• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Politics Are Water Wars in the Near Future?

How is it "cruel and inhumane" to have a smaller family?
It's very obviously not cruel or inhumane to have a smaller family. It's a good idea, on many levels.

But it very much is cruel and inhumane to demand that other people have smaller families than they want to have.

Population control is both evil and unnecessary, yet it is very popular, particularly amongst intelligent people who have little excuse not to know better.

The idea that overpopulation is a major problem is not only false, it's incoherent; It's a secular religion, and I oppose it for the same reason that I oppose other irrational beliefs that lead people to impose on others.

I agree that large families are generally a bad idea; But they're not as bad an idea as telling people that they cannot have a child no matter how much they want one, because of some unfounded belief that there's the right number of me, but far too many of them.

Exponentially growing population was a problem fifty years ago. We solved that problem - and we need to stop wasting further time on it, and put our effort into solving problems that actually exist, rather than wringing our hands about "overpopulation".
 
Exponentially growing population was a problem fifty years ago. We solved that problem
I must have missed the solution. Please enlighten us.
I have done so before; Will you pay attention if I do do yet again?

There's no "overpopulation hunger".

During the last serious famine in sub-Saharan Africa (the 'Live Aid' famine of the 1980s), it was a well known fact that overpopulation was a major cause.

Ethiopia now has over three times the population, and no famine. That's only possible if the well known fact was utter bollocks.

If population density caused famine, Manhattan, Singapore, The Netherlands, and Hong Kong would all be famine stricken hell-holes.

If population density isn't a problem, then nor is population.

Famine is caused by war, economic disruption, and political actions that are either uncaring or deliberately genocidal. Sub-Saharan Africa has these things in spades.

Population has exactly fuck all to do with it.
Overpopulation hunger happens when the population exceeds what the country can produce + what the country can buy with exporting non-food that it can produce.
That's an economic failure, not a population problem.

Adult humans can produce more food than they need to survive. They can produce FAR more non-food value which they can exchange for food, than they need to survive.

Therefore, the higher your population, the greater your potential is to obtain surplus food, and this will be true until the total farmable land on the planet is insufficient to sustain a given population.

'Local overpopulation' isn't a thing. Just ask the people of Tokyo, Manhattan, Shanghai, London, The Netherlands, etc., etc.

If you impose a political and/or economic system that prevents people from turning their skills and effort into food for themselves and their families, calling that situation 'overpopulation' is stupid, misleading, and downright wrong.

The planet currently produces enough food to feed about 150% of its current population, and the consensus amongst demographers is that human population will never reach that level - but if it did, food production would certainly be able to be significantly increased. Just using extant technologies to improve farm yields in places that don't currently use those technologies can achieve that, without even turning any further land over to food production.

'Overpopulation' isn't a thing, and never has been. It was a speculative future state for a world that had geometric population growth; And such a world must inevitably outstrip its resources. But that geometric growth was an ephemeral characteristic of a world with high productivity, good medical science, and no effective, safe, and widely available contraceptive options in the control of women. That world existed from about 1850-1960; And people near the end of that time period were (correctly) alarmed by what they could see happening.

But it's no longer happening, and we have avoided the future speculative state that was called 'overpopulation' by those who saw and feared this potential future.


Meanwhile, lots of idiots have adopted the word 'overpopulation' as an excellent handwave excuse for continuing political and economic cruelty in the third world, where any attempt at a practical solution can be dismissed by invoking the inevitability of hunger due to 'overpopulation', thereby enabling racist fucks to argue that the rest of us shouldn't help those who are suffering.

There's just the right number of us, but there are simply too many of them. As any fascist can tell you.


Out of the present world pop of roughly 7 billion, only 3 of those 7 billions are well fed or well housed. The situation can only get much worse by uncontrolled population explosion. It's estimated that by 2050 the population will be 10 billion, with the lions share of that explosion in the third world, or in developing countries. Will those countries be able to support all these extra mouths to feed or house? OK, Nigeria has extensive oil reserves, so who's benefiting from this oil wealth.
Royal Dutch Shell.

There is no "explosion". From 7.5 to 10 is only a 1/3 increase - and the projection for 2100 is also about 10 billion.

