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

[Perspicuo]

My fantasy scenario: everybody agrees to make this the last generation. All the money we were going to put toward future generations goes toward eradicating poverty and hunger from this one. Nobody has to worry about pollution or scarcity, because we will have more than enough to go around and no future people to feel guilty about. We party our way to the end of the species and euthanize all our pets.

Of course, that's only a fantasy...

Sure it is. They'd be no one to take care of the elderly!
(I, on the other hand, feel optimistic of the future. The possibilities are breathtaking and the best is yet to come.)

 

[Jokodo]

An increase of 5 or 6 % has been reduced a fraction and its no longer an increase? 6 % is now 5% and it is reason to celebrate?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

If it's population growth rates, you do know that the rate is now half what it was at its maximum around 40 years ago, and steadily falling?

And are you going to retract your claim or back it up? Because it does disagree with World Bank data, but maybe you have something better than their data up your sleeve?

(Also, if you happen to have a few afternoons a month to spare to act as a creatonist suck puppet, there might be some money in it. You sure have got the knack of the arguing style it takes.)

 

[angelo]

These would have the same credibility as the World Bank which is run by the UN.

 

[angelo]

And further. Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

 

[DBT]

You can't have it both ways though; and it is nothing to do with "overpopulation".

Yes, sure, not necessarily to do with 'overpopulation' - but as population grows, so do our cities. That has been the way of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, etc, over the decades. None of these cities were as big or as crowded as they are now, not when our population was at 10 million. The same goes for many of our country towns, new suburbs, expanding shopping centres. At least those that have employment opportunities and desirable locations.

I agree that concentration in cities is not desirable (at least for many of us, including me); I don't agree that the total world population is a significant driver of the degree to which people like us are forced to tolerate it. There are many factors; the sheer numbers of humans alive is not one of them.

I remember that Politicians were pushing for decentralization of industry and employment decades ago, but it seems that very little came of it. You need suitable locations, ports, etc, in order to transport and receive a high volume of goods. This probably means that Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, etc, remain as centres of industry. So business opportunities and employment are most probable going to continue to be focused in these places. As population increases, most likely through immigration, our cities are only going to get larger.

 

[bilby]

Yes, sure, not necessarily to do with 'overpopulation' - but as population grows, so do our cities. That has been the way of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, etc, over the decades. None of these cities were as big or as crowded as they are now, not when our population was at 10 million. The same goes for many of our country towns, new suburbs, expanding shopping centres. At least those that have employment opportunities and desirable locations.

I agree that concentration in cities is not desirable (at least for many of us, including me); I don't agree that the total world population is a significant driver of the degree to which people like us are forced to tolerate it. There are many factors; the sheer numbers of humans alive is not one of them.

I remember that Politicians were pushing for decentralization of industry and employment decades ago, but it seems that very little came of it. You need suitable locations, ports, etc, in order to transport and receive a high volume of goods. This probably means that Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, etc, remain as centres of industry. So business opportunities and employment are most probable going to continue to be focused in these places. As population increases, most likely through immigration, our cities are only going to get larger.

Yes, I agree completely.

None of this has any bearing on whether or not the world is overpopulated though. It is a completely different (albeit important) subject.

 

[bilby]

These would have the same credibility as the World Bank which is run by the UN.

Indeed. But as they all are completely consistent with the things I have been saying, and are not consistent with your absurd comments about populations doubling, or the US having a similar population densitiy to present day Manhattan, they don't actually support your position at all.

- - - Updated - - -

And further. Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

There is nothing in that article that contradicts my position, or that supports yours; indeed, I cited the EXACT SAME LINK earlier in the thread.

 

[angelo]

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

 

[arkirk]

That's what I meant. Either we control the birth rate or nature will eventually do it for us.

We did it.

Apparently a LOT of people have missed the memo.

Japan is faced with a "declining population problem" according to some of their politicians, when in fact the problem is being geared to an economic theory that demands constant growth in order to function. Their population is aging and there are less and less young to support those in their declining years according to politicians. Societies with a growth dependent economy will all hit the wall. The same organizing principles that apply to expanding populations, when being applied to declining populations do not work. It really is not a matter of there not being enough for all. It is a matter of there being less excess for capitalists to steal and squander.

