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

[Roman]

Originally posted by Transcend
If you read my comparison about India and China in the first page of this thread, you will see that Communists were NOT at fault for China's poverty.
Also the magnificent rise of Chinese economy and standard of living in the last 20 years coincided with the population growth being brought under control. Now the growth rate is just a little bit higher than the US.

Actually, I remember reading a statistic that back in 1980s the Chinese Communist Party aimed to curb population growth in such a way that it would peak at slightly 1.2 billion in the year 2000 and then slowly decline to 700 million. After that it was supposed to stabilize at this level, as this was considered an environmentally/long term sustainable population for China, producing sufficient food surplasses not to have to rely on foreigners even in the worst of times. Basically, they thought that would be the ideal population for China. The plan obviously did not work and the Chinese population is prrojected to reach 1.5 billion by 2030. Can you remember anything more about this? What is their revised "ideal" level for China's population?

[Transcend]

WE, why don't you go ahead and read my other posts in this thread?

We are talking about population control, a policy I support with great approval, and not about AI complaints. AI complains about America, too. Does that mean I have to disagree with everything the US government does?

Amnesty International is an organization I don't respect much. They complain and complain without offering any solutions. They are just like many religious groups who tried to impose of their world view on everyone else. Their slogans may sound pretty. Their causes may seem to be noble. But they can't solve any real-world difficulties. Their insistence to investigate the prison revolt in Mazar-i-Sharif was a complete sham. Why didn't they investigate the WTC bombing instead? Their opposition to the war in Afghanistan is completely reality-detached. In their narrow-minded world view, Roosevelt, Churchill, and many other great world leaders would be labeled as war criminals, terrorists, tyrants, etc...

Finally, if you go to China and ask people about the corrupt officials, you will get an uniform answer: SHOOT THEM.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Roman


Actually, I remember reading a statistic that back in 1980s the Chinese Communist Party aimed to curb population growth in such a way that it would peak at slightly 1.2 billion in the year 2000 and then slowly decline to 700 million. After that it was supposed to stabilize at this level, as this was considered an environmentally/long term sustainable population for China, producing sufficient food surplasses not to have to rely on foreigners even in the worst of times. Basically, they thought that would be the ideal population for China. The plan obviously did not work and the Chinese population is prrojected to reach 1.5 billion by 2030. Can you remember anything more about this? What is their revised "ideal" level for China's population?

The target was 1.2 billion by year 2000. The target was missed by about 100 million. Well, still good enough. Current target is to prevent the population to go beyond 1.6 billion. If the economy keeps going up and a social security system is installed, I don't see why this target can't be achieved.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Transcend
WE, why don't you go ahead and read my other posts in this thread?

We are talking about population control, a policy I support with great approval, and not about AI complaints. AI complains about America, too. Does that mean I have to disagree with everything the US government does?

I've read this whole thread. My point was that you were trying to point to China and India as cases for population control claiming their woes stemed from too many people while my arguement was that their culture and politics have more to do with their precarious predicaments than the size of their population.

Finally, if you go to China and ask people about the corrupt officials, you will get an uniform answer: SHOOT THEM.

I don't think I need to tell you this, but actions speak louder than words my friend.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Transcend

Also the magnificent rise of Chinese economy and standard of living in the last 20 years coincided with the population growth being brought under control. Now the growth rate is just a little bit higher than the US.

I find it ironic that the "magnificent rise" of the Chinese economy and standard of living coincides not only with the popluation growth being brought under control, but also with the fall of Russian Commnunism. Hmm...

I'd be interested to hear your rationale of the decline in population growth effecting the economy as in either case you'd still have too many people and as you've already indicated too many people is the result of poverty, no?

[Transcend]

Ah WE, my comparison for India and China was addressed at Richard Brun. I wanted to show him that democracy is not a guarantee that a country will flourish. The comparison of India and China serves exactly this purpose.

I should have made clearer that high population growth is the result of poverty, and the widespread poverty of Chinese peasants was directly caused by overpopulation during the imperial times.

Certainly, the recent boom of Chinese economy has more to do with reforms carried out in the early 50s and then in late 70s. Despite the annual growth rate of 10+% over these years, there are currently 200-300 million Chinese underemployed, meaning they really contribute little to the GDP, but more to social instability. Also, it is exactly the underemployed who committed the bulk of crimes, especially violent ones. Without population control, these people could easily be increased by another 200 million. Now that would be a scary proposition.

[MORON]

Yellow River, famous for its devastating floods in old times, is now completely dry at certain places during the summer season.

You serious !?

