If you think the earth is over-populated, would you rather...

[Jokodo]

You see no alarming bottom graph of pop. increase in the least developed world?

Given that it is entirely consistent with the other figures I have presented, wherein population increase stops in the mid-21st century, and given that it is a pretty similar distribution to the not-at-all-disastrous last three decades, no.

Have you been living and paying attention to the last three decades? You are living in Australia. That may just explain your attitude. We have people who think similar to you living in places like Nevada, Wyoming, and Oklahoma...places unfit for large populations due to water and other resource shortages. The world looks deserted there because that is a desert.

Gosh, really; how many have died? (To the nearest hundred thousand)?

Is it as bad as the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s yet? Should we be getting Bob Geldof involved?

You clearly have a very middle class American view of what constitutes a 'disaster'.

- - - Updated - - -

You see no alarming bottom graph of pop. increase in the least developed world?

Given that it is entirely consistent with the other figures I have presented, wherein population increase stops in the mid-21st century, and given that it is a pretty similar distribution to the not-at-all-disastrous last three decades, no.

What will happen as people live longer, or the world economy picks up and people have more disposable income and decide they no longer want just 0.5- 1.5 children but prefer 2.5 children because they now can afford it. I'm referring to the first world as I think the third world is a lost cause regarding child birth and population control.

Increased wealth has the exact opposite effect. People with more money have fewer children. Your fears are groundless.

ETA:

And people ARE living longer. That is one of the main reasons why population has not yet levelled off. The only more significant one is demographic lag - the large cohort of today's 0-5 year olds will be a large cohort of parents in 20 year's time.

All of this is accounted for in the UN projections.

Well, a much smarter man than I can only wish I could emulate, Professor Stephen Hawking has been quoted as saying recently that we have around a century to find another earth or face the very real prospect of becoming extinct. Uncontrolled growth can only hasten our fate. Remember, extinction is the norm not the exception.

Hawking is a Physicist, not a Demographer.

When your toilet springs a leak, do you call a Neurosurgeon, or a less smart, but better qualified, Plumber?


Seriously, this is getting more and more like debating a creationist. You have no facts to present; but you are going through the list of fallacies like syrup of prunes through a short grandmother.

Appeal to irrelevant authority - check.
Appeal to consequences - check.
Non-sequiturs - check.
Citing sources that don't support your position - check.

What's next? Crocoducks?

Said the dodo bird as extinction beckoned!

Remember your claim about accelerated breeding in developing countries? I see that you still have neither retracted it, nor propped it up with better data than the World Bank's. Is that going to happen anytime soon?

And, you made the same claim about "Islamic" countries, didn't you? Turned out the Middle East and North Africa has a TFR of 2.7 (as of 2012), again down from 2.9 in 2004, didn't it? That makes the regional aggregate TFR actually lower than that of the single country in the region that doesn't have a Muslim majority, Israel. Turns out if you if you start your life as a Middle Eastern country, being Islamic is correlated with a lower TFR (although the correlation is not significant).

But you may say what about those other Islamic countries outside the Middle East? Indonesia and Bangladesh already have TFRs below the global average, while Pakistan's is falling rapidly, now at 3.3 down from 3.9 in 2004. Here's the updated graph: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN/ountries/1W-XL-ZQ-ID-PK-BD-IL?display=graph

There's a number of predominantly Muslim countries that do have extremely high TFRs, but what they have in common is that they are in the Sahel, not that they're "Islamic" - so wrong generalisation.


By the way, if you want to make forecasts, don't look at current growth rates, or even birth rates. Birth rates are defined as number of births relative to the total population. Knowing that only women of child-bearing age give birth, this rate thus depends on at least to other figures: The number of children a woman typically has, and the number of women in child-bearing age as a proportion of the population. So if a country has a high birth rate or population growth rate, it can mean two things: Its women are having a lot of kids, or there are many women (and generally, people) around because one generation ago, the women were having a lot of kids. TFRs let you distinguish between the two, birth rates don't.

 

[Jokodo]

No and neither have you unless you claim to be psychic. I'm looking at the rising population then looking to history when the earth was populated by less than 1 billion not all that long ago. By adding 2+ 2 I have come to the conclusion that the answer is 4.

This would be a rational approach if we didn't know what population growth is caused by. In that case, linear approximation is the best we can do. But we do know what population growth is caused by, so insisting on the linear approximation nonetheless is no different from someone predicting, in the face of a more or less continuous downward trend of temperatures since January or February, that Western Australia is going to experience heavy snow and daily averages below freezeing by December 2014.

