Ed Population Reduction?

[TMiguel]

Population increase is do to the born/death rates, as far as I know it has nothing to do with the people’s subconscious on how many people should our community have. In some developed countries (mainly in Europe), with familiar planning and all that, the population is in fact decreasing, but globally (i.e. the world altogether) that is not happening. If the growth rate is going to decrease it is not because people think that we are enough now, but ratter because of some stupid war or epidemic.
I personally don’t see India, China or whatever developing or under-developed country to have something like birth control, familiar plan, or even a social economic and political change to stop them breading like rabbits.

It does matter if you find away to better use our resources (by the way it is not just food we are talking about), but that is just delaying the problem because sooner or latter the population will outgrow whatever friendly solution we can come with (it is just a matter of time), and even that can only go so far (somewhere you will get to a limit and you can’t go forward anymore).
Of course we shouldn’t run around like crazy thinking that the end of the world is near, neither do I believe that in a near future this is going to be a big problem (well not much more then it currently is now), but that status quo will not last long.

For those who where looking for a previous example of a earlier civilization that got completely wiped (potentially for overpopulation), you might want to take a look at the Mayans.
Ps. Useful wiki links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization

 

[TMiguel]

I do agree that many environmental associations are painting the picture to black, but that is not an indication that there isn’t a real problem.

Some quick math tells me that if we moved the entire population of the Earth to Texas we would all have about 1134 square feet or 105 square meters apiece. That's about half the average house size in the US. In principle with highrise apartments, hydroponics buildings etc. it could be managed such that we could all live in Texas alone.

That is a bit stretchy idea, but it is mathematically possible. But the mistake here is to think that the size of the planet required to support us is about the size we can build our house in. Even if we eat all vegetables, we would still needs lots of area to create crops to last us for a year of production (plus excess for next year crop production, plus some excess so you don’t starve if some crop gets screwed), then you need an amazing quantity of available fresh water for you and your crops. Then what happens to the waste? (i.e. damaged tools, fesses, stuff that you can’t eat and dead people; supposing that you live naked with noting else but tools and you don’t eat dead people’s bones), you will need a huge area for waste land, plus the support of other types of decomposing creatures to live. Then you need air to breath, and that requires lots and lots of tress. Add the fact that things can not be done everywhere.
Even if there is no other technology, no other kind of exploration or any kind of goods we have now, all of a sudden the American continent (plus any other continent of your choosing) seams a little too crowded.

 

[technoextreme]

I do agree that many environmental associations are painting the picture to black, but that is not an indication that there isn’t a real problem.



That is a bit stretchy idea, but it is mathematically possible. But the mistake here is to think that the size of the planet required to support us is about the size we can build our house in. Even if we eat all vegetables, we would still needs lots of area to create crops to last us for a year of production (plus excess for next year crop production, plus some excess so you don’t starve if some crop gets screwed), then you need an amazing quantity of available fresh water for you and your crops. Then what happens to the waste? (i.e. damaged tools, fesses, stuff that you can’t eat and dead people; supposing that you live naked with noting else but tools and you don’t eat dead people’s bones), you will need a huge area for waste land, plus the support of other types of decomposing creatures to live. Then you need air to breath, and that requires lots and lots of tress. Add the fact that things can not be done everywhere.
Even if there is no other technology, no other kind of exploration or any kind of goods we have now, all of a sudden the American continent (plus any other continent of your choosing) seams a little too crowded.

Your simplifying it to the other side of the argument. It's somewhere in between your argument and the idea that we can live in Texas.

 

[my_wan]

I do agree that many environmental associations are painting the picture to black, but that is not an indication that there isn’t a real problem.

That is a bit stretchy idea, but it is mathematically possible. But the mistake here is to think that the size of the planet required to support us is about the size we can build our house in. Even if we eat all vegetables, we would still needs lots of area to create crops to last us for a year of production (plus excess for next year crop production, plus some excess so you don’t starve if some crop gets screwed), then you need an amazing quantity of available fresh water for you and your crops. Then what happens to the waste? (i.e. damaged tools, fesses, stuff that you can’t eat and dead people; supposing that you live naked with noting else but tools and you don’t eat dead people’s bones), you will need a huge area for waste land, plus the support of other types of decomposing creatures to live. Then you need air to breath, and that requires lots and lots of tress. Add the fact that things can not be done everywhere.
Even if there is no other technology, no other kind of exploration or any kind of goods we have now, all of a sudden the American continent (plus any other continent of your choosing) seams a little too crowded.