Population growth is over, apart from demographic lag, which will add about 30% to world population in the next three or four decades.

Explosion. :rolleyesa:

Paul Ehrlich was wrong. Everything he predicted for the 1970s, '80s, '90s, and '00s was wrong. There is no reason to think that his predictions for 2050 (or those of his disciples) are any better.

The overpopulation doomsday cult is a religion with no God, and seven and a half billion devils. It is bullshit. And like all religions, it diverts people's effort from genuinely useful endeavour.

Stopping people from burning oil, coal or gas might help humanity. Stopping those of them who want to from having kids is cruel and needless.

As soon as the contraceptive pill was developed in the 1960s, the Population bomb was defused. Taking a few decades to notice is, perhaps, excusable; but taking over sixty years is wilful ignorance of the kind normally expected of religious organisations.

I tend toward Koy's view. Yeah, us old fucks used to be critical containers of accumulated knowledge and sometimes even wisdom. But now we have writing, computers, spreadsheets and shit to preserve the details of knowledge, and really - how many wise people can we expect the youth to listen to? Veneration is soooo last week!

I don't believe this virus is going to solve the overpopulation problem that presents the opportunity for it to wreak havoc, but something will eventually. Even if it killed half of everyone on the planet, there would still be more people left than existed when I first realized that population growth was going to become a problem. :shrug:

Population growth has stopped being a problem. It was solved by the invention of the oral contraceptive, and by the increasing wealth, education, and urbanisation in the third world (to the extent that the parts of the third world outside Africa in the mid twentieth century are largely no longer considered third world).

Population will peak between eight and twelve billion, sometime between 2040 and 2050; Already birth rates are below replacement, but the large number of children born in the last couple of decades have mostly yet to have their 1.9 kids per woman, so that demographic lag means it will take a few decades to reach zero growth (particularly as life expectancy has sharply increased, though Covid-19 might throw a spanner in that).

Population growth is not a current problem. However, people who learned of population growth in years before 1990, when it was still not clear that the problem had been solved, are often very worried about it even now - and as those people have a lot of political clout, paradoxically, we have a real problem of people trying to solve the non-existent population problem, often in ways that are frankly terrifying.

Everything from outright fascism, through to a mere acceptance of inaction against pandemic disease (on the basis that "at least it might help with the population problem") is being promoted by this generation of people traumatised by Ehrlich's "Population Bomb".

But the problem is solved. The bomb was diffused, by an invention that pre-dates the book by a few years. Malthus was wrong. Ehrlich was wrong. Geometric population growth doesn't persist, as long as girls get a sound primary education, and then when they mature, have access to safe and effective contraception that cannot easily be controlled by their priests, husbands, or boyfriends.

The world already produces enough food for all the people who will ever occupy it; And famine (as it was known in the 19th and 20th centuries) disappeared in the mid-1980s, and hasn't been seen since. The only remaining famines are small scale and are directly attributable to war and civil conflicts, not to any lack of food.

Population is NOT a problem, and saying that it's a problem is a BIG problem. Stop saying it. It's no longer true.

Overpopulation is a stupid idea. It was a reasonable fear in the mid to late twentieth century, but it's long since been resolved.
I have some questions:
1) Does this apply to other species, or only humans? Can wolves be overpopulated? What about elephants? Malaria?
Only humans*, and only since the middle of the C20th, for reasons that will be obvious from my next answer.
2) How was this 'resolved' and when? Please be specific.

The invention of the oral contraceptive pill in the 1950s, and its introduction from 1960 onwards.

Prior to the availability of the pill, contraception was often ineffective (and it only needs to fail on average three times per woman for birthrates to necessarily exceed replacement levels). Having a contraceptive that is in the control of women, is applied daily (and not 'in the heat of the moment '), and can be used in confidence, so that the woman who has to bear the child is not unduly influenced by her partner's wishes, leads inevitably to below replacement level birthrates.

Even more so if those women have at least some education, and some wealth above the subsistence farmer level.

This isn't hypothetical; It's observed to have occurred worldwide wherever the contraceptive pill is available.

It's not hyperbole, given the growth rate of population in the early C20th, to say that the oral contraceptive is the invention that saved the world.





*Well, almost. Oral contraceptives are sometimes used in baits as a humane alternative to culling for non-human mammals.

