Population

[TSwizzle]

Developed nations birth rates may well be declining but like a lot of other undesirable tasks, reproduction has been outsourced to poorer parts of the world.

So it is the poor you wish to target? DBT was a bit confused about this earlier.

Me target the poor? Target the poor for what exactly?

I think it has been fairly well established that it's the poor that have higher birth rates than the more well off. I just framed that observation in a term that seems more fitting. If the people in developed nations are not inclined to reproduce in order to replace themselves then that chore is outsourced to the people that will.

I'll also mention the utter stupidity and futility of the eco-loons that declare themselves childfree to save the planet. But I am glad these wallopers are not reproducing. In the case the the Sussexes, they have declared they are limiting their reproduction to two children in order to save the planet.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

Not everyone thinks it is irrelevant.

No shit. But the evidence says that those who think it's relevant are wrong.

Whether it is or isn't depends on evidence based on the impact we are having on the environment and ecosystems

Yes, it does. Can you show me some evidence that it's relevant? The case of Ethiopia shows clearly that it wasn't relevant there in the 1980s, despite the prevailing opinion that it was.

in terms of consumption rates

We consume almost nothing. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that almost everything that was ever on Earth is still here, apart from our space probes and some gases stripped from the atmosphere by solar wind

and population numbers....which is not necessarily a matter of one or the other.

You can't sneak population numbers in here without assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate their relevance, not just assert it.

Take India as an example:

ABSTRACT:
Population in India has been regarded as not only the root cause of many of our economic problems but has also severely affected the environmental conditions in India. Population increased very fast in the post-independence period and It has added to all types of pollution namely air, water noise and at the same time has disturbed the cycle of rain, has prolonged the summer season in one way or the other. It has destroyed our biodiversity to a large extent, soil erosion has taken place, has added to the increased demand for energy resulting in overall temperature to rise. In fact, rising population and an urge to develop more to meet its needs has resulted into the emergence of such situation. No doubt, we have to control the population growth in a strict manner but the solution does not lie only with controlling the population. The environmental degradation in India has reached to such an extent that a direct and immediate attack on the environmental pollution has to be made.

India brought additional land under cultivation, expanded irrigation facilities and used increasingly chemical fertilizers, pesticides and high yielding hybrid seeds,-all collectively known as the New Agricultural strategy. In the sphere of industries, new industries have been set up, existing industries have been expanded and technology is being continuously upgraded, development of agriculture and industry has been accompanied by development and expansion of infrastructure-namely of power, transport and communication, banking and finance, etc. At the same time, because of growing population and high degree mechanization, mindless and ruthless exploitation of natural resources, we have degraded our physical environment. By physical environment we mean the whole complex of climate, soil, water and biotic factor on which we all subsist, and on which our entire agriculture and industrial development depends, Rapid economic development is actually turning India into a vast wasteland.

Population growth in India
India is the second most populous country in the world after China. Recently, the population of India has crossed the one billion marks. According to the Census of India 2001, the population of India on 1st March 2001 was 1027 millions. At the time of independence, the country's population was 342 million. The number has multiplied three-fold in around five decades. The population growth of India from 1951 to 2001 is presented in Table 1. The total population size of India had grown from 361 million in 1951 to around 1027 million in 2001. The population of India increased by three times during the period of 1951-2001. The rural population of India has increased around two and half times from 298.7 million to 741.7 million during 1951-2001,....

Nobody's arguing that population hasn't grown in India.

Nobody's arguing that India hasn't seen problems with industrialisation leading to pollution and environmental degradation.

Nothing in the opinion piece you posted there constitutes evidence that population itself is the cause of the problems described; It's a case of correlation, but there's no evidence for causation (indeed it's quite possible that population growth is a consequence of the industrialisation that has also caused the environmental degradation; Population growth as a consequence of the underlying causes of the problems, rather than a cause of them).

India appears to be suffering similar problems to those seen in C19th England. Population wasn't the cause of those problems in England (English population has since multiplied almost fourfold, and yet the environmental problems from heavy industries have largely been solved); So why should we accept the assumption that it is the cause in India today?

Sheer numbers count. The needs and want of eight billion people are far greater than the needs and wants of two billion people, as is their impact on the environment and its ecosystems. The article refers to both population growth in India and the impact of human activity.

Exactly. There is no sound argument against this approach.

 

[bilby]

Exactly. There is no sound argument against this approach

Yes, there absolutely is.

https://iidb.org/index.php?posts/952194

 

[DBT]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

Not everyone thinks it is irrelevant.

