico's median age of 23.3 years, no doubt, indicates a work force becoming older. Work force. Oh, that's right. What work? Come to think of it, replacing chicken or beef with lard at supper time wouldn't make me horny either./QUOTE]

According to another one of your sources (www.crlp.org/ww_lac_mexico.html) Mexico's unemployment rate was 3.9% in 1997. Sounds to me like there's plenty of work. Again, have you any evidence of famine or food shortages in Mexico? Or that thee's a dearth of contraception or family planning there?

I hope that you're right. But in the meantime, if you are quite certain, I would suggest considering this.

"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

And this is in some way relevant? Unless you can prove that any of the data I presented was found by channeling or utilizing the "skills" of Cynthia or John Edward?

I'm merely coming to the conclusion that past trends and future projections suggest a fall in the birth rate and population growth worldwide is possible and becoming increasingly probable.

Care to present a logical rebuttal to this?

[Victor Danilchenko]

In all fairness, people, you gotta admit the factuality of the trends Shane pointed out -- population growth rate is slowing down. At our current level of technology, earth could easily support 10b population; but with the falling growth rates, we can expect to reach that point only by about 2050, at which point technology will surely be far more advanced.

I think the answer here is fairly self-evident: it's not the population size, but how the resources are used and distributed. The problem is not that the population is too large; there are plenty of poverty-stricken countries with low population density, and plenty of rich countries with high population density. The problem is that the shortage of food and other resources is created. They are creations of national and international markets, corrupt politics, exploitative trade practices, demagoguery-driven policy-making, etc -- they are not a result of actual physical resource shortage; just as the Ukrainian famine of 1928 (a famine in Ukraine, an unthinkable insanity!) had nothing to do with actual crop shortages.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
I'm merely coming to the conclusion that past trends and future projections suggest a fall in the birth rate and population growth worldwide is possible and becoming increasingly probable.

Care to present a logical rebuttal to this?

Dunno. I'm still working on this (http://www.sancta.org/eyes.html).

My focus on Mexico regarding overpopulation comes from experience. I am not Mexican but co-own a house there and speak the language with some ability.

Its population has doubled over the past thirty years with its currency now worth (compared to the dollar) about .00119 what it was in the early seventies.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Mexico's unemployment rate was 3.9% in 1997. Sounds to me like there's plenty of work.

If you take this stat literally I'd be surprised if you don't channel leprechauns.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent:
If you take this stat literally I'd be surprised if you don't channel leprechauns.

Then shame on you for citing spurious sources.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko:
In all fairness, people, you gotta admit the factuality of the trends Shane pointed out -- population growth rate is slowing down. At our current level of technology, earth could easily support 10b population; but with the falling growth rates, we can expect to reach that point only by about 2050, at which point technology will surely be far more advanced.

I think the answer here is fairly self-evident: it's not the population size, but how the resources are used and distributed. The problem is not that the population is too large; there are plenty of poverty-stricken countries with low population density, and plenty of rich countries with high population density. The problem is that the shortage of food and other resources is created. They are creations of national and international markets, corrupt politics, exploitative trade practices, demagoguery-driven policy-making, etc -- they are not a result of actual physical resource shortage; just as the Ukrainian famine of 1928 (a famine in Ukraine, an unthinkable insanity!) had nothing to do with actual crop shortages.

That's it in a nutshell, Victor. GrapeJ713 mentioned "All the Trouble in the World" by PJ O'Rourke, and he goes into detail on this. He cites places like Biafra, Ethiopia and Sudan, where famine was caused by government inaction, because the government had an interest in seeing sections of their population starve. Likewise a price panic caused by hoarding of rice (to stop it falling into the hands of a potential invading Japanese army) led to famine in India in 1943. India has not suffered a famine since then, despite undergoing sizeable population growth.

[dsm]

Is there any measure of the world's "friction rate"? That is, as the population goes up, more world area is occupied by the population and, thus, less space is available on a per-person basis. That, in turn, means that people must interact with more people on a daily basis than they did in the past and, thus, the potential "friction" between people will go up (leading to arguments, criminal action, and wars).