Doesn't this have far more to do with politics and culture rather than population?

Well, such politics and culture do play a role, but would be of no effect if China has the population density....of say Canada.

China has more than enough human capital to have built a massive infrastructure and instead it choose to remain in the dark ages.

China tried.... (thinks the great leap forward......................millions died in great famines...since the farm labors were required to industrilization)

Well, anyway, China is far more developed than it was 20 years ago.

How much of all this is linked to China's isolationist politics and military dictatorships and not over population?

A country trying every trick to get into WTO isolationist?

You wouldn't be refering to the death penalities dolled out to drug offenders and even those caught for tax evasion, would you?

WTF. Linking two unrelated stuff together. Are you telling me that Texas is using capital punishment for population control? Unless we have mass killing on scale of Stalin or Hitler, China's population won't feel a dent.

I've read this whole thread. My point was that you were trying to point to China and India as cases for population control claiming their woes stemed from too many people while my arguement was that their culture and politics have more to do with their precarious predicaments than the size of their population.

Population, culture and politics all adds to the problem. Without the population, the problem wouldn't exist. Solving the other problems seems easier but is in fact not much easier. Culture? Both had thousands of years of years behind them. Politics? Communist and Democracy plagued by violence and uneducated? Development? Lack of capital and highly educated. Sure somethings are improving, but not at a fast rate.

Overpopulation is also this forums' problem

....only if ot counts....

[Transcend]

Originally posted by MORON

You serious !?

Yes, I saw it with my own eyes when my train crossed the river near Zhengzhou last summer.

[drake]

Gee, I forgot about this thing and lots of stuff went up while I was gone. Some interesting discussion on both sides!

A few things to address. I am not a gloom and doomer I wasn't calling for an apocalypse or anything. I didn't make any predictions. I'm not pretending to be a prophet.

The whole basic idea of this thread IMO was to think about quality over quantity. I am talking about IMPROVING the overall quality of life and the quality of the planet. If one can't see the damage that has already been done to the earth in our very short time of being here, then they are blind. Sure, we can make lots of subsitutes and come up with brilliant ideas, but the fact of the matter is, there is still sprawl. Urban areas are slowly but surely consuming nature. And believe me it's not at all slowing down. Yes, there is plenty of room still, but why do we want more urban and less rural? How many animals have we made extinct because of rising demands? How many are close to being extinct? Plenty.

More people= more resources used, regardless of technology. It could be 100 years from now. It could be 1000, or 10000. But at some point, if the population doesnt level off, there will be a massive world wide issue.

I think it was richard that asked if americans should feel like they should limit their baby making. Well, the answer is yes! PARTICULARLY Americans. Why? Because we have lots of money, and lots of disregard for anything but ourselves. As the biggest consumers in the world, we are the biggest wasters and throw away society on the planet. We almost all have fundamental items like tv's cars, microwaves etc. and they are all built to last for a very finite amount of time. It's very often cheaper to buy new things in the US than repair them. And all these plastics and artificial materials get pitched. Most americans don't recycle! And hundreds of new homes are built every day, just a little further on the outskirts of an urban area. Soon suburbs become urban and rural becomes suburban. Do we notice it in our lifetimes? Perhaps not, but it is happening everywhere, particularly in the US.

Waste waste waste. Throw litter all over the place. Walking through cities is usually un-pleasant, just for the amount of trash on the grounds and the stench of exaughst and smog. Is that living? Is that what we should strive for?

More americans= more waste, more pollution, more abuse of resources. We SHOULD be limited to having a certain amount of kids, but the government would never consider it. Why? Well that would be bad for business of course!

Everyone knows things not used in moderation, in excess always causes problems....and the same is the case for population. Some day it will reach the point where people become too excessive for the planet to bear.

Ahh, but what do we care? It won't effect us
Right?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

WHAT WILL HAPPEN SOONER OR LATER

Is
1. we will go to the moon or beyond...
or
2. we will have have a WWIII that will decimate the population
or
3. we will have diseases that will decimate the population
or
4. the economy will crash, and a lot of people will live in poverty, but this is in place on most of the earths surface so the rich (west) lives off the poor, and this is the way it will stay for a long time, and they will die there so that we may live here using their resources to live in abundance... if they get rich too than eventually we will both get poor (te environment will not be able to support us like the rabbits on that island), or more likely there will be a war that will decimate the population.

[Dr.Oogkloot]

5. A way to sustain a larger number people on Earth is discovered.

If people can be uploaded and the Earth is converted into a computer, it can contain ten to the somethingeth people. (Where "something" is a number much larger than 10).