No shit. But the evidence says that those who think it's relevant are wrong.

Whether it is or isn't depends on evidence based on the impact we are having on the environment and ecosystems

Yes, it does. Can you show me some evidence that it's relevant? The case of Ethiopia shows clearly that it wasn't relevant there in the 1980s, despite the prevailing opinion that it was.

in terms of consumption rates

We consume almost nothing. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that almost everything that was ever on Earth is still here, apart from our space probes and some gases stripped from the atmosphere by solar wind

and population numbers....which is not necessarily a matter of one or the other.

You can't sneak population numbers in here without assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate their relevance, not just assert it.

Take India as an example:

ABSTRACT:
Population in India has been regarded as not only the root cause of many of our economic problems but has also severely affected the environmental conditions in India. Population increased very fast in the post-independence period and It has added to all types of pollution namely air, water noise and at the same time has disturbed the cycle of rain, has prolonged the summer season in one way or the other. It has destroyed our biodiversity to a large extent, soil erosion has taken place, has added to the increased demand for energy resulting in overall temperature to rise. In fact, rising population and an urge to develop more to meet its needs has resulted into the emergence of such situation. No doubt, we have to control the population growth in a strict manner but the solution does not lie only with controlling the population. The environmental degradation in India has reached to such an extent that a direct and immediate attack on the environmental pollution has to be made.

India brought additional land under cultivation, expanded irrigation facilities and used increasingly chemical fertilizers, pesticides and high yielding hybrid seeds,-all collectively known as the New Agricultural strategy. In the sphere of industries, new industries have been set up, existing industries have been expanded and technology is being continuously upgraded, development of agriculture and industry has been accompanied by development and expansion of infrastructure-namely of power, transport and communication, banking and finance, etc. At the same time, because of growing population and high degree mechanization, mindless and ruthless exploitation of natural resources, we have degraded our physical environment. By physical environment we mean the whole complex of climate, soil, water and biotic factor on which we all subsist, and on which our entire agriculture and industrial development depends, Rapid economic development is actually turning India into a vast wasteland.

Population growth in India
India is the second most populous country in the world after China. Recently, the population of India has crossed the one billion marks. According to the Census of India 2001, the population of India on 1st March 2001 was 1027 millions. At the time of independence, the country's population was 342 million. The number has multiplied three-fold in around five decades. The population growth of India from 1951 to 2001 is presented in Table 1. The total population size of India had grown from 361 million in 1951 to around 1027 million in 2001. The population of India increased by three times during the period of 1951-2001. The rural population of India has increased around two and half times from 298.7 million to 741.7 million during 1951-2001,....

Nobody's arguing that population hasn't grown in India.

Nobody's arguing that India hasn't seen problems with industrialisation leading to pollution and environmental degradation.

Nothing in the opinion piece you posted there constitutes evidence that population itself is the cause of the problems described; It's a case of correlation, but there's no evidence for causation (indeed it's quite possible that population growth is a consequence of the industrialisation that has also caused the environmental degradation; Population growth as a consequence of the underlying causes of the problems, rather than a cause of them).

India appears to be suffering similar problems to those seen in C19th England. Population wasn't the cause of those problems in England (English population has since multiplied almost fourfold, and yet the environmental problems from heavy industries have largely been solved); So why should we accept the assumption that it is the cause in India today?

Sheer numbers count.

So you keep asserting without evidence. But it's not at all clear that this is true, and there are good reasons to think that it's not.

The needs and want of eight billion people are far greater than the needs and wants of two billion people, as is their impact on the environment and its ecosystems.

That's simply not true.

If we could wave a magic wand and eliminate completely the environmental impact of the poorest seven billion people, while doubling the impact of the remainder, the environmental impact would almost double, despite population having been divided by four.

The article refers to both population growth in India and the impact of human activity.

Yes, and it importantly fails to show any causality between these two things, which is the point in question here.

Humans have an impact on the environment. But not, as far as we can see, in proportion to their numbers. The simplistic assumption that a basic headcount is sufficient to tell us the scale of the environmental impact is, as far as the evidence in this thread indicates, false.

If you want to show that it is in fact true, the only way to do that is to bring better evidence.

It's just physics. Eight billion people need more stuff than two billion people, physically utilizing more land and resources.

Consumption rate is likely to rise significantly as more and more people in developing nations raise their living standards to western levels, which they have every right to do.

Which in turn means that population stability or even decline is offset by a rising world wide demand for goods and services.

 

[bilby]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

Not everyone thinks it is irrelevant.

No shit. But the evidence says that those who think it's relevant are wrong.