I have been in a low grade panic about about resource depletion every day of my teen and adult life. Not even kidding.

That's pretty common, and very sad - because it's all based on a single fact about humanity that was observably true, and deeply alarming, in the 1960s; But which ceased to be true due to an invention, and an idea, that both became reality at just that moment in time.

Since the dawn of the industrial age, human population had doubled and redoubled about every thirty years, despite massive die-offs due to disease, famine, and war.

But then in the 1960s, the contraceptive pill gave women the technological means to limit the number of children they bore; And the education and emancipation of women gave them the knowledge and desire to do so.

This took a few decades to have a significant effect, but by the mid 1990s it had become very clear that the "population bomb" had been defused. Today, world birth rates are below replacement level. The population isn't yet declining, but that's because the people who were born twenty or thirty years ago, when birth rates were still above replacement level, are more numerous than their parents, and so their children being born today are arriving at a faster rate than the (much smaller) grand and great-grand parental generation are dying off.

By about 2050, human population is projected to level off, somewhere between ten and twelve billion. That's a lot - it's four times the population a century earlier in 1950. But it's certainly not unmanageable - we already produce enough food for that many people today. Indeed, famine (common and widespread in the 1950s) has essentially ceased to exist. Back in the mid 1980s, Ethiopia suffered a terrible famine, and many commentators in the developed world said that this was inevitable, due to their excessive numbers. Today, Ethiopia has three times the population; And a few years ago, a similar drought. But no famine.

The reason? No war. Ethiopia can easily feed herself (or produce exports that are sufficient to purchase imported food, which is essentially the same thing). But not while it's a war zone.

Population was a problem. Past tense. Those who are still discussing it as something we need to solve are simply unaware that the solution was found sixty years ago, and has now been applied. There's nothing else left to do, but wait another few decades for the resolution to finish taking effect.

Worrying about population is unnecessary today; It's like worrying about the fact that you're still descending, after your parachute has deployed - yes, you're still falling, but it's no longer at a dangerous pace, and all you need do is relax and wait for the rest of the descent to be over. Screaming for someone to do something to save you is just needless panic.

You can rest easy. Population hasn't "grown unchecked" for almost sixty years, and the only thing keeping it going now is demographic lag - the people having children today were born a couple of decades ago, when the number of surviving children per woman was much higher; And life expectancy has steadily been increasing, so there is a long delay before the effects of falling birth rates per woman translate into falling population numbers.

The solution to the population growth problem that so engaged the big thinkers of the 1960s and '70s turned out to be right under their noses - all that was required was a safe and reliable contraceptive method that was under the control of women. This was developed in the '60s, and has been steadily improving since, in terms of quality, availability, and price.

Add to that the effects of reduced infant mortality, and access to primary education for girls, and you have a world population whose women, on average, want fewer than two children each, and have the means to make that desire a reality.

World population is expected to peak between 2040 and 2060, at between nine and eleven billion.

Population growth isn't a threat today, any more than the USSR is - and for much the same reason: These threats no longer exist.

It was reasonable to be concerned about them in the middle of the 20th Century, but anyone worrying about either since the end of the '80s simply hasn't been paying attention.

Population increase has been solved. We got a handle on it when we invented the oral contraceptive - putting contraception into the control of women, and removing the decision about its use from the 'heat of the moment', had the effect of reducing reproductive rates to below replacement levels wherever it was made available at an affordable price, with the exception of areas with high religiosity and low or nonexistent levels of primary education for girls. Basically the only problem we have remaining is that many people hold the counter factual belief that contraception is evil.

Population growth continues today (at greatly reduced rates) only because of 'demographic lag' - the number of women able to have children is determined not by today's birth rates, but by those at the time in the past when those women were born, so gross population continues to increase for a few decades after the birth rate falls below replacement rate.

We also have a handle on energy production, with the invention of nuclear power. It's clean, safe, efficient, and does almost no harm to the environment. It's fuel is effectively inexhaustible. Like contraception, the only serious barrier to our using the technology to completely solve the problem is that lots of people have a counter factual belief that it is evil.

