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

[angelo]

Someone told the Wright Brothers that heavier than air flight was impossible not all that far back. Scientists have already discovered the gene that causes ageing. It's just a matter of time before lifespans of 150-200 years become possible.

The population explosion has stabilised somewhat in the Western democracies, but is still advancing unchecked in South and Central America, Africa, Asia and South East Asia, and the Middle east.

 

[DBT]

I don't see the point in an ever increasing population...is it an experiment to see how many people we can cram onto, into and around a planet? If our population stabilizes at 10 billion or 20 billion, whatever is deemed to be sustainable, is that it? Nobody is going to cry 'stagnation!' 'stagnation!' and demand a return to growth? Given human nature, I doubt it.

The population isn't going to double again; nor is it "ever increasing". It will stabilise in the next 30 to 50 years at about 10 billion.

There is no point in wild speculation about eternal increase, nor about tens of billions. It has basically stopped growing now, except for demographic lag. By about 2050 population growth will be history, unless something dramatic happens to change things - like a massive increase in human lifespan.

Unless you are about to announce a "live to 200" pill, your objections are not grounded in reality.

Some are already crying 'stagnation' - aging population, etc. Several European governments are trying to stimulate national birth rates through economic reward.

 

[angelo]

Ah, that magic word, growth.

 

[DBT]

Ah, that magic word, growth.

Yes, the Magic word: Growth. That is why I asked: what happens in relation to political and economic attitudes, if or when, population stabilizes.

 

[angelo]

Ah, that magic word, growth.

Yes, the Magic word: Growth. That is why I asked: what happens in relation to political and economic attitudes, if or when, population stabilizes.

There has to be a balance between deaths and births.

 

[Blahface]

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.

 

[DBT]

Ah, that magic word, growth.

Yes, the Magic word: Growth. That is why I asked: what happens in relation to political and economic attitudes, if or when, population stabilizes.

There has to be a balance between deaths and births.

Yes. But I meant, what is the likely response of government and business to that situation?

Given the apparent vested interests of goverments and business to growth, expanding markets, taxpayer base, etc, are they going accept a stable population figure, be it a peak of 10 billlion, 20 billion or whatever? Or are they going to see no growth as stagnation?

 

[angelo]

Ah, that magic word, growth.

Yes, the Magic word: Growth. That is why I asked: what happens in relation to political and economic attitudes, if or when, population stabilizes.

There has to be a balance between deaths and births.

Yes. But I meant, what is the likely response of government and business to that situation?

Given the apparent vested interests of goverments and business to growth, expanding markets, taxpayer base, etc, are they going accept a stable population figure, be it a peak of 10 billlion, 20 billion or whatever? Or are they going to see no growth as stagnation?

Nope. Governments are addicted to the growth factor to balance their budgets and industry for the very same reasons. The Capitalist system works on the growth factor. But tell me, would you like to live in any other alternative system?

 

[angelo]

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.

 

[DBT]

The Capitalist system works on the growth factor. But tell me, would you like to live in any other alternative system?

Depends on the system and also depends on one's position within that system. Rather a Prince in a Kingdom than a dole recipient in the US.

Overall, capitalism has provided a higher standard of living for a greater number of people - but is it sustainable in the long term?

 

[angelo]

The Capitalist system works on the growth factor. But tell me, would you like to live in any other alternative system?

Depends on the system and also depends on one's position within that system. Overall, capitalism has provided a higher standard of living for a greater number of people...but is it sustainable in the long term?

Oh yes, if one is the dictator in a closed society, or one of the henchmen I'm sure life would be a bed of roses.

 

[DBT]

The Capitalist system works on the growth factor. But tell me, would you like to live in any other alternative system?

Depends on the system and also depends on one's position within that system. Overall, capitalism has provided a higher standard of living for a greater number of people...but is it sustainable in the long term?

Oh yes, if one is the dictator in a closed society, or one of the henchmen I'm sure life would be a bed of roses.