Whether it is or isn't depends on evidence based on the impact we are having on the environment and ecosystems

Yes, it does. Can you show me some evidence that it's relevant? The case of Ethiopia shows clearly that it wasn't relevant there in the 1980s, despite the prevailing opinion that it was.

in terms of consumption rates

We consume almost nothing. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that almost everything that was ever on Earth is still here, apart from our space probes and some gases stripped from the atmosphere by solar wind

and population numbers....which is not necessarily a matter of one or the other.

You can't sneak population numbers in here without assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate their relevance, not just assert it.

Take India as an example:

ABSTRACT:
Population in India has been regarded as not only the root cause of many of our economic problems but has also severely affected the environmental conditions in India. Population increased very fast in the post-independence period and It has added to all types of pollution namely air, water noise and at the same time has disturbed the cycle of rain, has prolonged the summer season in one way or the other. It has destroyed our biodiversity to a large extent, soil erosion has taken place, has added to the increased demand for energy resulting in overall temperature to rise. In fact, rising population and an urge to develop more to meet its needs has resulted into the emergence of such situation. No doubt, we have to control the population growth in a strict manner but the solution does not lie only with controlling the population. The environmental degradation in India has reached to such an extent that a direct and immediate attack on the environmental pollution has to be made.

India brought additional land under cultivation, expanded irrigation facilities and used increasingly chemical fertilizers, pesticides and high yielding hybrid seeds,-all collectively known as the New Agricultural strategy. In the sphere of industries, new industries have been set up, existing industries have been expanded and technology is being continuously upgraded, development of agriculture and industry has been accompanied by development and expansion of infrastructure-namely of power, transport and communication, banking and finance, etc. At the same time, because of growing population and high degree mechanization, mindless and ruthless exploitation of natural resources, we have degraded our physical environment. By physical environment we mean the whole complex of climate, soil, water and biotic factor on which we all subsist, and on which our entire agriculture and industrial development depends, Rapid economic development is actually turning India into a vast wasteland.

Population growth in India
India is the second most populous country in the world after China. Recently, the population of India has crossed the one billion marks. According to the Census of India 2001, the population of India on 1st March 2001 was 1027 millions. At the time of independence, the country's population was 342 million. The number has multiplied three-fold in around five decades. The population growth of India from 1951 to 2001 is presented in Table 1. The total population size of India had grown from 361 million in 1951 to around 1027 million in 2001. The population of India increased by three times during the period of 1951-2001. The rural population of India has increased around two and half times from 298.7 million to 741.7 million during 1951-2001,....

Nobody's arguing that population hasn't grown in India.

Nobody's arguing that India hasn't seen problems with industrialisation leading to pollution and environmental degradation.

Nothing in the opinion piece you posted there constitutes evidence that population itself is the cause of the problems described; It's a case of correlation, but there's no evidence for causation (indeed it's quite possible that population growth is a consequence of the industrialisation that has also caused the environmental degradation; Population growth as a consequence of the underlying causes of the problems, rather than a cause of them).

India appears to be suffering similar problems to those seen in C19th England. Population wasn't the cause of those problems in England (English population has since multiplied almost fourfold, and yet the environmental problems from heavy industries have largely been solved); So why should we accept the assumption that it is the cause in India today?

Sheer numbers count.

So you keep asserting without evidence. But it's not at all clear that this is true, and there are good reasons to think that it's not.

The needs and want of eight billion people are far greater than the needs and wants of two billion people, as is their impact on the environment and its ecosystems.

That's simply not true.

If we could wave a magic wand and eliminate completely the environmental impact of the poorest seven billion people, while doubling the impact of the remainder, the environmental impact would almost double, despite population having been divided by four.

The article refers to both population growth in India and the impact of human activity.

Yes, and it importantly fails to show any causality between these two things, which is the point in question here.

Humans have an impact on the environment. But not, as far as we can see, in proportion to their numbers. The simplistic assumption that a basic headcount is sufficient to tell us the scale of the environmental impact is, as far as the evidence in this thread indicates, false.

If you want to show that it is in fact true, the only way to do that is to bring better evidence.

It's just physics. Eight billion people need more stuff than two billion people, physically utilizing more land and resources.

It's NOT "just physics" though, it's economics too, because 'a person' is not a unit of consumption. Jeff Bezos consumes many orders of magnitude more resources than a Tanzanian farm labourer.

As I outlined in my last reply, it's quite possible for two billion people to consume more resources than eight billion - depending on whether they live like wealthy Americans or poor Indians.