I would think that this measure would've fluctuated on a local basis over the world's past history. That is, as local population goes up, the friction within the community also goes up. Then something happens (war, new technology, disease, etc.) to reduce the local population and, thus, reduce the friction. I would think that the biggest pressure reliever would've been expansion into new areas of the world. As we reach 10 billion people, though, will there be enough areas to expand into to relieve the friction?

Oh, with respect to the 10 billion people (give or take) that is being talked about as the peak that we will reach in this century, what factors will determine if that is the peak or just a (prolonged) step in the upward trend?

[shanek]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
Overpouplation myth. I read a very good book on this very subject a few years ago. All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague, and Poverty (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871136112/qid=1051367533/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7372131-6816118?v=glance&s=books)

Beat me to it. ;) Yes, most of the famine in the world is caused by governments, as we have discussed before.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
According to another one of your sources Mexico's unemployment rate was 3.9% in 1997. Sounds to me like there's plenty of work.

Check again. Are you sure it wasn't the employment rate? Do you so easily believe the unemployment rate in Mexico is lower than the United States (http://www.bartleby.com/151/a71.html)?

Maybe we can start to figure this out here (http://www.naalc.org/english/publications/bulletin1vol2_15.htm).

Canada, Mexico and the United States show remarkably different distribution patterns of unemployment and underemployment indicators.

In Canada, which had the highest unemployment rate in North America over the 1984-1995 period, high unemployment, longer durations of unemployment and involuntary part-time work are more common indicators of labor market difficulty.

In the United States, which had relatively low levels of unemployment, growth in workers with low earnings and involuntary part-time work are more common.

Mexico has a lower unemployment rate and shorter durations of unemployment than Canada and the United States. Effectively, most Mexican workers cannot afford to be unemployed, due in part to the absence of unemployment insurance. Mexico has a higher share of workers earning the minimum wage or less and a higher proportion of workers working less than 15 hours per week.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
...shame on you for citing spurious sources.

Though it's wise to cast a hairy eyeball on any stat, the way the percentage of people classified as unemployed as compared to the total labor force is calculated in Mexico is particularly slanted (http://www.globalpolicynetwork.org/data/mexico/mexico-analysis.pdf).

Low unemployment levels don't tell the whole story. Compared to other economies of similar size and level of economic development, Mexico has very low urban unemployment rates. To interpret this fact as meaning that the labor market works flawlessly, however, is a mistake. A closer analysis of who is unemployed shows that most of the unemployed are young females or males with an above-average education. Unemployment rates for males are systematically lower than those for females,and only 20% of the unemployed are household heads.

Moreover, the average duration of unemployment is less than a month. Taken together, these facts suggest that most of the observed unemployment is frictional, that is, the sort of unemployment that occurs while people move from one job to another.

In an economy in which workers saving rates are essentially zero, nil and where the government provides no support for the unemployed, few workers can afford to remain unemployed for any length of time. As a result, new entrants to the labor market or workers who lose their jobs generally take whatever job is available, regardless of the pay, working conditions, or compatibility with their training and skills. In fact, only 12% of those people unemployed at any time during a quarter, end up withdrawing from the labor force.

In this context, the low unemployment rate in Mexico disguises the much deeper problem of precarious, poorly paid employment faced by a large share of the Mexican workforce. The prevalence of insecure, low-productivity jobs is reflected in the large number nonwage jobs in Mexico. These jobs are concentrated in very small economic units (i.e., those with lessthan five workers), including single-person establishments. In general, these establishments have extremely low levels of investment and low productivity, and not surprisingly, the average incomes paid tend to be low.

Over time, the share of urban jobs in these small enterprises has remained at the 40-42%average range of the total urban labor force. During 2001, the share moved upwards, a tendency that is likely to continue throughout 2002. These small businesses have an average of just two workers per establishment. Most of these units are headed by self-employed workers, often using unpaid family workers (if they have any additional workers at all).

Other evidence of the precarious nature of employment in Mexico includes the high share of the labor force that works fewer than 15 hours a week, as well as the high share of wage and salary employees that have no access to health care, social security, and other benefits required by current labor law. Including the number of people working fewer than 15 hours a week, total employment figures give an exaggerated impression of the capability of the economy to provide jobs for those in need. This is particularly true for women, who make up most of the part-time workforce in commerce and personal services.