So neither of your problems require further technical solutions; Both are solved problems. The failure of humanity to implement these solutions is entirely down to our tendency to cling to falsehoods and outdated beliefs (another example of an outdated belief is "there is a population problem which we must urgently address" - that was true in the first half of the C20th, but hasn't been true since the 1980s, when the full impact of the invention of the oral contraceptive in the 1960s became apparent).

When you understand why you STILL believe in the urgency of a problem that was demonstrated to have been solved thirty odd years ago, you will begin to understand why we still have a problem with carbon dioxide emissions. It's not a technical or scientific problem.

Population growth in the mid twentieth century was an existential threat to humanity, similar to that posed by climate change today.

But the conclusion "Population growth went away, therefore climate change will also go away" is nonsense - neither problem can be solved without direct action to solve it.

There are only two possible outcomes for a world in which population is growing exponentially. Either lots of people are going to have to die, or people are going to have to have fewer children.

Similarly, there are two possible outcomes for carbon dioxide emissions. Either lots of people are going to have to die, or people are going to have to burn dramatically less fossil fuel.

In the 1960s, the received wisdom (from mostly male anthropologists and demographers) was that women wanted large families, so only totalitarian measures to reduce family sizes could prevent ongoing population growth.

Today, the received wisdom is that people demand fossil fuel energy, so only totalitarian measures to reduce energy use can prevent carbon dioxide emissions.

Both assessments missed a vital technological solution.

It turns out that educated women, on average, don't want large families. They had large families, because they didn't have access to reliable and effective contraception. The population bomb was defused by the invention and development of the oral contraceptive pill, and population growth is now limited to places where access to the pill, or to good primary education for girls, or both, are absent.

Similarly, we have a technological solution to carbon emissions that doesn't require a mythical population of people who like living without large amounts of energy that is reliable and consistent (and, vitally, isn't affected by extreme weather).

The existence of a technological solution isn't sufficient; We need to see a demand for it, so that it's widely implemented.

The idea that "population growth was never a real problem, people just got really panicked over nothing" is nonsense. Population growth was an existential threat, and it was only the wide adoption of a technological solution that averted that threat.

Climate change is also an existential threat; We need a massive program of replacing fossil fuel energy with nuclear fission energy to avert this threat.

There are still many people today who, oblivious of the demographic impact of the oral contraceptive, are terrified by population growth. Those people are worrying about a non-problem - but their predecessors who were worried about the same problem back in the '60s and '70s were right to worry, and mostly missed the fact that a technological solution had already been demonstrated, and just needed wider use to resolve the whole issue.

There are also people who are oblivious to pretty much everything, and who just know that population growth went away without them personally doing anything, and that therefore climate change will similarly go away without anything significant changing in the world. These people are dangerously uninformed.
That's not even a complete list of the posts where I have explained this, but I got told off by the board for posting too many characters.

If you need me to say "The population bomb was defused by the invention and development of the oral contraceptive pill, and population growth is now limited to places where access to the pill, or to good primary education for girls, or both, are absent." any more times, a board search for the word 'contraceptive' and user 'bilby' will turn up several more instances of me making this absolutely crystal clear.
 
My answer to the OP question is yes. As more competing demands increase over an increasingly more difficult extractive resource that is crucial to life , let alone the production of energy and food, industrial uses, transportation, and recreation coupled with the effect of climate change, I think war is inevitable.
 
If you need me to say "The population bomb was defused by the invention and development of the oral contraceptive pill, and population growth is now limited to places where access to the pill, or to good primary education for girls, or both, are absent." any more times, a board search for the word 'contraceptive' and user 'bilby' will turn up several more instances of me making this absolutely crystal clear.
For the sake of discussion, I think it is critical to include the plain and incontrovertable fact that “population growth is now limited to places where access to the pill, or to good primary education for girls, or both, are absent” represents a very large part of the populated places with water on earth and, as such, impact on water and the environment. And the very places Swammer was pointing out ARE those places and so the impact on water shortages, due to population, are actual, real and imminent.

So his discussion is relevant and real and not overidden by the existence of access to the pill, or to good primary education for girls.

In other words, you are both right and should be working together. Instead of slamming him for being aware of places where they donn’t exist and saying population isn’t a problem, it would be more factual to acknowledge that localized overpopulation is INDEED a problem and has several possible solutions including reproductive rights, women’s rights and relocation.
 