Japan is tied to the U.S. apron strings and is afraid to strike out on its own in support of its own people. It is lying to its people about the seriousness of Fukushima. It has to be allied to the U.S, Even the nuclear disaster is tied to U.S. apron strings with all their plants being of U.S. design origin. As we keep doing what we are doing here in America, our own special brick wall awaits us...and our capitalists are acting like Nero's Guests. As the late George Carlin said, "They own every fucking thing." As I say...when it is all bought up and there is nothing more free, the capitalists become cannibalistic. That is the stage we have reached and it ain't going away soon!

You are right about one thing - the Japanese government dare not tell the truth about Fukushima - which is that it has caused no significant risks, and their panicked evacuation caused more harm than good.

The rest, I want to see some citations for before taking your word for any of it.

Why don't you just go to NHK news and look for yourself. Have I got to do everything for you? They give you the gallonage of leakage and the radiation levels even there. Perhaps the people in the evacuation area might like to sell you a piece of property so you can move there and live in radiation wonderland. Stop this ridiculous assertion that nothing happened there. The figures for the amount of radioactive comtaminants released in the ongoing incident keep being revised ever upward as they discover they really didn't have a complete picture of the disaster and still don't. You must seem foolish to all the evacuees who cannot return to their homes because of the high radiation counts.

 

[bilby]

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.

 

[bilby]

That's what I meant. Either we control the birth rate or nature will eventually do it for us.

We did it.

Apparently a LOT of people have missed the memo.

Japan is faced with a "declining population problem" according to some of their politicians, when in fact the problem is being geared to an economic theory that demands constant growth in order to function. Their population is aging and there are less and less young to support those in their declining years according to politicians. Societies with a growth dependent economy will all hit the wall. The same organizing principles that apply to expanding populations, when being applied to declining populations do not work. It really is not a matter of there not being enough for all. It is a matter of there being less excess for capitalists to steal and squander.

Japan is tied to the U.S. apron strings and is afraid to strike out on its own in support of its own people. It is lying to its people about the seriousness of Fukushima. It has to be allied to the U.S, Even the nuclear disaster is tied to U.S. apron strings with all their plants being of U.S. design origin. As we keep doing what we are doing here in America, our own special brick wall awaits us...and our capitalists are acting like Nero's Guests. As the late George Carlin said, "They own every fucking thing." As I say...when it is all bought up and there is nothing more free, the capitalists become cannibalistic. That is the stage we have reached and it ain't going away soon!

You are right about one thing - the Japanese government dare not tell the truth about Fukushima - which is that it has caused no significant risks, and their panicked evacuation caused more harm than good.

The rest, I want to see some citations for before taking your word for any of it.

Why don't you just go to NHK news and look for yourself. Have I got to do everything for you? They give you the gallonage of leakage and the radiation levels even there. Perhaps the people in the evacuation area might like to sell you a piece of property so you can move there and live in radiation wonderland. Stop this ridiculous assertion that nothing happened there. The figures for the amount of radioactive comtaminants released in the ongoing incident keep being revised ever upward as they discover they really didn't have a complete picture of the disaster and still don't. You must seem foolish to all the evacuees who cannot return to their homes because of the high radiation counts.

The evacuees can't return to their homes because the government won't let them. Whether or not those Japanese who have been living in places with far more hazardous dioxin and other chemical contamination since the quake and tsunami should also be prohibited from returning home is moot; the fact remains that the unmitigated risk from other contaminants is far greater than the risk that the Japanese government is seeking to avoid by banning these poor people from returning home.

That you have unquestioningly swallowed the propaganda does not make it true. Evidence of exclusion is not evidence of danger.

 

[arkirk]

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.

 

[angelo]

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.

 

[bilby]

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.

 

[angelo]

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.

 

[bilby]

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?

 

[angelo]

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!

 

[bilby]

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!

Well I guess as an atheist, this is as close as you can get to telling me you will see me burn in hell.

Do you have any actual evidence at all for your position? Or do you think fervent belief in it, backed by a range of choice logical fallacies, is sufficient?

 

[angelo]

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.

 

[bilby]

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.

One does not need to be psychic; demography is a predictive science, but it is a science nonetheless.

Do you think that the BOM are claiming psychic powers when they say it will rain tomorrow?

Predicting future population trends is a lot easier than predicting the weather.

That you are not aware of this only underlines your lack of qualification to have an opinion on the subject.

I really thought better of you than to bring out the "My ignorance is as good as anyone's knowledge" argument.

Would you like to tell me the Earth is 4,000 years old as an encore?