Will human population and economic activity exceed the Planets carrying capacity?

[DBT]

None of which is pertinent to the fact that "population growth is (going to/expected to, what-have-you) surge" is a demonstrably false claim.

And those 83 million, big number or not, are almost 10 million less than we were adding in 1998.

What is your wider point? DBT has now accepted that population growth is not increasing, it is decreasing.

I haven't changed my view. What I have been saying appears to have either been misunderstood or misrepresented.

I thought my position was clear.

As I've said all along. Population growth is increasing significantly, call it a surge, in some developing nations, Sub Saharan Africa, etc, and predicted to grow throughout this century (as shown on the graph that I posted), while population growth is decreasing in other nations, developed nations, the West and so on.....but that overall growth, World Population, currently stands at 1.09%, which increases world population by an estimated 83 million people per year.

This should be clear enough, this should not be open misinterpretation, so I suspect misinterpretation or obfuscation is being used as a means of defense

 

[DBT]

Here it is being expressed as a population 'spurt' in Africa. Which does not paint a pretty picture for long term sustainability.

''By 2050 around 2.2 billion people could be added to the global population and more than half of that growth will occur in Africa.

Africa will account for the highest population spurt with an additional 1.3 billion people on the continent, a new UN population report shows.

Much of Africa’s population boom will come from Nigeria, currently the world’s 7th most populous country. By 2050, the report predicts, Nigeria will become the world’s third largest country by population, becoming one of the six nations projected to have a population of over 300 million.

More than half of global population growth will happen in Africa





''Africa’s rapid population growth will occur despite expected reductions in fertility rates on the continent from 4.7 births per woman between 2010 and 2015 to 3.1 births per woman between 2045 and 2050 with countries like Kenya recording significant progress. The continued growth despite the drop in fertility rates is down to the “age structure” of the continent’s population as Africa is home to a bulk of the world’s youngest countries. Beyond 2050, Africa is expected to be the only region still experiencing “substantial population growth,” as such the continent’s share of the global population could rise from 17% at present to 40% by 2100''

 

[ruby sparks]

What measures could we take to reduce population, which are neither immoral, nor worthwhile things to do regardless of their impact on population?

Are there any such measures?

So what if there are or there aren't? What is the point of the question? It appears to be put in order to make a point of some sort, but what?

So what if there are measures such as voluntary family planning which are not immoral but are worthwhile in other terms as well as in reducing population?

 

[ruby sparks]

Here it is being expressed as a population 'spurt' in Africa.

Yes, a population spurt, arguably, but not a population growth spurt.

All this arguing about terms is missing the point. Rapid growth, set to continue, partly because of population momentum and still comparatively high fertility rates (in terms of exceeding replacement levels) mean that the issue of population growth is still relevant. You two should stop haggling over terms and you DBT, though I agree with and support many things you say, should accept that population growth surge was the incorrect term. To do otherwise leaves you wide open to the charge of now deliberately overstating the problem.

 

[Jokodo]

None of which is pertinent to the fact that "population growth is (going to/expected to, what-have-you) surge" is a demonstrably false claim.

That is a false claim. I pointed out that my 'surge' comment was in fact specific to sub Saharan Africa, as stated in the very sentence you quoted.

Erm, no. The sentence I quoted presents it as a problem that's specific to the developing world and most expressed in Africa.

That aside, it is a demonstrably False claim even for Africa alone. A constant growth, even a constant high growth, is not a surge in growth.

But still multiply times the total population of Australia, so it is not a trivial figure.

And if a car is slowing down from 80 to 50 km/h as it approaches a bend, it still has multiple times the speed of a pedestrian, yet it is false to say that it's accelerating.

 

[Jokodo]

The carrying capacity of an environment is a fixed number only in the case of a species that occupies a highly specialised niche and doesn't shape the environment to make it more hospitable to them.

On a small island where there's only two species of land mammals, foxes and rabbits (and ignoring for the sake of the argument that foxes will eat toads and locusts when hungry), the carrying capacity with respect to foxes is exceeded the moment they eat the rabbits faster than they reproduce. Pretty black and white.