Consumption rate is likely to rise significantly as more and more people in developing nations raise their living standards to western levels, which they have every right to do.

Yes. So population isn't particularly relevant, it's wealth and consumption levels that matter.

Which in turn means that population stability or even decline is offset by a rising world wide demand for goods and services.

Yes. So population decline isn't a solution to anything.

We need to find ways to reduce our environmental impact regardless of population, because we're never going to have a population so small that it can afford to live the way that today's wealthy people live, unless and until we find ways to be wealthy sustainably. And if we find ways to be wealthy sustainably, we need not worry about population.

Population is a distraction from the real problems.

 

[steve_bank]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

Not everyone thinks it is irrelevant.

No shit. But the evidence says that those who think it's relevant are wrong.

Whether it is or isn't depends on evidence based on the impact we are having on the environment and ecosystems

Yes, it does. Can you show me some evidence that it's relevant? The case of Ethiopia shows clearly that it wasn't relevant there in the 1980s, despite the prevailing opinion that it was.

in terms of consumption rates

We consume almost nothing. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that almost everything that was ever on Earth is still here, apart from our space probes and some gases stripped from the atmosphere by solar wind

and population numbers....which is not necessarily a matter of one or the other.

You can't sneak population numbers in here without assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate their relevance, not just assert it.

Take India as an example:

ABSTRACT:
Population in India has been regarded as not only the root cause of many of our economic problems but has also severely affected the environmental conditions in India. Population increased very fast in the post-independence period and It has added to all types of pollution namely air, water noise and at the same time has disturbed the cycle of rain, has prolonged the summer season in one way or the other. It has destroyed our biodiversity to a large extent, soil erosion has taken place, has added to the increased demand for energy resulting in overall temperature to rise. In fact, rising population and an urge to develop more to meet its needs has resulted into the emergence of such situation. No doubt, we have to control the population growth in a strict manner but the solution does not lie only with controlling the population. The environmental degradation in India has reached to such an extent that a direct and immediate attack on the environmental pollution has to be made.

India brought additional land under cultivation, expanded irrigation facilities and used increasingly chemical fertilizers, pesticides and high yielding hybrid seeds,-all collectively known as the New Agricultural strategy. In the sphere of industries, new industries have been set up, existing industries have been expanded and technology is being continuously upgraded, development of agriculture and industry has been accompanied by development and expansion of infrastructure-namely of power, transport and communication, banking and finance, etc. At the same time, because of growing population and high degree mechanization, mindless and ruthless exploitation of natural resources, we have degraded our physical environment. By physical environment we mean the whole complex of climate, soil, water and biotic factor on which we all subsist, and on which our entire agriculture and industrial development depends, Rapid economic development is actually turning India into a vast wasteland.

Population growth in India
India is the second most populous country in the world after China. Recently, the population of India has crossed the one billion marks. According to the Census of India 2001, the population of India on 1st March 2001 was 1027 millions. At the time of independence, the country's population was 342 million. The number has multiplied three-fold in around five decades. The population growth of India from 1951 to 2001 is presented in Table 1. The total population size of India had grown from 361 million in 1951 to around 1027 million in 2001. The population of India increased by three times during the period of 1951-2001. The rural population of India has increased around two and half times from 298.7 million to 741.7 million during 1951-2001,....

Nobody's arguing that population hasn't grown in India.

Nobody's arguing that India hasn't seen problems with industrialisation leading to pollution and environmental degradation.

Nothing in the opinion piece you posted there constitutes evidence that population itself is the cause of the problems described; It's a case of correlation, but there's no evidence for causation (indeed it's quite possible that population growth is a consequence of the industrialisation that has also caused the environmental degradation; Population growth as a consequence of the underlying causes of the problems, rather than a cause of them).

India appears to be suffering similar problems to those seen in C19th England. Population wasn't the cause of those problems in England (English population has since multiplied almost fourfold, and yet the environmental problems from heavy industries have largely been solved); So why should we accept the assumption that it is the cause in India today?

Sheer numbers count.

So you keep asserting without evidence. But it's not at all clear that this is true, and there are good reasons to think that it's not.

The needs and want of eight billion people are far greater than the needs and wants of two billion people, as is their impact on the environment and its ecosystems.

That's simply not true.

If we could wave a magic wand and eliminate completely the environmental impact of the poorest seven billion people, while doubling the impact of the remainder, the environmental impact would almost double, despite population having been divided by four.

The article refers to both population growth in India and the impact of human activity.

Yes, and it importantly fails to show any causality between these two things, which is the point in question here.