[Az]

Dr. Oogkloot : I don't think that these can be considered proper living conditions . a human is a human , mind AND body !

to help the humanity from taking a step behing we must take a step forward . we MUST do it , because the current situation is leading us to fall back to middle age society . that's why we must :

1) Invent Fusion Power.
2) GM crops are OK , but be smart , scurpulous testing before release .
3) Family planning everywhere ! no country with more than 3 kids per household average ! ( as a first step )
4) Gene therapy , Genetical Tailoring to correct mutations . NOTE : unknown mutations shouldn't be treated as dangerous. The child should be allowed to be born naturally . mutations known as bad should be treated . (and yes we can judge that )
5) full free education . if that is achieved, I wouldn't mind capitalism , even... ( what's wrong with me ??! )
6) space , baby

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Transcend
That shows your complete ignorance about the geography of China. 2/3 or China's territory are virtually uninhabitable, and only 10% of the country are arable land. Shanghai has about the same area as Denver, but has at least 20 times its population. Redo your math please.

I knew that. As I said, my math was not serious. You were using one part of a country as evidence to make judgements about the whole thing. The difficulties involved in getting on a train, however spectacular, are not the most compelling evidence regarding the state of an entire country. At most it indicates a bad public transportation system. I was trying to show how meaningless such anecdotes are by throwing out some meaningless ones of my own.

Since you have never been to China, you are not in a position to judge the effect of overcrowding.

I know conditions are bad. But I dispute that overcrowding is the primary problem.

Overpopulation had a smaller effect in industrial countries than agrarian ones where ownership of land was crucial.

Which is why every effort must be made to allow agrarian countries to become industrial. If 90% of the people are farmers, there will be poverty. But if all the farming is done by about 2% of the people, like it is in industrialized countries, then 98% rather than 10% of the population is free to get educated and create other kinds of wealth.

From the CIA factbook
After 1978, his successor DENG Xiaoping gradually introduced market-oriented reforms and decentralized economic decision making. Output quadrupled in the next 20 years and China now has the world's second largest GDP.

By starting to abandnon Russian-style centralized communist planning, the government is helping matters. They made GDP quadruple even while population was increasing and overcrowding getting worse.

Unfortunately, both China and India were agrarian societies, with over 90% of their population being peasants.

That is the problem. Poverty, and agricultural inefficiency. Crop yields are far lower than they are in industrial countries, even on similar land. The problem, as you pointed out yourself, is that the land is not being used properly.

[/q]The overpopulation was the most important reason why China's population was so poor.[q]

Look at the average Chinese standard of living in 1700. Compare it to the standard of living in 2000. Is there any difference? Yes, the people in 2000 are better off, as you pointed out with your figures form the factbook. How could that have happened if population is the main thing that causes poverty?

Industrialization would have helped. But for it there was no capital. Both China and India were unlucky enough to be on the pillaging end of European powers.

There is capital now. Companies all over the world are pouring capital into China, now that their economy has freed up. Industry is developing rapidly and much wealth is being created. Or is this another lie spread by the news magazines like The Economist that I spend about 2 hours a day reading in the library?

European powers, especially England and France, financed their transformation from agrarian to industrial society with looted wealth from their colonies.

Their industrialization was what gave them the ability to loot the colonies. It came first. Manchester was full of factories long before the Brits started ruining China.

I hope now you would understand why overpopulation is intrincably linked to poverty, and vice versa, and why it is important to break the cycle.

My entire focus is that we should break the cycle by addressing poverty, not by addressing population. If we deal with poverty, population will take care of itself without the need for draconian measures.

Americans had the capital to develop new technology and fund education, China didn't.

And that is what we must change. The key, as I keep saying, is education and poverty. Population is a secondary concern.

The majority of convois got through. If Nazis won the Battle of Atlantic, Britain would have surrendered.

I know that most of the convoys got through. But it was the possibility of worse that scared them. My point was that they were able to dramatically increase their food production once they put effort and capital into it.

Population already reaches critical mass in China and India, especially China where arable land is scarce.

In England, Ireland, and many other places around 1800, population was reaching critical mass. Rural poverty was rampant, and people hardly had enough land to support their families. The country's food production was critical and a failure in food production could and did mean the deaths of millions. Corrupt landlords abused their people in the countries, and the masses of urban poor were similarly oppressed.

Sound familiar? It should. The good news is that they got over the situation. First they got rid of the corrupt officials. Then they applied scientific methods to farming, increasing crop yields while simultaneously freeing the poor from the horrors of subsistence farming.