For, say a species of butterfly that's mutually dependent on a specific on a particular kind of flower, things already look very different. If the wind every so often blows a few seeds of that flower onto the island, there may be a more or less stable population of those flowers, but as they're not reproducing locally, it will remain low - enough, maybe, to support a handful of butterflies, no more. So, as long as there are no butterflies, the hypothetical carrying capacity with respect to them comes out as something like 5 or 10. But on the day some butteflies are actually stranded on the island, the flowers start to reproduce and multiply. In a sense, they farm their food source. There is, of course, a limit to how many flowers will eventually grow, depending on available nutrients and sun light and competition with other plants - but that limit might be orders of magnitude higher than what it looked like initially.

On a scale of dependence of constant features of the environment, where the foxes are at 10 and the butterflies at 3, humans are at -10. Humans are like those butterflies and unlike the foxes in that they farm their own food, but they're unlike the butterflies in that they're also able to weed out competitors to their food; and they're very much unlike those butterflies in that they're generalist omnivores who can easily switch to another food source when all else fails. Our food supply is not an environmental constant, it is something *we* make, and the same goes for most other commodities.

Sure, their are limits. There's only so much carbon in the lithosphere (or whatever we run out of first, possiby phosphorus or some trace element), there's only so much energy reaching the earth. If you want to hazard a guess where those limits are (even "given current technology"), be my guest. My hunch is 150 billion just so I'm saying something, and while I admit I might be off by half an order of magnitude in either direction, it doesn't matter.

 

[Jokodo]

Good intentions are no gold insurance against bad outcomes.

I agree with that.

It's true of many things in general. Indeed it could also apply to some other climate change countermeasures such as for example nuclear power, with which there are associated risks.

I think most would agree that the problems are urgent and that we arguably should try all reasonable measures that offer potential assistance, on the basis and with the proviso that we should seek to minimise or eliminate harm while doing so. Yes, it's true that things could go awry.

Your position is logically and morally inconsistent.

If you accept that Everybody Dies (tm) if Africans are allowed to reach 2, 3 or 4 billion in number, restricting yourself to just those counter-measures we can all agree on is illogical and arguably immoral. After all, telling some African women that they can only have 2 children when they would have had 4 is surely a lesser evil than Everybody Dies? Sterilising them is too, isn't it? And if that turns out difficult to implement because of, say, poor infrastructure or lack of cooperation by local governments, carpet bombing the area or releasing a virus that kills 50% of the continent's population is still a lesser evil. There are times in life when you have to make tough choices, but tough as it may be, when it's 1 billion dead against Everyone (tm), a clear choice it is -- and by delaying it, you're only making things worse!

That's what the blackshirts bilby is talking about can say to you, and you have nothing to put against them: Based on the premise you share, their argument makes perfect sense. You and they will both be wrong empirically, in that there is no necessary connection between the number of Africans and our demise (short of where that number reaches well into the 12 digit range), but unlike yours, their position is at least internally consistent. "We'll all die if we don't do anything about population, but be assured that I only want to do Nice Things (tm)" isn't.

 

[bilby]

What measures could we take to reduce population, which are neither immoral, nor worthwhile things to do regardless of their impact on population?

Are there any such measures?

So what if there are or there aren't? What is the point of the question? It appears to be put in order to make a point of some sort, but what?

Well, apart from being the very core of the argument I have been making, and you appear to have been trying to rebut, for the entire thread, there's no point to it at all.

I was right - you are wasting both my time and yours, trying to show that my position is wrong when you haven't even grasped what it is.

So what if there are measures such as voluntary family planning which are not immoral but are worthwhile in other terms as well as in reducing population?

I didn't ask if there were any such measures. I asked whether there were any measures that did NOT meet that criterion, but which were nevertheless morally acceptable.

Do try to keep up. I'm not using many long words here.

In short: What morally acceptable action could you take (if any) whose ONLY significant benefits are due to population reduction?

Why do you need to use the highly dangerous 'population' argument? What do you want to do, that you could not justify on other, less dangerous, grounds?

Why are you encouraging those who support genocide and coercion, by boosting a needless argument that they will twist to support their agenda?

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, apart from being the very core of the argument I have been making, and you appear to have been trying to rebut, for the entire thread, there's no point to it at all.

I was right - you are wasting blth my time and yours, trying to show that my position is wrong when you haven't even grasped what it is.

So what if there are measures such as voluntary family planning which are not immoral but are worthwhile in other terms as well as in reducing population?

I didn't ask if there were any such measures. I asked whether there were any measures that did NOT meet that criterion, but which were nevertheless morally acceptable.