According to Mexican labor law, employees are entitled to a series of social benefits, such as health care, social security services (including retirement funds), paid vacations, and other fringe benefits. The share of wage and salary employees in the labor force that have access to none of these benefits has risen over time, although at a different pace over the past decade. The decline in the share of workers receiving mandatory benefits reflects both the rise in precarious employment and a conscious cost-cutting strategy by larger employers.

Over the 1990-1999 period the labor income of wage and salary employees fell steadily. The minimum wage-which is set each year by official unions, employers, and the federal government lost almost 50% of its purchasing power in the last decade. Currently, the minimum wage functions primarily as a reference for the wage-bargaining process of wage and salary workers. In the last two years, minimum wages started growing, but at the rates of just 0.5% (2000) and 1% (2001).

Labor income at firms registered with the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) has followed a similar path. Between 1994 and 2001, the value of IMSS wages fell more than16%, with slight recovery after 2000. But these data include wages of production workers as well as wages and salaries of administrative and managerial workers. Thus, these figures overstate the benefits for the majority of workers. A similar trend can be found in the evolution of wages in the manufacturing sector, where the purchasing power is now 11% less than it was in 1994.

Labor income is the most important source of household income. According to 2000 data (the most recent information available), about 60% of total monetary income came from household labor income. In the same year, income from "entrepreneurial" activities, that is, income from ownership of a business or self-employment, accounted for 27% of total household income. Income from bank accounts, real state, stocks, and other assets accounted for the remainder. Only 3.5% of households earn money from this last group of sources, while about 72% of households received all or part of their income from wage labor. Household income inequality is extremely high, and has not returned to the levels of 1984.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by dsm
Is there any measure of the world's "friction rate"? That is, as the population goes up, more world area is occupied by the population and, thus, less space is available on a per-person basis. That, in turn, means that people must interact with more people on a daily basis than they did in the past and, thus, the potential "friction" between people will go up (leading to arguments, criminal action, and wars). An interesting thought, but physically we occupy such a small part of the earths surface.

I'm quite sure more than one fresh water lake in the US would have room to have the total population on Earth for a cocktail party, with everyone mingling happily, and even room for a bar in the corner.

Overpopulation is not a question of lack of space. :)

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent:
Check again. Are you sure it wasn't the employment rate? Do you so easily believe the unemployment rate in Mexico is lower than the United States?

I'm only quoting a source you presented. And yes, going by it the Mexican unemployment rate was 3.8% in 1997.

Though it's wise to cast a hairy eyeball on any stat, the way the percentage of people classified as unemployed as compared to the total labor force is calculated in Mexico is particularly slanted.

What has this got to do with the birth rate in Mexico?



Originally posted by dsm

Is there any measure of the world's "friction rate"? That is, as the population goes up, more world area is occupied by the population and, thus, less space is available on a per-person basis. That, in turn, means that people must interact with more people on a daily basis than they did in the past and, thus, the potential "friction" between people will go up (leading to arguments, criminal action, and wars).

Lomborg examines this in "The Skeptical Environmentalist". The homicide rate in medieval England was about 20 per 100,000 people, at a time when the population was between 2 and 3 million. This compares with a rate of 1.4/100,000 today, in a population of 50 million. Medieval and early modern England was also the scene of civil wars. Contrast this with Britain in the industrial age, which saw parliamentary and democratic evolution, which occured at the same time as rapid population growth.

I would think that this measure would've fluctuated on a local basis over the world's past history. That is, as local population goes up, the friction within the community also goes up. Then something happens (war, new technology, disease, etc.) to reduce the local population and, thus, reduce the friction.

This is quite like what Malthus proposed. Population growth is exponential, while growth of food supplies is arithmetical. His thesis has proved to be wrong. The ingenuity of mankind has improved the lot of mankind, wherever the political situation has allowed it too. Available space, and the proximity of people to one another is a red herring.

Oh, with respect to the 10 billion people (give or take) that is being talked about as the peak that we will reach in this century, what factors will determine if that is the peak or just a (prolonged) step in the upward trend?

The evidence I've presented suggests that we are witnessing a prolonged drop in birthrates and fertility world wide, which started a few decades ago. It has been established that increased prosperity and industrialisation accelerates this trend. All the evidnece points to the downturn in fertility continuing.

[coalesce]

"No, disease is spread by unsanitary conditions and practices, ignorance and poor diet. Eliminate these and you more or less eliminate infectious disease. Which explains why the Netherlands or New Jersey haven't been consumed by cholera or bubonic plague recently."