Humans have an impact on the environment. But not, as far as we can see, in proportion to their numbers. The simplistic assumption that a basic headcount is sufficient to tell us the scale of the environmental impact is, as far as the evidence in this thread indicates, false.

If you want to show that it is in fact true, the only way to do that is to bring better evidence.

It's just physics. Eight billion people need more stuff than two billion people, physically utilizing more land and resources.

Consumption rate is likely to rise significantly as more and more people in developing nations raise their living standards to western levels, which they have every right to do.

Which in turn means that population stability or even decline is offset by a rising world wide demand for goods and services.

Don't confuse me with rational logical thinking.

The free market economy serves one purposs, maximize profit and return on investment. Over time that requires increasing markets and consumption.

Nixon opening up Chima was all about creating a vast new market. They beat us at our own game and we are now a market for China.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

Not everyone thinks it is irrelevant.

No shit. But the evidence says that those who think it's relevant are wrong.

Whether it is or isn't depends on evidence based on the impact we are having on the environment and ecosystems

Yes, it does. Can you show me some evidence that it's relevant? The case of Ethiopia shows clearly that it wasn't relevant there in the 1980s, despite the prevailing opinion that it was.

in terms of consumption rates

We consume almost nothing. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that almost everything that was ever on Earth is still here, apart from our space probes and some gases stripped from the atmosphere by solar wind

and population numbers....which is not necessarily a matter of one or the other.

You can't sneak population numbers in here without assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate their relevance, not just assert it.

Take India as an example:

ABSTRACT:
Population in India has been regarded as not only the root cause of many of our economic problems but has also severely affected the environmental conditions in India. Population increased very fast in the post-independence period and It has added to all types of pollution namely air, water noise and at the same time has disturbed the cycle of rain, has prolonged the summer season in one way or the other. It has destroyed our biodiversity to a large extent, soil erosion has taken place, has added to the increased demand for energy resulting in overall temperature to rise. In fact, rising population and an urge to develop more to meet its needs has resulted into the emergence of such situation. No doubt, we have to control the population growth in a strict manner but the solution does not lie only with controlling the population. The environmental degradation in India has reached to such an extent that a direct and immediate attack on the environmental pollution has to be made.

India brought additional land under cultivation, expanded irrigation facilities and used increasingly chemical fertilizers, pesticides and high yielding hybrid seeds,-all collectively known as the New Agricultural strategy. In the sphere of industries, new industries have been set up, existing industries have been expanded and technology is being continuously upgraded, development of agriculture and industry has been accompanied by development and expansion of infrastructure-namely of power, transport and communication, banking and finance, etc. At the same time, because of growing population and high degree mechanization, mindless and ruthless exploitation of natural resources, we have degraded our physical environment. By physical environment we mean the whole complex of climate, soil, water and biotic factor on which we all subsist, and on which our entire agriculture and industrial development depends, Rapid economic development is actually turning India into a vast wasteland.

Population growth in India
India is the second most populous country in the world after China. Recently, the population of India has crossed the one billion marks. According to the Census of India 2001, the population of India on 1st March 2001 was 1027 millions. At the time of independence, the country's population was 342 million. The number has multiplied three-fold in around five decades. The population growth of India from 1951 to 2001 is presented in Table 1. The total population size of India had grown from 361 million in 1951 to around 1027 million in 2001. The population of India increased by three times during the period of 1951-2001. The rural population of India has increased around two and half times from 298.7 million to 741.7 million during 1951-2001,....

Nobody's arguing that population hasn't grown in India.

Nobody's arguing that India hasn't seen problems with industrialisation leading to pollution and environmental degradation.

Nothing in the opinion piece you posted there constitutes evidence that population itself is the cause of the problems described; It's a case of correlation, but there's no evidence for causation (indeed it's quite possible that population growth is a consequence of the industrialisation that has also caused the environmental degradation; Population growth as a consequence of the underlying causes of the problems, rather than a cause of them).

India appears to be suffering similar problems to those seen in C19th England. Population wasn't the cause of those problems in England (English population has since multiplied almost fourfold, and yet the environmental problems from heavy industries have largely been solved); So why should we accept the assumption that it is the cause in India today?

Sheer numbers count.

So you keep asserting without evidence. But it's not at all clear that this is true, and there are good reasons to think that it's not.

The needs and want of eight billion people are far greater than the needs and wants of two billion people, as is their impact on the environment and its ecosystems.

That's simply not true.

If we could wave a magic wand and eliminate completely the environmental impact of the poorest seven billion people, while doubling the impact of the remainder, the environmental impact would almost double, despite population having been divided by four.

