World's biggest problem: Overpopulation? (Just something to think about)

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: World's biggest problem: Overpopulation? (Just something to think about)

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
This kind of thinking is one of the few things that can get me really upset. It shows an utter lack of understanding of how science, economics, and human nature function.

It's not that simple. While advances in sciences have given us many wonderful inventions, the tendency to apply technology to nature without a sufficient understanding resulted in many disasters before. Just to mention a few: DDT, PCB, and CFC. This tendency must be tempered if humans are to survive as a species.

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
And on a moral level, it is quite possibly the most inhumane doctrine in existence today. When you start to think of people as the problem, you have little regard for their health, their welfare, or even their lives.

On the contrary, it is the concern of health, welfare, and human lives that lead to the concerns of overpopulation. It is a simple fact that there is a limit to everything, and that includes the carrying capacity of the earth.

Originally posted by Richard Bruns

And there are still people b1tching about China's population control efforts. I predict sooner or later Pakistan and India are going to experience a major social collapse due to population pressure.

Did you just seriously support the actions of one of the worst human rights offenders on the planet? Did you just support the actions of a regime that has consistently shown a callous disregard for human life?

Let me ignore the "human rights" issue here since that's an independent matter in itself. What you have been doing are ad hominem attacks, completely skirting the issue itself while picking on some alleged negative quality of the entity in question. If you think the "One Child" policy is bad you can show us your arguments, even though the UN thinks it's a good one.

Maybe you think it's a draconian measure. While I agree it's draconian in itself it's absolutely necessary to put a curb on the runaway population growth.

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
For your information, India exports food. They were able to use modern (Western) technology to feed themselves and have a lot leftover. Meanwhile China continues to import food.

This ignores reality. First of all large areas of India are fertile, arable land while most of China is hilly terrain. Large regions are dominated by mountains. The arable land lies on the major river deltas and consist of only a very small fraction of the total land area. Secondly, the problem with modern farming tehcnology is it is not sustainable. Using synthetic fertilisers messes up the soil, not to mention that the excess amounts cause all sorts of environmental problems. Using synthetic herbicides and pesticides creates pests that are resistant to these chemicals, and they are also problematic in nature.

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
Ok mister Malthus, lets consider what has happened to worldwide food production in the last century. We are now feeding over 6 billion people, and on average they get more calories than the 1.6 billion people in 1900. We have proven that if we don't have enough land, than we can make more good land and/or put the land we have to better use.

That turned out to cause all sorts of environmental disasters. For example draining swamps to make arable land has been shown to be a costly mistake, as swamps purify water, among its many natural functions. Let me not start to mention cutting down forests.

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
No, AIDS is the result of human stupidity and ignorance. Improve education and teach people to use thought instead of instinct and these things wouldn't be a problem. Japan has a much higher population density than most African countries and last time I checked it didn't have a raging AIDS epidemic.

AIDS is more of a result of population pressure. With less population there are areas where people don't have to settle.

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
The average quality of life now is a lot higher than it was at the turn of the century. We are producing far more per person than anyone could have dreamed, even though there are so many more people now. Your math is wrong because you forget that people produce things so the more people there are the more things there are.

This certainly holds true for Western countries, but what about the rest of the world? Areas used to be good, such as Ethopia, are now completely messed up.

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
Malthus said that in 1798. Ehrlich said that in the 1960's. They were wrong. We have handled continuous expansion just fine. And since the UN estimates that world populatoin will level off at 8-9 billion, we will do fine well into the future without any draconian population control plans.

Fine? With a looming Global Warming, destruction of many habitats, and large numbers of disasters, and you call that fine?

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
Again, this is a fallacy. If it was true, Europe would be overpopulated and Africa would not be. The countries with the best medical care are invariably the ones with the lowest rate of population increase.

While this is true, the fact remains that medicine has a much faster effect than education. So while medicine curbs the death rate in many poor countries efficiently, the populace is still into making lots of children.

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
We can learn and grow and produce and expand until we have a strong enough economic and technological base to finish the amazing gains of the past century and bring the health care and economy of the first world to everyone.

Unfortunately, the amazing gains of the past century came with a staggering price.

The problem is we have lots of technology but lack the understanding and wisdom to use them properly.

[Jon Miller]

WE NEED MORE POPULATION (EARTH)

Jon Miller

[MORON]

Despo Pop rushing too much? Neo-ICS I guess.

Where is that planet blaster?

WE NEED MORE POPULATION (EARTH)

Fool...if its mars or something I wouldn't mind.

Race between technology and resources. More people = more technology & more resource use. So far technology induced efficiency improvements have far outstripped resource use, but it is not a law.

While I agree it's draconian in itself it's absolutely necessary to put a curb on the runaway population growth.

Try Educations and birth control. After all, westen nations often have <2.1 lifetime birth rate.

Fine? With a looming Global Warming, destruction of many habitats, and large numbers of disasters, and you call that fine?