Have you been to Jersey lately...?

Michael

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by LukeT:

I don't know why, but whatever it is, it would help to explain why so many paranormal groups are gloom-and-doom about the future, too. Most psychic predictions involve terrible futures.

Doom-and-gloom appeals to a certain part of some people, for some reason.

This is something I have quietly observed and pondered for a very long time. This appeal is so great that people will overlook even the widest gaps in evidence if it feeds their fear. See Planet X.

My pet theory is that these people feel they have lost control of their own lives and are pessimistic about their personal futures, and transfer that feeling to all of mankind. All of mankind is out of control and doomed.

This is true. More worryingly, we have academies of science presenting a kook like Ehrlich with hefty pay cheques, conferring him with a scientific respectability he doesn't deserve, as well as perpetuating fallacies.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

I'm only quoting a source you presented. And yes, going by it the Mexican unemployment rate was 3.8% in 1997.

What has this got to do with the birth rate in Mexico?


Are you on acetylcholine reuptake inhibitors?

Confloption about the term "unemployment" and its definition in Mexico is the subject.

I'll try again.


Originally posted by Shane Costello
According to another one of your sources Mexico's unemployment rate was 3.9% in 1997. Sounds to me like there's plenty of work.

Check again. Are you sure it wasn't the employment rate? Do you so easily believe the unemployment rate in Mexico is lower than the United States (http://www.bartleby.com/151/a71.html)?

Maybe we can start to figure this out here (http://www.naalc.org/english/publications/bulletin1vol2_15.htm).

Canada, Mexico and the United States show remarkably different distribution patterns of unemployment and underemployment indicators.

In Canada, which had the highest unemployment rate in North America over the 1984-1995 period, high unemployment, longer durations of unemployment and involuntary part-time work are more common indicators of labor market difficulty.

In the United States, which had relatively low levels of unemployment, growth in workers with low earnings and involuntary part-time work are more common.

Mexico has a lower unemployment rate and shorter durations of unemployment than Canada and the United States. Effectively, most Mexican workers cannot afford to be unemployed, due in part to the absence of unemployment insurance. Mexico has a higher share of workers earning the minimum wage or less and a higher proportion of workers working less than 15 hours per week.

Though it's wise to cast a hairy eyeball on any stat, the way the percentage of people classified as unemployed as compared to the total labor force is calculated in Mexico is particularly slanted (http://www.globalpolicynetwork.org/data/mexico/mexico-analysis.pdf).

Low unemployment levels don't tell the whole story. Compared to other economies of similar size and level of economic development, Mexico has very low urban unemployment rates. To interpret this fact as meaning that the labor market works flawlessly, however, is a mistake. A closer analysis of who is unemployed shows that most of the unemployed are young females or males with an above-average education. Unemployment rates for males are systematically lower than those for females,and only 20% of the unemployed are household heads.

Moreover, the average duration of unemployment is less than a month. Taken together, these facts suggest that most of the observed unemployment is frictional, that is, the sort of unemployment that occurs while people move from one job to another.

In an economy in which workers saving rates are essentially zero, nil and where the government provides no support for the unemployed, few workers can afford to remain unemployed for any length of time. As a result, new entrants to the labor market or workers who lose their jobs generally take whatever job is available, regardless of the pay, working conditions, or compatibility with their training and skills. In fact, only 12% of those people unemployed at any time during a quarter, end up withdrawing from the labor force.

In this context, the low unemployment rate in Mexico disguises the much deeper problem of precarious, poorly paid employment faced by a large share of the Mexican workforce. The prevalence of insecure, low-productivity jobs is reflected in the large number nonwage jobs in Mexico. These jobs are concentrated in very small economic units (i.e., those with lessthan five workers), including single-person establishments. In general, these establishments have extremely low levels of investment and low productivity, and not surprisingly, the average incomes paid tend to be low.

Over time, the share of urban jobs in these small enterprises has remained at the 40-42%average range of the total urban labor force. During 2001, the share moved upwards, a tendency that is likely to continue throughout 2002. These small businesses have an average of just two workers per establishment. Most of these units are headed by self-employed workers, often using unpaid family workers (if they have any additional workers at all).