The article refers to both population growth in India and the impact of human activity.

Yes, and it importantly fails to show any causality between these two things, which is the point in question here.

Humans have an impact on the environment. But not, as far as we can see, in proportion to their numbers. The simplistic assumption that a basic headcount is sufficient to tell us the scale of the environmental impact is, as far as the evidence in this thread indicates, false.

If you want to show that it is in fact true, the only way to do that is to bring better evidence.

It's just physics. Eight billion people need more stuff than two billion people, physically utilizing more land and resources.

Consumption rate is likely to rise significantly as more and more people in developing nations raise their living standards to western levels, which they have every right to do.

Which in turn means that population stability or even decline is offset by a rising world wide demand for goods and services.

Exactly! Again! The divide between rich and poor and developing and developed is artificial and distracts for finding a solution.

 

[bilby]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

Not everyone thinks it is irrelevant.

No shit. But the evidence says that those who think it's relevant are wrong.

Whether it is or isn't depends on evidence based on the impact we are having on the environment and ecosystems

Yes, it does. Can you show me some evidence that it's relevant? The case of Ethiopia shows clearly that it wasn't relevant there in the 1980s, despite the prevailing opinion that it was.

in terms of consumption rates

We consume almost nothing. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that almost everything that was ever on Earth is still here, apart from our space probes and some gases stripped from the atmosphere by solar wind

and population numbers....which is not necessarily a matter of one or the other.

You can't sneak population numbers in here without assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate their relevance, not just assert it.

Take India as an example:

ABSTRACT:
Population in India has been regarded as not only the root cause of many of our economic problems but has also severely affected the environmental conditions in India. Population increased very fast in the post-independence period and It has added to all types of pollution namely air, water noise and at the same time has disturbed the cycle of rain, has prolonged the summer season in one way or the other. It has destroyed our biodiversity to a large extent, soil erosion has taken place, has added to the increased demand for energy resulting in overall temperature to rise. In fact, rising population and an urge to develop more to meet its needs has resulted into the emergence of such situation. No doubt, we have to control the population growth in a strict manner but the solution does not lie only with controlling the population. The environmental degradation in India has reached to such an extent that a direct and immediate attack on the environmental pollution has to be made.

India brought additional land under cultivation, expanded irrigation facilities and used increasingly chemical fertilizers, pesticides and high yielding hybrid seeds,-all collectively known as the New Agricultural strategy. In the sphere of industries, new industries have been set up, existing industries have been expanded and technology is being continuously upgraded, development of agriculture and industry has been accompanied by development and expansion of infrastructure-namely of power, transport and communication, banking and finance, etc. At the same time, because of growing population and high degree mechanization, mindless and ruthless exploitation of natural resources, we have degraded our physical environment. By physical environment we mean the whole complex of climate, soil, water and biotic factor on which we all subsist, and on which our entire agriculture and industrial development depends, Rapid economic development is actually turning India into a vast wasteland.

Population growth in India
India is the second most populous country in the world after China. Recently, the population of India has crossed the one billion marks. According to the Census of India 2001, the population of India on 1st March 2001 was 1027 millions. At the time of independence, the country's population was 342 million. The number has multiplied three-fold in around five decades. The population growth of India from 1951 to 2001 is presented in Table 1. The total population size of India had grown from 361 million in 1951 to around 1027 million in 2001. The population of India increased by three times during the period of 1951-2001. The rural population of India has increased around two and half times from 298.7 million to 741.7 million during 1951-2001,....

Nobody's arguing that population hasn't grown in India.

Nobody's arguing that India hasn't seen problems with industrialisation leading to pollution and environmental degradation.

Nothing in the opinion piece you posted there constitutes evidence that population itself is the cause of the problems described; It's a case of correlation, but there's no evidence for causation (indeed it's quite possible that population growth is a consequence of the industrialisation that has also caused the environmental degradation; Population growth as a consequence of the underlying causes of the problems, rather than a cause of them).

India appears to be suffering similar problems to those seen in C19th England. Population wasn't the cause of those problems in England (English population has since multiplied almost fourfold, and yet the environmental problems from heavy industries have largely been solved); So why should we accept the assumption that it is the cause in India today?

Sheer numbers count.

So you keep asserting without evidence. But it's not at all clear that this is true, and there are good reasons to think that it's not.

The needs and want of eight billion people are far greater than the needs and wants of two billion people, as is their impact on the environment and its ecosystems.

That's simply not true.