Do try to keep up. I'm not using many long words here.

You haven't explained why any answer to your (at this point apparently daft) question matters.

You have an argument? Who knew?

 

[bilby]

Well, apart from being the very core of the argument I have been making, and you appear to have been trying to rebut, for the entire thread, there's no point to it at all.

I was right - you are wasting blth my time and yours, trying to show that my position is wrong when you haven't even grasped what it is.

So what if there are measures such as voluntary family planning which are not immoral but are worthwhile in other terms as well as in reducing population?

I didn't ask if there were any such measures. I asked whether there were any measures that did NOT meet that criterion, but which were nevertheless morally acceptable.

Do try to keep up. I'm not using many long words here.

You haven't explained why any answer to your (at this point apparently daft) question matters.

You have an argument? Who knew?

Yet you seem very reluctant to answer this apparently unimportant question.

Hmm.

You are also giving such deep consideration to my posts that your response took less time than my immediate edit.

Hmm.

 

[ruby sparks]

I find the question confusing. I've tried to answer it.

Ok, I'll have another go.

No. I can't think of anything.

Now your turn. So what?

 

[ruby sparks]

Your position is logically and morally inconsistent.

If you accept that Everybody Dies (tm) if Africans are allowed to reach 2, 3 or 4 billion in number, restricting yourself to just those counter-measures we can all agree on is illogical and arguably immoral. After all, telling some African women that they can only have 2 children when they would have had 4 is surely a lesser evil than Everybody Dies? Sterilising them is too, isn't it? And if that turns out difficult to implement because of, say, poor infrastructure or lack of cooperation by local governments, carpet bombing the area or releasing a virus that kills 50% of the continent's population is still a lesser evil. There are times in life when you have to make tough choices, but tough as it may be, when it's 1 billion dead against Everyone (tm), a clear choice it is -- and by delaying it, you're only making things worse!

That's what the blackshirts bilby is talking about can say to you, and you have nothing to put against them: Based on the premise you share, their argument makes perfect sense. You and they will both be wrong empirically, in that there is no necessary connection between the number of Africans and our demise (short of where that number reaches well into the 12 digit range), but unlike yours, their position is at least internally consistent. "We'll all die if we don't do anything about population, but be assured that I only want to do Nice Things (tm)" isn't.

Slippery slope fallacy.

 

[bilby]

I find the question confusing. I've tried to answer it.

Ok, I'll have another go.

No. I can't think of anything.

Now your turn. So what?

So it would be perfectly reasonable to argue for whatever steps you want to take - educating girls, reducing infant mortality, etc. - WITHOUT mentioning population.

And by doing so you would gain the significant benefit of not supporting the genocidal or coercive groups who want to establish dystopian population control measures.

So WHY ARE YOU TAKING A LARGE AND NEEDLESS RISK???

You don't come across as being too stupid to avoid large and needless risks.

Prone to knee jerk responses, and keen to brand arguments as 'weapons grade stupid' without providing any justification for the claim, sure. But not stupid.

 

[ruby sparks]

So it would be perfectly reasonable to argue for whatever steps you want to take - educating girls, reducing infant mortality, etc. - WITHOUT mentioning population.

And by doing so you would gain the significant benefit of not supporting the genocidal or coercive groups who want to establish dystopian population control measures.

So WHY ARE YOU TAKING A LARGE AND NEEDLESS RISK???

You don't come across as being too stupid to avoid large and needless risks.

Prone to knee jerk responses, and keen to brand arguments as 'weapons grade stupid' without providing any justification for the claim, sure. But not stupid.

Earlier you posted, or someone posted an article by someone who explained why he did not use the word. Is that what you are referring back to, because we can do that if you want.

The answer is easy. Don't use the word. I personally don't agree with the idea, but if there really is a risk of using the word (which I'm not sure about, in reality) but if there is, don't use it.

Just go ahead with Voluntary Family Planning measures and call it Voluntary Family Planning. I'm fine with that. And so was the guy who wrote that article.

So are you now saying that it's only the word itself that is a problem?

 

[bilby]

So it would be perfectly reasonable to argue for whatever steps you want to take - educating girls, reducing infant mortality, etc. - WITHOUT mentioning population.

And by doing so you would gain the significant benefit of not supporting the genocidal or coercive groups who want to establish dystopian population control measures.