Now they are far richer, and they don't worry about food and other essentials. This despite the fact that the poopulations are now a lot larger.

Nothing prevents this from happening again.

The cause for the sand storm is the desertification of Inner Mongolian pasture land. Since the time of Emperor Qianlong(1736-1796), China had experienced a rapid growth of it population. Millions of people were losing their land due to the overpopulation in core provinces, and some of them tried their luck in the pasture land of Inner Mongolia. As you know, without sophiscated irrigation technology, which these poor farmers didn't have, such pasture land could easily turn into deserts.

Change a few words and you just described our Dust Bowl. We got over it, and I have every confidence that you can too. And American rural poverty in the 30's was just as bad as Chinese poverty now. Ever read Steinbeck books? Lots of people couldn't afford good clothes or beans.

Also the magnificent rise of Chinese economy and standard of living in the last 20 years coincided with the population growth being brought under control.

Certainly, the recent boom of Chinese economy has more to do with reforms carried out in the early 50s and then in late 70s.

So which one is it? Are you saying that poverty was alleviated by economic reform or by population coltrol?

There's something else I don't understand. First you complain about the terrible conditions in China, then you use figures from a CIA publication to say India is a worse place than China. Also you say that everyone wants to shoot the corrupt officials, while at the same time saying that these Communist officials are doing the right thing for the country. It seems that you are simultaneously condmming and defending your country and government. I thought Americans were the only people who display that odd behavior.

For the people who don't know, China has only 7% of world's arable land, but has to support 20% of the world's population.

Congratulations. You just proved that the world is capable of tripling its food production.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by drake
If one can't see the damage that has already been done to the earth in our very short time of being here, then they are blind.

No one disputes the fact that damage was done. The point is that population is not directly responsible for that damage. Most industrialized countries were far more polluted in teh past than they were today, even though there are more people. Places like the Great Lakes have been cleaned up as industries were forced to be cleaner.

Sure, we can make lots of subsitutes and come up with brilliant ideas, but the fact of the matter is, there is still sprawl. Urban areas are slowly but surely consuming nature. And believe me it's not at all slowing down.

This is mainly an American problem. If you've been to or flown over western Europe you've seen that they don't have suburban sprawl, at least not enough to be statistically significant. Villages and cities don't grow in size they way they do here.

Even though their population density is a lot higher, they have less negative impact on the environment than we do.

More people= more resources used, regardless of technology.

Nope, sorry. That simply isn't the case. If current developments in chenistry and biology continue, it will be possible to support a wealthy, advanced civilization with little more than biomass.

Consider that so many things that were once considered critical resources are now cheaper and less in demand. For example, the German war machine almost shut down for lack of molybdenium and cobalt but now there isn't any hint of a supply problem. This was reflected in the Ehrich bet.

It could be 100 years from now. It could be 1000, or 10000. But at some point, if the population doesnt level off, there will be a massive world wide issue.

Do you have any idea of the kind of technology we might have in 1000 years if current development trends continue? Compare 1900 and 2000, and extrapolate. Even assuming linear growth you get unheard of advances, and there are many indications that tech growth is exponential in the right situations.

Remember that people, even advanced human societies, don't really need steel or oil or silicon or uranium. We could easily grow beyond the need for such things long before they run out.

----
If I forgot to address soneone's important point, let me know. It wasn't intentional; it's easy to miss stuff.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by drake

I think it was richard that asked if americans should feel like they should limit their baby making. Well, the answer is yes! PARTICULARLY Americans. Why? Because we have lots of money, and lots of disregard for anything but ourselves. As the biggest consumers in the world, we are the biggest wasters and throw away society on the planet.

I case you forgot, or don't know, we Americans also produce the most so naturally we use the most as well. Now if we didn't produce the most and still used the most then we'd have a problem, but as it stands I don't see it that way. Mind you, the reason our ancestors crossed Oceans in steerage class was to have more, not less. There are plenty of places in the world where people have less, a lot less. If that's what you're looking for I implore you to seek them out and live up all the lessness you can get.

More americans= more waste, more pollution, more abuse of resources. We SHOULD be limited to having a certain amount of kids, but the government would never consider it. Why? Well that would be bad for business of course!

Well that's one way to look at it, or you could also look at it as more americans = more production, hence more commodities. You also seem to be unaware of the impending crisis that is about to befall you and I when the baby boomer generation begins retiring leaving more people retired than in the work force. The problem being that the baby boomers haven't produced enough children to fill the large work force, not that there were too many baby boomers born. If that was the case there would be a far higher unemployment rate. Unless of coure you believe the US is over populated now?