Other evidence of the precarious nature of employment in Mexico includes the high share of the labor force that works fewer than 15 hours a week, as well as the high share of wage and salary employees that have no access to health care, social security, and other benefits required by current labor law. Including the number of people working fewer than 15 hours a week, total employment figures give an exaggerated impression of the capability of the economy to provide jobs for those in need. This is particularly true for women, who make up most of the part-time workforce in commerce and personal services.

According to Mexican labor law, employees are entitled to a series of social benefits, such as health care, social security services (including retirement funds), paid vacations, and other fringe benefits. The share of wage and salary employees in the labor force that have access to none of these benefits has risen over time, although at a different pace over the past decade. The decline in the share of workers receiving mandatory benefits reflects both the rise in precarious employment and a conscious cost-cutting strategy by larger employers.

Over the 1990-1999 period the labor income of wage and salary employees fell steadily. The minimum wage-which is set each year by official unions, employers, and the federal government lost almost 50% of its purchasing power in the last decade. Currently, the minimum wage functions primarily as a reference for the wage-bargaining process of wage and salary workers. In the last two years, minimum wages started growing, but at the rates of just 0.5% (2000) and 1% (2001).

Labor income at firms registered with the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) has followed a similar path. Between 1994 and 2001, the value of IMSS wages fell more than16%, with slight recovery after 2000. But these data include wages of production workers as well as wages and salaries of administrative and managerial workers. Thus, these figures overstate the benefits for the majority of workers. A similar trend can be found in the evolution of wages in the manufacturing sector, where the purchasing power is now 11% less than it was in 1994.

Labor income is the most important source of household income. According to 2000 data (the most recent information available), about 60% of total monetary income came from household labor income. In the same year, income from "entrepreneurial" activities, that is, income from ownership of a business or self-employment, accounted for 27% of total household income. Income from bank accounts, real state, stocks, and other assets accounted for the remainder. Only 3.5% of households earn money from this last group of sources, while about 72% of households received all or part of their income from wage labor. Household income inequality is extremely high, and has not returned to the levels of 1984.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Bjorn

An interesting thought, but physically we occupy such a small part of the earths surface.


Do we? Anyone have the per person surface area that factor's out:


Ocean surface
Mountain tops
Needed wilderness area
Required farmland
Required cattle (etc.) ranges
etc.



I'm quite sure more than one fresh water lake in the US would have room to have the total population on Earth for a cocktail party, with everyone mingling happily, and even room for a bar in the corner.


Then why are they talking about a City in a Pyramid (http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/pyramidcity/interactive/interactive.html) in Japan in order to find more room to put people?


Overpopulation is not a question of lack of space. :)

No, there are many factors that go into it. My point was that overpopulation is (generally) alleviated through "expansion", but expansion might include new technology to make a given area appear larger. I (like Malthus??) kind of think that there will be a psychological barrier where people will feel too confined (defined by an absolute "friction") beyond which new technology alone cannot improve things. I'm just not sure where that barrier is.

[shanek]

Originally posted by dsm
Then why are they talking about a City in a Pyramid (http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/pyramidcity/interactive/interactive.html) in Japan in order to find more room to put people?

I just did a quick calculation. Assuming nine people can stand in one square meter (pretty crowded, but doable), the Earth's population of 6 billion people can fit into 667 km^2. That's about the size of Grand Rapids, MI, Winston-Salem, NC, or San Jose, CA.

If you drop it to a more comfortable 2 people per square meter, then you need 3000 km^2, or an area the size of Miami, FL, Washington, DC, or Detroit, MI.

Just FYI.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek


I just did a quick calculation. Assuming nine people can stand in one square meter (pretty crowded, but doable), the Earth's population of 6 billion people can fit into 667 km^2. That's about the size of Grand Rapids, MI, Winston-Salem, NC, or San Jose, CA.

If you drop it to a more comfortable 2 people per square meter, then you need 3000 km^2, or an area the size of Miami, FL, Washington, DC, or Detroit, MI.

Just FYI. dsm, Shane sort of answered your question.

The Earth is not 'crowded' in the sense that we need to peck on each other - there would be a reasonable square of wheat fields for each one.

I think it is fair to say that distribution of wealth is the real problem.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bjorn
dsm, Shane sort of answered your question.