So WHY ARE YOU TAKING A LARGE AND NEEDLESS RISK???

You don't come across as being too stupid to avoid large and needless risks.

Prone to knee jerk responses, and keen to brand arguments as 'weapons grade stupid' without providing any justification for the claim, sure. But not stupid.

Earlier you posted, or someone posted an article by someone who explained why he did not use the word. Is that what you are referring back to, because we can do that if you want.

The answer is easy. Don't use the word. I personally don't agree with the idea, but if there really is a risk of using the word (which I'm not sure about, in reality) but if there is, don't use it.

Just go ahead with Voluntary Family Planning measures and call it Voluntary Family Planning. I'm fine with that. And so was the guy who wrote that article.

So are you now saying that it's only the word itself that is a problem?

No.

It's not the word.

Words are just noise and marks on paper.

It's the underlying idea.

If someone is concerned about racism, and says 'You shouldn't ever use the word "nigger"', do you imagine that his only problem is with the WORD??

Now I am wondering if perhaps I was wrong in the final paragraph of my previous post.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is nothing wrong with the underlying idea of non-coercive family planning. It has worked successfully in many places and can continue to do so.

 

[bilby]

There is nothing wrong with the underlying idea of non-coercive family planning. It has worked successfully in many places and can continue to do so.

I agree.

But you appear to have completely missed the fucking point.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of a community council either. But when you tell people that the council is a good idea because not only does it help keep the area tidy, it also allows you to keep the Jews out, then you are encouraging a mode of thought that is hugely dangerous.

"Family planning is a good idea because it gives people control of their lives, and reduces population" is just like "Community councils are a good idea, because they reduce litter, and keep the Jews out" - both claims are rendered highly immoral by their completely unnecessary second clauses, whose use can only help normalise immoral behaviours.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is nothing wrong with the underlying idea of non-coercive family planning. It has worked successfully in many places and can continue to do so.

I agree.

But you appear to have completely missed the fucking point.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of a community council either. But when you tell people that the council is a good idea because not only does it help keep the area tidy, it also allows you to keep the Jews out, then you are encouraging a mode of thought that is hugely dangerous.

"Family planning is a good idea because it gives people control of their lives, and reduces population" is just like "Community councils are a good idea, because they reduce litter, and keep the Jews out" - both claims are rendered highly immoral by their completely unnecessary second clauses, whose use can only help normalise immoral behaviours.

Your analogy fails because it equates 'reducing population' with 'keeping jews out'. 'Reducing population' is not of itself a racist aim and it has a proven track record of working without any racism and can continue to do so.

Have another go. You seem to be floundering more and more as we go along. You are merely using a term in the pejorative sense. If you do that, it's obviously a bad thing, but it's circular reasoning.

Keep going. Soon you'll have given me the world record for fallacies. All in one thread. Lol.

 

[bilby]

There is nothing wrong with the underlying idea of non-coercive family planning. It has worked successfully in many places and can continue to do so.

I agree.

But you appear to have completely missed the fucking point.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of a community council either. But when you tell people that the council is a good idea because not only does it help keep the area tidy, it also allows you to keep the Jews out, then you are encouraging a mode of thought that is hugely dangerous.

"Family planning is a good idea because it gives people control of their lives, and reduces population" is just like "Community councils are a good idea, because they reduce litter, and keep the Jews out" - both claims are rendered highly immoral by their completely unnecessary second clauses, whose use can only help normalise immoral behaviours.

Your analogy fails because it equates 'reducing population' with 'keeping jews out'. 'Reducing population' is not a racist aim.

You are right. It's just a genocidal one.

So that's OK then.

 

[Jokodo]

There is nothing wrong with the underlying idea of non-coercive family planning. It has worked successfully in many places and can continue to do so.

There is indeed nothing wrong with non-coercive family planning. People, as people, deserve a genuine choice of how to live their lives, including how many children they want to have. It's a non-argument once you accept that people, which, surprisingly to some, includes women, are, well, people.

However, a lot is wrong with the idea that We (capital W) need to push family planning among Them, because otherwise both We and Them are doomed. The fact that it is based on a premise that, followed to its logical consequences, inevitably leads to the conclusion that a genocide of unseen proportions is the lesser of two evils if "non-coercive family planning" alone doesn't yield the desired result fast enough isn't the only thing that's wrong about it, but it alone should be reason enough to question your premises.