If we could wave a magic wand and eliminate completely the environmental impact of the poorest seven billion people, while doubling the impact of the remainder, the environmental impact would almost double, despite population having been divided by four.

The article refers to both population growth in India and the impact of human activity.

Yes, and it importantly fails to show any causality between these two things, which is the point in question here.

Humans have an impact on the environment. But not, as far as we can see, in proportion to their numbers. The simplistic assumption that a basic headcount is sufficient to tell us the scale of the environmental impact is, as far as the evidence in this thread indicates, false.

If you want to show that it is in fact true, the only way to do that is to bring better evidence.

It's just physics. Eight billion people need more stuff than two billion people, physically utilizing more land and resources.

Consumption rate is likely to rise significantly as more and more people in developing nations raise their living standards to western levels, which they have every right to do.

Which in turn means that population stability or even decline is offset by a rising world wide demand for goods and services.

Exactly! Again! The divide between rich and poor and developing and developed is artificial and distracts for finding a solution.

Of course it's artificial. But it's still real.

And it's still so massive and significant as to render mere counting of heads utterly futile, and a pointless distraction.

Consumption is a consequence of wealth, not population. A half billion rich people count for more environmental impact than seven and a half billion poor people.

So any solution to environmental issues needs to address the sustainability of wealthy people, and can completely ignore the sheer numbers involved - if we can make wealthy people sustainable, then their numbers cease to matter, and if we can't, were fucked even if we cut their numbers to a few hundred million.

Population is artificial, and irrelevant, and distracts from finding solutions.

 

[DBT]

People tend to go to wherever they feel they have opportunity and lifestyle. Population numbers in any given area count in terms of their impact on that area.

 

[bilby]

People tend to go to wherever they feel they have opportunity and lifestyle. Population numbers in any given area count in terms of their impact on that area.

Wealthy people go where they have opportunity and lifestyle.

Poor people go where the work is, even when the "lifestyle" sucks massive hairy donkey balls. That's why big cities in places with strong industrial growth (like 1850s London, or modern day Mumbai) have huge slums.

None of this has anything to do with global population whatsoever, which is why it happened in C19th Europe, despite world population being less than one sixth of what it is today.

Overcrowded cities with vile slums are a symptom of rapid industrialisation. Not of human population growth.

 

[Jokodo]

DBT,
You are making entirely too much sense. Our primitive limbic systems want thoughtless, emotional, unintegrated, dopamine-laced solutions. Get with the program already.

Quoting a three-paragraph-block of a paper that is, at best, tangentially related to the topic under discussion without indicating the relevant couple of sentences one thinks help clarify the issue at hand isn't "making entirely too much sense".

Not by a long shot.

 

[DBT]

DBT,
You are making entirely too much sense. Our primitive limbic systems want thoughtless, emotional, unintegrated, dopamine-laced solutions. Get with the program already.

Quoting a three-paragraph-block of a paper that is, at best, tangentially related to the topic under discussion without indicating the relevant couple of sentences one thinks help clarify the issue at hand isn't "making entirely too much sense".

Not by a long shot.

It's not complicated....two people consume more than one, four people consume more than two, eight more than four......

Population is a major factor. As is lifestyle, the issue being a combination of numbers and consumption rate.

 

[Jokodo]

DBT,
You are making entirely too much sense. Our primitive limbic systems want thoughtless, emotional, unintegrated, dopamine-laced solutions. Get with the program already.

Quoting a three-paragraph-block of a paper that is, at best, tangentially related to the topic under discussion without indicating the relevant couple of sentences one thinks help clarify the issue at hand isn't "making entirely too much sense".

Not by a long shot.

It's not complicated....two people consume more than one, four people consume more than two, eight more than four......

Population is a major factor. As is lifestyle, the issue being a combination of numbers and consumption rate.

Yes, and zero people and 10,000,000 baboons consume more than one, two, four, or eight people.

As a general rule of thumb, most of what plants produce will be eaten by animals, homo sapiens or not, except for the fraction that's fossilised.

Only when fossilised stuff is dug out from under layers of sand does the balance shift.

 

[DBT]

DBT,
You are making entirely too much sense. Our primitive limbic systems want thoughtless, emotional, unintegrated, dopamine-laced solutions. Get with the program already.

Quoting a three-paragraph-block of a paper that is, at best, tangentially related to the topic under discussion without indicating the relevant couple of sentences one thinks help clarify the issue at hand isn't "making entirely too much sense".

Not by a long shot.

It's not complicated....two people consume more than one, four people consume more than two, eight more than four......