 

[angelo]

Even if all those predictions and figures turn out to be correct, it's still predicted by most that by 2050 the population will be over 9 billion and probably closer to 10 billion, that's providing TBR is kept at the present rate. The developing world will want a slice of the western lifestyle which means more resources need to be found and developed. It's the locale of the increase that may trouble, it's mostly where poverty already resides. More pop. growth can only increase the misery facing these people.

 

[bilby]

Even if all those predictions and figures turn out to be correct, it's still predicted by most that by 2050 the population will be over 9 billion and probably closer to 10 billion, that's providing TBR is kept at the present rate. The developing world will want a slice of the western lifestyle which means more resources need to be found and developed. It's the locale of the increase that may trouble, it's mostly where poverty already resides. More pop. growth can only increase the misery facing these people.

if so, Ethiopians must be much worse off today than they were in the 1980s.

Since that time, that desperately poor country has tripled its population. And massively improved the quality of life for its people.

Your analysis is at odds with observed reality.

 

[angelo]

http://gadaa.com/oduu/825/2009/10/0...oorest-county-in-the-world-undps-hdi-reveals/

 

[Jokodo]

http://gadaa.com/oduu/825/2009/10/0...oorest-county-in-the-world-undps-hdi-reveals/

Operative phrase: "compared to the previous year’s data".

Here's a more informative source: https://www.google.at/url?sa=t&rct=...1ebljXCL0wK77JQ&bvm=bv.65788261,d.d2k&cad=rja

Between 2000 and 2012, Ethiopia’s HDI value increased from 0.275 to 0.396, an increase of 44 percent or average annual increase of about 3.1 percent.

 

[bilby]

http://gadaa.com/oduu/825/2009/10/0...oorest-county-in-the-world-undps-hdi-reveals/

Congratulations. You have found one year in the entire period when the standard of living failed to rise.

It didn't fall much; and the trend over the three decades in question is one of massive improvement.

But as long as you ignore all the data that contradicts your position, you might be able to build a weak case.

That's good enough for most creationists.

 

[angelo]

http://gadaa.com/oduu/825/2009/10/0...oorest-county-in-the-world-undps-hdi-reveals/

Congratulations. You have found one year in the entire period when the standard of living failed to rise.

It didn't fall much; and the trend over the three decades in question is one of massive improvement.

But as long as you ignore all the data that contradicts your position, you might be able to build a weak case.

That's good enough for most creationists.

WTF!! Who's a creationist?

 

[Jokodo]

http://gadaa.com/oduu/825/2009/10/0...oorest-county-in-the-world-undps-hdi-reveals/

Congratulations. You have found one year in the entire period when the standard of living failed to rise.

It didn't fall much; and the trend over the three decades in question is one of massive improvement.

But as long as you ignore all the data that contradicts your position, you might be able to build a weak case.

That's good enough for most creationists.

WTF!! Who's a creationist?

You.

See my last post: Directly from UNDP (United Nations Development Programme): "Between 2000 and 2012, Ethiopia’s HDI value increased from 0.275 to 0.396, an increase of 44 percent or average annual increase of about 3.1 percent."

Picking out a single year (and citing a source that does not even seem to agree with the UNDP's own figures while doing so) is a perfect example of cherry-picking.

 

[angelo]

http://gadaa.com/oduu/825/2009/10/0...oorest-county-in-the-world-undps-hdi-reveals/

Congratulations. You have found one year in the entire period when the standard of living failed to rise.

It didn't fall much; and the trend over the three decades in question is one of massive improvement.

But as long as you ignore all the data that contradicts your position, you might be able to build a weak case.

That's good enough for most creationists.

WTF!! Who's a creationist?

You.

See my last post: Directly from UNDP (United Nations Development Programme): "Between 2000 and 2012, Ethiopia’s HDI value increased from 0.275 to 0.396, an increase of 44 percent or average annual increase of about 3.1 percent."

Picking out a single year (and citing a source that does not even seem to agree with the UNDP's own figures while doing so) is a perfect example of cherry-picking.

And that makes me a damn creationist? I hope Ethiopia and other Sub Sahara nations do climb out of the poverty that's been their lot for various reasons for decades. It doesn't sound so crash hot in Nigeria with the islamist causing all sorts of trouble, but that's another subject and nothing to do with too many people right?

 

[Jokodo]

http://gadaa.com/oduu/825/2009/10/0...oorest-county-in-the-world-undps-hdi-reveals/

Congratulations. You have found one year in the entire period when the standard of living failed to rise.

It didn't fall much; and the trend over the three decades in question is one of massive improvement.

But as long as you ignore all the data that contradicts your position, you might be able to build a weak case.

That's good enough for most creationists.

