Peak Population

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
is there a word for it when people threadjack an obvious sarcastic troll back on topic?

Somehow this all seems a tad post-modern for my tastes.

ssshhh, its more fun if they don't realize.

[Colon™]

Look, GDP/capita is the resultant of 2 factors: GDP created every working hour (labour productivity) and the amount of hours worked. Labour productivity in turn depends on a number of factors, the most noteworthy being the amount of capital goods every worker can make use of (tools, machinery etc), the technological level of those capital goods, specialisation and the worker's training/education. And history had time and time again that income growth goes hand in hand with productivity growth, even if the process isn't always as smoothly. Productivity determines how well off we are because there's a limit to the amount of hours we can work. Put simply, we wouldn't have current living standards if we'd still be using stone tools and spears.

I think it's amazing how easily people confuse relative magnitudes with absolute magnitudes. As if we'd individually be worse off with an economy producing 900 billion with 90 million people rather than producing 1 trillion with 100 million people.

The only way population size could possibly affect productivity is specialisation, assuming that the more people there are, the more possibilities exist to specialise tasks. But I can't imagine population is going to drop to the point we'll have to terminate highly specialised jobs.

I also think it's quite odd that at one time people argue high population growth is the cause of economic hardship (as in the 3rd world) and at another time people argue low or negative population growth is or will be the cause of economic hardship. Consistency anyone?

[The Mad Viking]

I don't know who here indicated that they don't understand productivity.

What I think we are talking about is the expectation of growth.

There is a limit to the population the earth can support, and a limit to the resources available for consumption.

As these limits are approached, expectations will have to change.

[DanS]

I think it's amazing how easily people confuse relative magnitudes with absolute magnitudes. As if we'd individually be worse off with an economy producing 900 billion with 90 million people rather than producing 1 trillion with 100 million people.

If I were a policymaker, I would definitely choose the 1 trillion/100 million option, however. The increased scale likely would add at least slightly to productivity over time.

There is a limit to the population the earth can support, and a limit to the resources available for consumption.

I challenge you to come up with a number of what such a limit would be.

[Odin]

Originally posted by DanS

I challenge you to come up with a number of what such a limit would be.

Based on my reading, 1 to 2 billion if everyone had a Western standard of living.

[DanS]

OK, whose ass did you pull that out of?

[Odin]

Originally posted by DanS
OK, whose ass did you pull that out of?

various books by biologists Paul Erlich and Colin Tudge.

[DanS]

What was their basis?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Colon
Look, GDP/capita is the resultant of 2 factors: GDP created every working hour (labour productivity) and the amount of hours worked. Labour productivity in turn depends on a number of factors, the most noteworthy being the amount of capital goods every worker can make use of (tools, machinery etc), the technological level of those capital goods, specialisation and the worker's training/education. And history had time and time again that income growth goes hand in hand with productivity growth, even if the process isn't always as smoothly. Productivity determines how well off we are because there's a limit to the amount of hours we can work. Put simply, we wouldn't have current living standards if we'd still be using stone tools and spears.

I think it's amazing how easily people confuse relative magnitudes with absolute magnitudes. As if we'd individually be worse off with an economy producing 900 billion with 90 million people rather than producing 1 trillion with 100 million people.

The only way population size could possibly affect productivity is specialisation, assuming that the more people there are, the more possibilities exist to specialise tasks. But I can't imagine population is going to drop to the point we'll have to terminate highly specialised jobs.

No. The other reason is that the productivity of someone who produces zero-marginal-cost goods (e.g. software) is directly proportional to the number of people who consume that good. Therefore that part of the GDP would increase with the square of the population rather than linearly.

[Sandman]

What about marketing and localisation?

[Kuciwalker]

If everyone speaks the same language you don't need localization.

It's true that even software and such aren't truly zero-marginal-cost - at the very least it costs some money for bandwidth if you offer it for download. However, the rule would generally apply.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The Republicans are against cloning, and they SAY its out of deference to the Christian fundies. But in fact it was on Kos, or was it DU, that Cheney and Rumsfeld both once sat on the board of Kelly Services, one of the leading personnel agencies, and undoubtedly one of the holders of substantial secret stockpiles of people.

Its clear to me that the US lead war in Iraq was merely a Cheney initiative to acquire a strategic foothold in an area rich in population growth after the WMD (Weapons of Mass Depopulation) myth had been exposed.

I have also heard that Ted Striker is to become an executive at Haliburton, and major investment of his time and effort will lead to an increase in population production by the company by the fourth quarter of 2006.

[lord of the mark]

The Russians have been exporting people to the West for some time, but if Putin arranges to have them shipped direct to Germany via a pipeline under the Baltic sea, that should get Poland and Ukraine very upset.


Remember - if you have to consume more than one human to create a human, that source is uneconomic, no matter what the price is.


At least the Saudis dont control the supply of humans.

[lord of the mark]

BBC : Japan population starts to shrink.


I mean, like they werent short enough already

[Dauphin]

Bump for Snotty and Gibsie.

PH, yes, the badly scripted opening post was entirely my own crapliteracy, and the idea was mine - thought up on a really boring train journey.