Yes the math also assumes everybody gets that 105 square meters as surface area. For it to be workable would require high rise apartments taking much less real estate per person. It would also require vertical farms. http://www.verticalfarm.com/ Crops getting "screwed" would be excessively rare grown this way with an immediate turnaround if it did happen. Composting is not just a "waste land" it is an extremely valuable resource for the farms. It can also be tapped for the methane and heat production from decomposition. I remember my grandmother living off her garden about that size, not counting the chickens running everywhere and a few goats, and the only thing she bought was flour, sugar, baking soda, and a few spices. You would be shocked at how much of your food needs can be grown inside your house with lots of oxygen production to boot. Climate control would be extremely efficient if on all sides you are buffered by more climate controlled areas. Energy efficiency would be extreme by todays standards. Refrigeration could be centrally piped to freezer units and leakage controlled to cool the refrigerator and the housing unit itself. The simple fact is that it is technically doable even on such a large scale. Technically we are not even limited to land areas.

Presently in the US it is illegal to reuse treated water directly. It must reenter the waterways and re-pumped from the reservoirs for reuse. This needs to change. If we lock up our water use in a closed or nearly closed loop normal weather will replenish natures water cycle from oceanic evaporation, etc., without us having any or little impact. Our effect on water tables would then be minimal to none. Desalinization would be far more economical if it wasn't dumped back into the environment after a single use. It would also require us to take a more direct responsibility for the contaminates and keep them separate from the environment. Watershed policy encourages, even legally mandates in many cases, that runoff be channeled directly to the basins. This concentrates environmental contaminates, discourages natural ground uptake of the water exacerbating groundwater level loss, and produces flooding in places that would never occur otherwise. Closing our own water cycle would also essentially make us drought proof.

Of course no matter what we do continued population growth will eventually undo any previous solution. It always has been this way and will always remain that way for all life on Earth. It is however, presently and for the foreseeable future, a management issue rather than a population issue. I don't want to be around if that changes too drastically.

 

[quarky]

Oil has fueled the big growth spurt. Especially in agriculture.
As of now, there is nothing to take its place, but even if there was, and we had fantasticly efficient technology, including our food systems, and we could all fit in Texas...why would that be a good thing? Or why would anyone hope for a future with several times more people?

The myopic aspect of this, even if it was desirable and morally good to populate the whole planet, as thick as that texas with 6 billion people...well, we'd still come right up against the same problem...a maximum sustainable mass of people. At which point, the need for an exit strategy becomes apparent again.

I think we're in fantasy land about our technological know-how. Its very glitzy, and impressive, yet it can barely manage to feed everyone that's already here, and that's with the monsterous benifit of cheap fossil fuels.

Computers are very awesome, and so are airplanes, but that's about it. The nuts and bolts stuff is still very crude. We depend utterly on photosynthesis; a thin layer of topsoil; and ample water. It may look like something much more splendid, but its not.

The notion of our destiny in outer space is laughable, and sad. We are nowhere with that project. It would be a soothing comfort if it was true...this infinite space to breed in. Other planets suck, and they will suck for a very, very long time, if not forever.

meanwhile, we're killing off everything that's beautiful and meaningfull...because we love people so much that we must do all we can to stuff 20 billion more in here?!

why?

 

[my_wan]

The myopic aspect of this, even if it was desirable and morally good to populate the whole planet, as thick as that texas with 6 billion people...well, we'd still come right up against the same problem...a maximum sustainable mass of people. At which point, the need for an exit strategy becomes apparent again.

It was intentionally myopic to make the point that it's a management issue. Part of that management would be population management in my view. I take our natural environment to be more precious than anything we can do or invent. If we maintain a steady population doubling rate then even this whole galaxy is not big enough in the foreseeable future. Even if we make it to another galaxy it will be filled within a single generation or population doubling period. It's no more unlimited than our forefathers thought the natural world was unlimited. If we don't manage our population nature will just as it has in the past.

Nature manages population at a friction level. Any overly successful species will swamp its resources then either adapt new resources or fall back and start again. It is within our capacity to manage ourselves below this friction level but it will get managed with or without our consent.

 

[Tapio]

Actually, that's not true. Farming is just as destructive to the environment than eating meat is.

You are wrong. Oh, of course renegade farming done with no knowledge on how things work can constitute to poor results for the environment. If you ment this, I agree. Otherwise I'll take your comment as plain provocation, which I'm not going to go for.

True. I honestly hate calling it the "green" movement because it tends to get it associated with oddball people.

I think it's quite strange how people who genuinely want to keep as good care of this planet as possible on human standards are so often called silly names. Reminds me of school. The smartest one's are always bullied.

It's really quite ironic that you are quoting an organization that estimates that worldwide population growth will stop within our lifetimes.