.
The idea that overpopulation is a major problem is not only false, it's incoherent
It is not incoherent. It is very much occurring in Africa and parts of Asia, which is why there are millions of mass migrants from those places flooding mostly into Europe (but some are also boat people bound for Australia). That threatens the cultural identity of Europe as it is becoming more and more Islamic every year.

Exponentially growing population was a problem fifty years ago.
In places like US, Europe, Japan etc. Especially in Europe and Japan they have the opposite problem though - fewer babies than replacement.
 
Notwithstanding the silly and contentless ad-hominem attack, the lack of regulation over water extraction is causing severe damage to communities and ecosystems that support humans. Yes it should have much more regulation.
It doesn't need regulation. The rational consumers acting in the free market will ensure that the industry can never make a profit, and will immediately cease to exist.
I'm sorry... but did you just claim a solution was at hand via the rationality of the general public?
 
Notwithstanding the silly and contentless ad-hominem attack, the lack of regulation over water extraction is causing severe damage to communities and ecosystems that support humans. Yes it should have much more regulation.
It doesn't need regulation. The rational consumers acting in the free market will ensure that the industry can never make a profit, and will immediately cease to exist.
I'm sorry... but did you just claim a solution was at hand via the rationality of the general public?

I think you missed the sarcasm tag.
 
Notwithstanding the silly and contentless ad-hominem attack, the lack of regulation over water extraction is causing severe damage to communities and ecosystems that support humans. Yes it should have much more regulation.
It doesn't need regulation. The rational consumers acting in the free market will ensure that the industry can never make a profit, and will immediately cease to exist.
I'm sorry... but did you just claim a solution was at hand via the rationality of the general public?
Yes. That's why nobody's able to make money selling bottled water. It's fundamentally impossible.
 
Notwithstanding the silly and contentless ad-hominem attack, the lack of regulation over water extraction is causing severe damage to communities and ecosystems that support humans. Yes it should have much more regulation.
It doesn't need regulation. The rational consumers acting in the free market will ensure that the industry can never make a profit, and will immediately cease to exist.
I'm sorry... but did you just claim a solution was at hand via the rationality of the general public?
Yes. That's why nobody's able to make money selling bottled water. It's fundamentally impossible.
It is weird. Printed media got screwed with free online access to news. But water was always very cheap... and then pay for water came... and...

...maybe they should sell newspapers in plastic containers.
 
Bottled water is an excellent way of paying a thousand times as much for a commodity as you need to pay.

It's a perfect example of the fact that the most fundamental premise of laissez faire economics is utterly false.

According to economists, it would be completely impossible to charge a 100,000% markup on a widely available commodity; A business based on so doing would never be able to succeed, because people would simply take the cheaper option.

In other news, in the financial year 2020, Coca Cola Amatil recognized trading revenue of 4.76 billion Australian dollars.
It's, not a 100,000% markup on water, you're really paying for the packaging. Water to go is more useful than just water.
 
The above is a derail. But I also really don't see how anymore can conclude that very large families aren't a drain on resources.
No derail. There isn't anything wrong with large families. The factor that matters is total population. There's an obvious difference between a million families with two children and a million families with fourteen children.
Large families result in population growth. To maintain the same standard of living you need to increase the means of production correspondingly--and that's not likely to happen.
 
Yes. That's why nobody's able to make money selling bottled water. It's fundamentally impossible.
That would be news to many companies
Who are you going to believe, free market economics 101, or your lying eyes?
Both.

Charging for water is economics 101, but it assumes the capability for charging for water - something that is not feasible in most places even if it was socially acceptable.
 
Bottled water is an excellent way of paying a thousand times as much for a commodity as you need to pay.

It's a perfect example of the fact that the most fundamental premise of laissez faire economics is utterly false.

According to economists, it would be completely impossible to charge a 100,000% markup on a widely available commodity; A business based on so doing would never be able to succeed, because people would simply take the cheaper option.

In other news, in the financial year 2020, Coca Cola Amatil recognized trading revenue of 4.76 billion Australian dollars.
It's, not a 100,000% markup on water, you're really paying for the packaging. Water to go is more useful than just water.
How much do you think a PET bottle costs to make?
 
Back
Top Bottom