You don't needs a lot of people for this. You only need some Americans (damn they spend more resource per capital than anyone else)

Alternatively, the more people you have, the more can be produced, the greater economies of scale apply and increased diversity of labour can be used.

Classical/Neo-Classical thinking

Your mathmatical models are so nice, and it reality don't conform, reality is wrong.

It is quite simple math that a population growth significantly larger than 0 is not going to be sustainable in any country in the long run.

Try SMAC?

Don't you worry, people kill themselves often enough, and when resources are short, its a given. Humanity will survive.

[Richard Bruns]

Re: Re: Re: World's biggest problem: Overpopulation? (Just something to think about)

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's not that simple. While advances in sciences have given us many wonderful inventions, the tendency to apply technology to nature without a sufficient understanding resulted in many disasters before. Just to mention a few: DDT, PCB, and CFC. This tendency must be tempered if humans are to survive as a species.

I agree. But I don't see how these errors are a result of overpopulation. Most of them were committed by relatively stable underpopulated countries like the USA.

But I would argue that DDT has had an absolutely enormous positive impact on human life and health. Millions of people who would have died to malaria owe their lives to it. It was at the time, and in a few cases still is, the best insecticide to use in malaria control.

On the contrary, it is the concern of health, welfare, and human lives that lead to the concerns of overpopulation.

I understand that the motives may be good. But the fundamental assumption of this belief is that more people is a bad thing. I cannot accept this. Humans have consistently shown that enormous population densities can be supported in comfort if the legal, educational, and economic systems are sound.

It is a simple fact that there is a limit to everything, and that includes the carrying capacity of the earth.

That is where I disagree. Humans have consistently shown an ability to improve the carrying capacity of our species. We have usually increased the carrying capacity at slightly more than the rate that we increase the population.

Let me ignore the "human rights" issue here since that's an independent matter in itself.

If human rights abuses are perpetrated in the name of population control, it becomes an issue, and a very central one.

What you have been doing are ad hominem attacks, completely skirting the issue itself while picking on some alleged negative quality of the entity in question. If you think the "One Child" policy is bad you can show us your arguments, even though the UN thinks it's a good one.

I do not think that was a personal attack. I asked because I do not believe that Transcend truly supports the reality of implementing the policy. I believe that he would vehemently oppose the brutal actions of the Chinese. I was trying to show the connection between the actions and the theory.

The one child policy as implemented is the ultimate form of totalitarianism. It is a government dictating to its people in a truly Orwellian fashion what they must do with their bodies. It leads to the state forcing abortion, a dangerous medical procedure, on unwilling subjects. It involves sterilization of unwilling victims on the assumption that Big Brother knows best and has the right to dictate every facet of the people's lives.

The UN is the same organization that, in the name of population control, has delivered abortion equipment instead of needed drugs to refugee camps.

I'm not saying these abuses happen all the time, and I am not saying you support them. I am saying that they are inevitable consequences of the implementation of this overpopulation doctrine.

I do not believe that any of you would support the reality involved in enforcing of the theory that you support. I do not hold that negative an opinion of you. But I think that you must try to understand where your beliefs can lead. Population control may be a good thing in theory (I am not agreeing on that) but the carrying out and enforcing of the theory leads to human rights abuses and squandered resources.

Maybe you think it's a draconian measure. While I agree it's draconian in itself it's absolutely necessary to put a curb on the runaway population growth.

This is the root of the problem. A belief in the desirability of less people has led to support of draconian measures that end up hurting a lot of people.

That turned out to cause all sorts of environmental disasters. For example draining swamps to make arable land has been shown to be a costly mistake, as swamps purify water, among its many natural functions. Let me not start to mention cutting down forests.

Yes, it was a mistake. But we can learn from mistakes, and continue to improve the land in a more environmentally friendly way.

AIDS is more of a result of population pressure. With less population there are areas where people don't have to settle.

I know that disease spreads more easily when there are more people. But the fact remains that many high-density areas have far fewer cases than low-density places, and that will not change in the near future. Wealth and education mean far more to the spread of disease than population.

This certainly holds true for Western countries, but what about the rest of the world? Areas used to be good, such as Ethopia, are now completely messed up.

What messed them up? Is it more people, or is it corrupt warlike governments and a breakdown in education and the economy? Most scholars believe the latter.

Fine? With a looming Global Warming, destruction of many habitats, and large numbers of disasters, and you call that fine?

Compared to the industrial revolution and the poverty and starvation of previous times, yes it is fine. We have come a long way. I have a simple question: Would you rather be an average person or any other time in history?

As for the future, I think we can handle it. Look at where we were in science and technology 100 years ago. Give us another hundred years; we should be able to solve any problems that we caused in the last century.

People like Malthus and Ehrlich have always predicted disaster, and their predictions were always trumped by human ingenuity. I do not think this is any different.

While this is true, the fact remains that medicine has a much faster effect than education. So while medicine curbs the death rate in many poor countries efficiently, the populace is still into making lots of children.

Who are we to tell them what to do? Can't we at least grant them the dignity of making their own choices? All western countries went through a similar period.