The Earth is not 'crowded' in the sense that we need to peck on each other - there would be a reasonable square of wheat fields for each one.

I think it is fair to say that distribution of wealth is the real problem.

Ha, I always suspected you were a closet communist.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


I just did a quick calculation. Assuming nine people can stand in one square meter (pretty crowded, but doable), the Earth's population of 6 billion people can fit into 667 km^2. That's about the size of Grand Rapids, MI, Winston-Salem, NC, or San Jose, CA.

If you drop it to a more comfortable 2 people per square meter, then you need 3000 km^2, or an area the size of Miami, FL, Washington, DC, or Detroit, MI.

Just FYI.

I think the idea of a 'footprint' is much more useful. How much land area is needed for each person to live a good life? For example, the City of New York requires a huge area of countryside to be able to exist. This is it's footprint.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/2002/10/FOOTPRNT.WCS.html

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think the idea of a 'footprint' is much more useful. How much land area is needed for each person to live a good life?

I wasn't attempting to speak to that. I was examining Bjorn's claim of how much space the people themselves take up just by standing. 2 people per m^2 is fine for a cocktail party; of course we couldn't live like that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


I wasn't attempting to speak to that. I was examining Bjorn's claim of how much space the people themselves take up just by standing. 2 people per m^2 is fine for a cocktail party; of course we couldn't live like that.

I know, which is why I thougt it would be more useful to get onto the concept of just what is a meaningful measure of the area a person does need to exist on.

[dsm]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I know, which is why I thougt it would be more useful to get onto the concept of just what is a meaningful measure of the area a person does need to exist on.

More than "need to exist on" -- what about "wish to exist on"? Remember also that if you put everyone in a small area, you increase the likelihood of their being wiped out thru disease, famine, or war.

Bjorn mentioned distribution of wealth. Perhaps, particularly in the sense of distribution of resources and the (artificial?) division of them by the nation-states.

[xouper]

Ladewig: When pigs, fowl, and humans live in close proximity, there is a greater likelyhood of virii mutating and spreading.May I ask, do you use that particular plural form of the word virus for humorous effect? Or for some other reason?

[max]

Tricky
I guess we have already messed up the earth and there's no going back. I'm sure most posters on here must believe in the Darwin theory of the survival of the fittest. Well, we stopped that process by feeding the poor countries and inventing cars/airoplanes. If we started over and just concentrated on our own groups survival, we wouldn't be so populated. We have infact intervened in natures plan. Even when it presents us with SARS, we get out the disinfection and sterilize everything so that the disease is harnessed. A few centuries ago SARS would have killed thousands thus culling the population. We have become too smart for our own good. Nature produces these diseases to reduce the population.
Well, that's my opinion
If we left the poorer countries alone to survive or not and I know this would be hard to do, they would die off as nature intended. But we keep sending charity goods and food which isn't half enough but it just keeps them ticking over.:D
In effect we have stopped 'the survival of the fittest' that nature set up. We have gone against the law of nature

[American]

If each couple has 2 kids, and nobody dies without also marrying and having 2 kids, then the population will stay perfectly level. In theory, averaging even 3 kids per couple could choke the planet's resources to the point of hellish competition and massive starvation. Land and food seem to be the big limiting factors.

We're just a bunch of bacteria eating sucrose in a jar. Anyone who has lots of kids is truly killing the planet. Realistically it doesn't matter at the moment, but who knows what year that will suddenly change, very tragically and rapidly.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by American
If each couple has 2 kids, and nobody dies without also marrying and having 2 kids, then the population will stay perfectly level. In theory, averaging even 3 kids per couple could choke the planet's resources to the point of hellish competition and massive starvation. Land and food seem to be the big limiting factors.

See links I posted below. Replacement level fertility has been calculated at 2.1 children per woman. Land and food are not limiting factors. It's been established that famine is almost entirely due to political rather than nutritional pressures. Some of the most peaceful parts of Earth have it's highest population densities i.e Japan, Singapore, the Netherlands. These countries are also someof the most prosperous on earth.

We're just a bunch of bacteria eating sucrose in a jar.
:rolleyes:

Realistically it doesn't matter at the moment, but who knows what year that will suddenly change, very tragically and rapidly.

Please read some of the links I posted earlier in the thread. Hunger and population growth are on the decline.