Hmm. I think I wasn't clear enough. There's a definte language barrier here. I could have written: Mielestäni ihmisten lisääntymistä ei voida estää tarpeeksi nopeasti, jotta sillä voitaisiin vaikuttaa suuren väkimassan tuottamiin tuhoihin. Kun meitä tulee olemaan täällä melko paljon melko pitkään, on mielestäni tärkeää miettiä kestäviä ratkaisuja. If you spoke Finnish, you would've understood what I meant, and the irony you now noticed wouldnt've been present.

I'll try again. I meant, that since there's no way of reducing overall population quickly enough for it to prevent the damage being done NOW, we should think for more sustainable alternatives. NOW. Even if we could stop people from having more than one child, NOW, there would still be left so many of us for quite a while, that we'd still have to think of what should be done with many things bringing us closer to extinction (meat eating being one of top priority).

The UN report link was just to give some light on how well known all what I wrote about is, also on an international level. Is this more clear, mr. extreme?

 

[technoextreme]

i'll try again. I meant, that since there's no way of reducing overall population quickly enough for it to prevent the damage being done now, we should think for more sustainable alternatives. Now. Even if we could stop people from having more than one child, now, there would still be left so many of us for quite a while, that we'd still have to think of what should be done with many things bringing us closer to extinction (meat eating being one of top priority).

The un report link was just to give some light on how well known all what i wrote about is, also on an international level. Is this more clear, mr. Extreme?

WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT POPULATION GROWTH FOR MUCH LONGER. FOR ALL ACCOUNTS AND PURPOSES IT WILL STOP. I learned this because I read about it in the other thread from the freaking UN.

I think it's quite strange how people who genuinely want to keep as good care of this planet as possible on human standards are so often called silly names. Reminds me of school. The smartest one's are always bullied.

There is a difference between rational thought versus ideology. I tend not to develop an zeal over certain issues because I know it will cloud my ability to think. That UN report attributes a ton of issues and dumps the blame solely on meat eating which is absurd.

 

[BenBurch]

I do believe our number, even if sustainable, is too many.

We need to encourage all people to have no more than two children, which, being lower than the replacement rate, will ensure a population decrease. I would do this by taxing people less if they stay under the two children mark.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't think that the sheer number of people is the problem. I think that the problem is twofold - population distribution and allocation of resources.

There are too many people packed into some areas while other areas are empty. As I just randomly posted in some other thread for no reason other than it crossed my mind at the time, Australia has approximately the land area of the continental United States, but around 10% of the population. A lot of Australia has no-one living on it. At the same time, there are people packed into tiny spaces in India, China and Africa. The high population density in those places is what causes the problems.

There's also the uneven allocation of resources. This is a huge problem in Africa. It's not that there isn't enough food to feed all the people in Africa. It's that they can't get to the food, or the food is not getting to them. This is because of conflict, corruption, or simply incompetent management.

So no. I don't think the number "6.5 billion" is the problem. The fact that it's such a big number causes complications, but I don't think the blame for war, famine, pestilence and death can be attributed to just the number of people.

 

[psy kick]

But are there not a disporportionate number of elderly now and at some point in the nearish future, they will naturally die, and it will bring the population to a more reasonable level? At least in America?

 

[arthwollipot]

But are there not a disporportionate number of elderly now and at some point in the nearish future, they will naturally die, and it will bring the population to a more reasonable level? At least in America?

That won't work. The issue here is that people are living longer, because of improved health care. That's not something that's really going to go away. The mean lifespan of population will rise to a certain point then stop - it's not going to change direction and come down again because we've lost the skills or the technology for keeping people alive longer.

 

[TMiguel]

There are too many people packed into some areas while other areas are empty. As I just randomly posted in some other thread for no reason other than it crossed my mind at the time, Australia has approximately the land area of the continental United States, but around 10% of the population. A lot of Australia has no-one living on it.

Mainly because Australia is a Desert, or some natural habitat for a rare specie.
You can't expect people to live in desert worst then the Sahara.

That won't work. The issue here is that people are living longer, because of improved health care. That's not something that's really going to go away. The mean lifespan of population will rise to a certain point then stop - it's not going to change direction and come down again because we've lost the skills or the technology for keeping people alive longer.

If they live longer they can work longer, the issue is not if the newbie can support the elderly, but either if there is going to be enough for both of them.

 

[arthwollipot]

Mainly because Australia is a Desert, or some natural habitat for a rare specie.
You can't expect people to live in desert worst then the Sahara.