Population is a major factor. As is lifestyle, the issue being a combination of numbers and consumption rate.

Yes, and zero people and 10,000,000 baboons consume more than one, two, four, or eight people.

As a general rule of thumb, most of what plants produce will be eaten by animals, homo sapiens or not, except for the fraction that's fossilised.

Only when fossilised stuff is dug out from under layers of sand does the balance shift.

Doesn't relate, sorry. The issue is consumption rate in relation to environmental impact. 10 billion baboons are certain to impact their environment to a far greater extent than a fraction of that number. Even with minimal consumption per head, numbers count.

 

[Jokodo]

DBT,
You are making entirely too much sense. Our primitive limbic systems want thoughtless, emotional, unintegrated, dopamine-laced solutions. Get with the program already.

Quoting a three-paragraph-block of a paper that is, at best, tangentially related to the topic under discussion without indicating the relevant couple of sentences one thinks help clarify the issue at hand isn't "making entirely too much sense".

Not by a long shot.

It's not complicated....two people consume more than one, four people consume more than two, eight more than four......

Population is a major factor. As is lifestyle, the issue being a combination of numbers and consumption rate.

Yes, and zero people and 10,000,000 baboons consume more than one, two, four, or eight people.

As a general rule of thumb, most of what plants produce will be eaten by animals, homo sapiens or not, except for the fraction that's fossilised.

Only when fossilised stuff is dug out from under layers of sand does the balance shift.

Doesn't relate, sorry. The issue is consumption rate in relation to environmental impact. 10 billion baboons are certain to impact their environment to a far greater extent than a fraction of that number. Even with minimal consumption per head, numbers count.

I *am* sorry to repeat myself.

As a general rule of thumb, most of what plants produce will be eaten by animals [eta: and funghi], homo sapiens or not, except for the fraction that's fossilised.

 

[fromderinside]

Overcrowded cities with vile slums are a symptom of rapid increase in industrialisation, er, toolmaking, farming . Not of human population growth.

Back to the movie "Population decline in the age of capability and estrogen."

 

[DBT]

DBT,
You are making entirely too much sense. Our primitive limbic systems want thoughtless, emotional, unintegrated, dopamine-laced solutions. Get with the program already.

Quoting a three-paragraph-block of a paper that is, at best, tangentially related to the topic under discussion without indicating the relevant couple of sentences one thinks help clarify the issue at hand isn't "making entirely too much sense".

Not by a long shot.

It's not complicated....two people consume more than one, four people consume more than two, eight more than four......

Population is a major factor. As is lifestyle, the issue being a combination of numbers and consumption rate.

Yes, and zero people and 10,000,000 baboons consume more than one, two, four, or eight people.

As a general rule of thumb, most of what plants produce will be eaten by animals, homo sapiens or not, except for the fraction that's fossilised.

Only when fossilised stuff is dug out from under layers of sand does the balance shift.

Doesn't relate, sorry. The issue is consumption rate in relation to environmental impact. 10 billion baboons are certain to impact their environment to a far greater extent than a fraction of that number. Even with minimal consumption per head, numbers count.

I *am* sorry to repeat myself.

As a general rule of thumb, most of what plants produce will be eaten by animals [eta: and funghi], homo sapiens or not, except for the fraction that's fossilised.

Repeating something doesn't make it relevent.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Only when fossilized stuff is dug out from under layers of sand does the balance shift.

So you are saying that human population is not a factor with regards to environmental health?

 

[bilby]

DBT,
You are making entirely too much sense. Our primitive limbic systems want thoughtless, emotional, unintegrated, dopamine-laced solutions. Get with the program already.

Quoting a three-paragraph-block of a paper that is, at best, tangentially related to the topic under discussion without indicating the relevant couple of sentences one thinks help clarify the issue at hand isn't "making entirely too much sense".

Not by a long shot.

It's not complicated....two people consume more than one, four people consume more than two, eight more than four......

But it IS complicated.

Eight Tanzanian farm labourers consume several orders of magnitude less than one Jeff Bezos.

Pretending that each person consumes roughly the same amount is a great way to reach a very badly mistaken conclusion, because the amount consumed by one person depends on which person we are considering

Population is a major factor.

It really isn't.

As is lifestyle, the issue being a combination of numbers and consumption rate.

Consumption rate is almost entirely unrelated to population numbers. The consumption rate of the 1% dwarfs that of the bottom 50%.

 

[DBT]

Environmental impact increases as the lifestyle and consumption rate of this 1% grows into 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 10 - 20 - 30 - 50% of the world's population and upward.