Unfortunately, the amazing gains of the past century came with a staggering price.

The problem is we have lots of technology but lack the understanding and wisdom to use them properly.

That's why we need more people, and better communication. Understanding and wisdom is generated by people. The more people we have and the more they communicate, the more we will develop understanding and wisdom. It is the natural progression of history.

By the way, I've seen a lot of articles recently in reputable places like The Economist that show that the thirld world people are managing to take care of themselves in a not of places. They are learning to improve crop yields and health. They are using their people to grow and develop and improve their lot. I'll try to find these articles.

And by the way Urban Ranger, thanks a lot for calmly reacting to my rant. I needed that. You seem to be a good citizen. As I said, I was upset. When I see someone starting to talk of sacrificing a lot of people for an ideal, I get mad. Such idealistic and well-meaning contempt for individuals and the masses has caused more problems in modern history than anything I can think of.

I'm tired. I'll address India/China comparisons later.

One last thought: Overpopulation, when it is a problem, is a symptom and not a cause.

Edit: messed up the quote tags

[Juggernaut]

IIRC, Sweden's death/birth co-effecient the last few year's been negative. We grow only due to immigration.
So, people are welcome here. We got like 300 000 square km of waste woodland to fill.

Välkommen till Sverige!

[Berzerker]

Since most of the potentially ariable land is above the tropics, we need more global warming to bring those lands into the range for mass agriculture

[Dis]

It's not something I worry about. Disease will take care of all overpopulation problems. I expect an epidemic in 75 to 100 years. I don't expect to be around for it though.

[Dr. Nick]

Disease is not a problem. With the current technology, the earth's carrying capacity had been estimated at several more times the current population.

Then again, following the examples of Italy and Germany, where the population is decreasing or geriatrifying, several have predicted that the earth's population will level off between 10 and 15 billion in a hundred or so years time.

The problem is not overpopulation, the problem is unequal distribution of wealth.

[Dr. Nick]

Then again, we could terraform the mountains and turn them into grasslands... all we need to do is train more engineers.

[Thue]

Originally posted by El Awrence
Disease is not a problem. With the current technology, the earth's carrying capacity had been estimated at several more times the current population.

Yes, but:
1) Then everybody would have to live at minimum consumption.
2) We would have to cultivate everything, the only priority food production.

It would be much better if there just wasn't so many people.

[Dr. Nick]

Originally posted by Thue


Yes, but:
1) Then everybody would have to live at minimum consumption.
2) We would have to cultivate everything, the only priority food production.

It would be much better if there just wasn't so many people.

SEVERAL MORE TIMES. Did you read the rest of my post? The UN say that the population is going to level off at 10-15 bn...

[Thue]

The points still stand - 15b people will tax the environment alot and put limits on the remaining people that needed not be there.

[Dr. Nick]

When I said several I meant 30-50 billion odd (if I remember figures correctly).

Ergo, 15 billion would NOT be a problem. Unequal distribution of wealth is the problem.

[drake]

Sheesh =)

Richard really got his panties in a bunch huh

The whole idea richard is that less people need less natural (not scientific!) resources. Natural resources are not in-definite. I don't care what science people come up with, you dig from a mine long enough and the bounty will run out.

You make statements like:

"This kind of thinking is one of the few things that can get me really upset. It shows an utter lack of understanding of how science, economics, and human nature function. And on a moral level, it is quite possibly the most inhumane doctrine in existence today. When you start to think of people as the problem, you have little regard for their health, their welfare, or even their lives. "

which shows you totally missed the point. I'm not at all saying we should exterminate a few billion people to level the playing field or anything of the sort. But what is wrong with desiring a bit more moderation in population growth? Why must people breed like rabbits?

Saying we should keep the worlds population in check isn't cruel Richard, promoting irresponsible reproduction is!

Where does it stop then Richard? 10 billion? 20 billion? 50 billion? By then we'd all be living in cities, packed in like sardines. Now if thats what you think the world needs, you're entitled to it. But it sounds pretty sick to me.

Say what you want Richard, but people, the masses, whatever you call them, are hurting the world more than helping it. If we as a people don't do something about it, I guarantee nature will take it's course and do it for us.

The world is made up of have and have nots. And eventually the have nots are going to have nothing (except a patch of sand and rocks that couldn't grow a weed, like in Afghanistan). When resources become un-available, there will be wars, great wars to obtain them. (There already have been a few of those in the ME). And nature will take its course.

I don't think the worlds current population is un-sustainable. Hell, its still got some room. But the expansion has to stop somewhere. Sometime.

Humans havent been around that long on this planet and look what we've already done to it. Another few thousand years with the technology we have? I cringe to think of what this world could look like in the next century or two.

[Dr. Nick]

Well, yes, birth control and family planning could work miracles. But people in the developing world, need their children to help sustain themselves and their families. Without cash, they have no access to birth control or education ergo family planning. Plus the high death rates and infant mortality rates, they reproduce like rabbits because they have no better choice. Unequal distribution of wealth again the problem.