Personal situations aside, the question is: are we, as a largely capitalist society, doing the best we can possibly do?
Also, is our system sustainable in the very long term? This includes the population/recources issue.

 

[Blahface]

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.

So, do you think you know something special that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists don't? Or, do you think they are all the one's involved in this hoax? Why would you think that is a more likely scenario than the right wing just misrepresenting the science?

And speaking of misrepresenting science, you might want to take a look at what science says about the medieval warming period.

 

[PyramidHead]

The fact is that population is the goal of problem solving efforts, not a problem in need of a solution.

I completely disagree. The "problem" is war, hunger, disease, and suffering in general. The fewer people there are, the fewer will have to endure those inevitable occurrences. Of course, if there were only very few people, there might be other problems. So, we should keep the population as low as possible to avoid creating new victims of the problems we will never solve as long as people exist. In the end, the only way to truly solve those problems is to stop making people altogether, which I strongly advocate in principle but have no illusions of ever happening in practice.

When the oxygen tank in the Apollo 13 Service Module exploded, NASA didn't consider reducing the population of the spacecraft as though it was a viable solution to their resource problems; they looked for ways to solve the problems based on the number of crew they had.

And nobody is saying we should kill people as a viable solution to humanity's problems, so that analogy doesn't fit.

"Reduce the population" is not a solution. It is always proposed that "they" should reduce their population; never that the reductions should come from "us". As Ksen says, the time to take population alarmists seriously will be when they start killing themselves to save the planet.

I am not a population alarmist per se, but I find that response to be unthinking and glib. There is nothing about the position that births should be limited that implies living people should be exterminated. It's such a tired, boring, knee-jerk retort, and I hate when smart people use it like it's some kind of "gotcha."

 

[Valjean]

The Capitalist system works on the growth factor. But tell me, would you like to live in any other alternative system?

I'd like to live in a co-operative system, thank you.

Depends on the system and also depends on one's position within that system. Overall, capitalism has provided a higher standard of living for a greater number of people...but is it sustainable in the long term?

Good point. Obviously perpetual growth is unsustainable, as is the extraction of resources faster than they can be created. Moreover, the current prosperity of those in the developed world is largely a result of arrogating resources and access to resources from the bottom half.
The salient question is how many people the planet can sustainably maintain at a comfortable standard of living whilst keeping the rest of the natural world intact.

 

[angelo]

My new toy Olympus point and shoot SC 50 is brilliant.

 

[angelo]

My new toy Olympus point and shoot SC 50 is brilliant.

and obviously wrong thread. That's what happens when one tries to participate on the forum by smart phone with it's limited screen.

 

[angelo]

I'd like to live in a co-operative system, thank you.

Depends on the system and also depends on one's position within that system. Overall, capitalism has provided a higher standard of living for a greater number of people...but is it sustainable in the long term?

Good point. Obviously perpetual growth is unsustainable, as is the extraction of resources faster than they can be created. Moreover, the current prosperity of those in the developed world is largely a result of arrogating resources and access to resources from the bottom half.
The salient question is how many people the planet can sustainably maintain at a comfortable standard of living whilst keeping the rest of the natural world intact.

Around half the population that's here now. As I keep saying, the problem is not so much in the first world, but in the developing third and moslem world.

 

[arkirk]

There are two factors that are significant here: too high a birth rate and to high a resource demand per capita. Humans seem to have an inordinate demand for power devices, and reconfiguration of land and water to satisfy those demands. Moderation of demand per capita (conservation) and birth control . Both of these actions require sound reasoning to be effective. There is a difference between growth of demand for energy and technological advancement. They are not the same thing, yet our society places all its marbles in the hands of people who oppose both. Religion has a lot to do with it...religion and religion-like ideologies.

 

[angelo]

The earth does seem to have unlimited resources though which can lead to a false sense of security. Religion is the bane of all societies.