WTF!! Who's a creationist?

You.

See my last post: Directly from UNDP (United Nations Development Programme): "Between 2000 and 2012, Ethiopia’s HDI value increased from 0.275 to 0.396, an increase of 44 percent or average annual increase of about 3.1 percent."

Picking out a single year (and citing a source that does not even seem to agree with the UNDP's own figures while doing so) is a perfect example of cherry-picking.

And that makes me a damn creationist? I hope Ethiopia and other Sub Sahara nations do climb out of the poverty that's been their lot for various reasons for decades. It doesn't sound so crash hot in Nigeria with the islamist causing all sorts of trouble, but that's another subject and nothing to do with too many people right?

You seem to insinuate that there's a causal relation from population growth to growing influence of Islamists.

Can you be a bit more specific there?

 

[Jokodo]

Global warming is certainly a concern; but either it is one that can be dealt with in the long term - by switching from fossil fuels to nuclear, solar, wind, etc..; or it is one that can be solved in the short term - by geo-engineering perhaps; or it is one that cannot be resolved at all.

As far as global warming is concerned, population adjustments by 'tinkering around the edges' - adjusting birth rates or euthanasing the elderly - are either needless, or futile unless carried out on an unimaginable scale. Demographic lag means that even if birth-rates fell to zero today, world population would not fall significantly for decades. Global warming is not a problem that is strongly linked to population - a reduction in population would likely have little effect on the supply of fossil fuels, which is more determined by geology and price than by the absolute number of consumers. Fewer people leads to cheaper fossil fuel, leads to lower economic incentives to move to Carbon-neutral power. Half the people burning the coal for twice as long leads to the same problems. Sure, the problem might be pushed back a few years, but the only long term fix for global warming is for us not to burn coal, oil and gas. It is not particularly important how many people there are; we could just as easily burn the reserves faster than they are recycled with only a few million population.

You could, I suppose, slash population to prevent the Global Warming crisis, but that would imply mass genocide now, to slow the problem, followed by a crisis in three or four centuries anyway.

Whatever the solution to Global Warming might entail, population reduction will not be an effective part of the process.

My point wasn't that a larger population is going to exacerbate global warming. It was that global warming is going to be a big factor in us being able to continue to keep up our current level of food production. We are going to need a spike in technology to make up for it.

Relax. Global Warming is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on humanity ever. The Earth's climate has always changed since it's formation. For example, it was warmer than today in the mediaeval period centuries before the industrial revolution. CO2 was also many times higher than today thousands of years ago, yet life flourished both animal and vegetation.

I missed that you're also a climate change denier.

I guess that's where you learned that it's best to deduce long-term trends from single data points, even when long-term data are available.

 

[angelo]

Are we still discussing over population?

 

[Jokodo]

Are we still discussing over population?

We've been telling you that it's not an issue, and backing that up with data. You can choose to accept and move on, or continue to be wrong. Your call.

 

[angelo]

Are we still discussing over population?

We've been telling you that it's not an issue, and backing that up with data. You can choose to accept and move on, or continue to be wrong. Your call.

You should have added: "The present data shows."

 

[Jokodo]

Are we still discussing over population?

We've been telling you that it's not an issue, and backing that up with data. You can choose to accept and move on, or continue to be wrong. Your call.

You should have added: "The present data shows."

The present data show that you prefer to remain wrong.

Better?

 

[angelo]

Are we still discussing over population?

We've been telling you that it's not an issue, and backing that up with data. You can choose to accept and move on, or continue to be wrong. Your call.

You should have added: "The present data shows."

The present data show that you prefer to remain wrong.

Better?

Isn't that what the church said to Galileo?

 

[Jokodo]

Are we still discussing over population?

We've been telling you that it's not an issue, and backing that up with data. You can choose to accept and move on, or continue to be wrong. Your call.

You should have added: "The present data shows."

The present data show that you prefer to remain wrong.

Better?

Isn't that what the church said to Galileo?

That's 40 points on the crackpot index in one go. Congratulations!

35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

 

[angelo]

Typical. Attack the messenger if he disagrees with with you. A little rich though even by your standards in comparing me to black shirts and nazis.

 

[Jokodo]

Typical. Attack the messenger if he disagrees with with you. A little rich though even by your standards in comparing me to black shirts and nazis.

I'm not attacking the messenger. There was no message beyond comparing yourself to Galileo - a typical crackpot tactique.

Nor am I comparing you to black shirts or nazis, and neither does my link. Indeed, it says that someone comparing your opponents to black shirts and nazis is warning sign that you might be dealing with a crackpot, as much as comparing yourself to Galileo. Reading comprehension failure