The Australian desert is not worse than the Sahara. Agreed, it would need serious infrastructure work in order to support urban-sized communities, but we don't have the endless miles of sand that the Sahara has. We actually have plants and animals in our deserts.

 

[TMiguel]

The Australian desert is not worse than the Sahara. Agreed, it would need serious infrastructure work in order to support urban-sized communities, but we don't have the endless miles of sand that the Sahara has. We actually have plants and animals in our deserts.

It was an exaggeration to create a dramatic effect, the Australian Desert is not as big or has lifeless has the Sahara, but sure is hotter.

 

[quarky]

In the U.S., moving people into deserts has been a disaster. It requires enormous resources from elsewhere...like water and power for airconditioning.

Not that it will ever happen, but what we need are incentives to die younger.

 

[BenBurch]

In the U.S., moving people into deserts has been a disaster. It requires enormous resources from elsewhere...like water and power for airconditioning.

Not that it will ever happen, but what we need are incentives to die younger.

If the future plays out as I expect it will, famine will provide that "incentive."

 

[TMiguel]

Not that it will ever happen, but what we need are incentives to die younger.

LOL!
No that anyone cares, but the age of the community is not a problem. That can simply be fixed whit active/non-active ratios of the population whit the production-per-capita ratios. The problem is the total capacity of production versus total population.

 

[Tapio]

WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT POPULATION GROWTH FOR MUCH LONGER. FOR ALL ACCOUNTS AND PURPOSES IT WILL STOP. I learned this because I read about it in the other thread from the freaking UN.

Yes. That's what I meant. I too have read the "freaking UN" papers. My point was, that although population growth will stop, there will still be left a considerable amount of people here on Earth for quite a while BEFORE any effects of people not having as many kids will be visible.

So it's still an urgent issue to re-evaluate and -create our way of living.

There is a difference between rational thought versus ideology. I tend not to develop an zeal over certain issues because I know it will cloud my ability to think. That UN report attributes a ton of issues and dumps the blame solely on meat eating which is absurd.

The UN isn't blaming it ALL on meat eating. But if you REALLY look at the figures (have you, really, from various sources?) you will see (unless you're just completely unable to understand what your reading, no offense) that by reducing meat eating we could support our level of population in a more effective manner.

 

[G-K-4]

I personally don’t see India, China or whatever developing or under-developed country to have something like birth control, familiar plan [family planning], or even a social economic and political change to stop them breading like rabbits.

First of all, I encourage you to rethink your assertion that "we" have children while "they" breed like animals. I take it that you are neither Chinese nor Indian?

Second, you do not see the changing demographics of the developing world because you are not looking. Your stereotypes of these two particular countries is plain wrong, at best out-of-date. China's rate of fertility per woman was 5.7 in 1970. In 2002 it was down to 1.4. India went from 4.9 in 1981 to 2.8 in 2004. That's a very significant reduction. The replacement rate, to maintain a constant population, is about 2.1.

You can find these statistics and many more in the data table at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldfertility2007/worldfertility2007.htm

As for breading, which is what you actually wrote, I personally like bread.

In some developed countries (mainly in Europe), with familiar [family] planning and all that, the population is in fact decreasing, but globally (i.e. the world altogether) that is not happening. If the growth rate is going to decrease it is not because people think that we are enough now, but ratter [rather] because of some stupid war or epidemic.

Oh, but the worldwide human population growth rate actually is declining. It Has been for years. Sure, the absolute number of people is increasing, but not as quickly as it once did. We're still pressing the gas pedal, but we aren't pressing it as hard as we once were.

I refer to the spreadsheet already cited. In the period 1970-1975, total fertility per woman was 4.5. In the period 2000-2005 it was 2.6. That's significant. It's still higher than replacement rate, so the world's human population is growing, but not as fast as it was in the bad old days. And the middle forecast is that we'll get down to replacement in the middle of this century, around 9.1 billion people.

BBC: World population growth 'falling' (23 March, 2004) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3560433.stm


How does this happen? How can we encourage people to have fewer kids? A lot of it comes from empowering women, socially, educationally, economically, and politically. When we help women around the world protect their human rights many positive consequences follow. These affect the birthrate.

UNFPA: Empowering Women
http://www.unfpa.org/gender/empowerment.htm


And are these high human populations putting a lot of stress on our biological support system? Yes, but. Yes, but the antiquated consumption habits of the still-merely-industrialized societies arguably cause more harm than a simple headcount would suggest. It's not just numbers but consumption patterns. We in the Global North need to develop economies that circulate resources in a loop, develop land-use planning that is practical for permanent settlement, and develop socially so that our comfortable people seek "better" instead of simply "more". But maybe that's a debate for another thread.