Ed Population Reduction?

[TMiguel]

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?

This was a figurative exaggeration to create impact, not a discriminatory act of any sort.

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 Your stereotypes of these two particular countries is plain wrong, at best out-of-date.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.

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.

Reducing the rate at which it happens just delays the escalating problem, it does not solve it. Has for those data, I want to know where you get it, because if you go to Wikipedia for example India had more then 10% increase of population in the last 7 years, which by rough estimate it will double its population in less then 70 years. As you see, some how your data is not coherent.

As for the modernization of consumption habits, as it has been stated before, will only last for a while.

 

[quarky]

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

Exactly. Or war, disease, etc.

Yet if we are to take seriously our urge to eliminate those 'evils', we will need to find a viable exit plan.

The problem exists, or will, despite the possibility of lowering the birth rate.
Its true that a stasis could be reached , through minimizing reproduction, but that would lead to a society of mostly old people. (assuming continued advancements in longevity, safety, etc)

Here's another way to look at it:
Suppose we learn to beat aging entirely, and remain productive and fertile for hundreds of years...at a stable global population.

Its easy to see where that would lead, not fun.
Where we're headed is less extreme, but similar flavor.

 

[Hindmost]

Reasonable projections on population indicate 8-9 billion people by 2050. A more immediate view...every four years, the equivalent of the US population is added to the planet. Considering that over 80% of our energy needs come from finite resources, there just has to be a tipping point. Malthus and his ilk just have the time table a bit off.

Technical inovation can stall some of the problems, but not eliminate them. Energy is still subject to the laws of thermo and it will be difficult to extract enough energy for the total population. Food production and distribution relies on cheap energy. The world economy was based on cheap energy.

The DOE projects that energy use will grow by 50% by 2030...that's a bunch of quads.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html


glenn

 

[G-K-4]

This was a figurative exaggeration to create impact, not a discriminatory act of any sort.

I see. Please be more careful in future.

Reducing the rate at which it [population growth] happens just delays the escalating problem, it does not solve it.

They say you have to walk before you can run. I would add that you have to stop speeding up before you can stand still. Reducing the rate at which population grows hastens the day when it slows to the replacement rate.

Securing women's rights worldwide is a concrete, positive strategy with both immediate and long-term benefits. It's certainly more productive than worrying about mass death.

And after we achieve zero population growth 40 or 50 years from now, I would expect the global trend to resemble those we have today in North America and Western Europe. Global fertility could be below replacement level in the second half of this century. Then we as a species can begin discussing how large we choose our population to be.

Will it have taken too long to get to that point? Yes. Will we lose a huge amount of the natural world? Yes. But does this mean that the problem will continue to escalate forever? No. Nor does this mean that the first steps to fixing the problem have not already been taken.

Has for those data, I want to know where you get it, because if you go to Wikipedia for example India had more then 10% increase of population in the last 7 years, which by rough estimate it will double its population in less then 70 years. As you see, some how your data is not coherent.

I refer to the spreadsheet already cited. To wit: the data table at
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldfertility2007/worldfertility2007.htm

For more data about India, call up the table for that country from here: http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=3

You will see that their population growth rate for 2000 was 1.62% and for 2005 it was 1.46%. These are small percentages, but small percentages of very large numbers of people. (1,046,235,000 in 2000 and 1,134,403,000 in 2005.) I just checked the math and the numbers do check out. That's why you've been seeing big jumps.

However...

You will also find in that table that India's population growth rate peaked at 2.3 a third of a century ago. Fertility rates have been declining for more than half a century. These are different numbers, and you may want to read up on their definitions ( http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=7 ). But even though I am not a professional demographer it seems pretty clear to me that India's population growth is decelerating, even as their population is growing. In my amateur, back-of-the-computer, rough calculation, around 2080 India's population may peak at around 1,670,000,000, unless something awful happens in the meantime. I don't expect it to double from what it is now.


One last thing. To help you visualize this social change around the world, look at this video from the TED conferences. http://videos.howstuffworks.com/ted...s-at-ted-about-the-world-population-video.htm

The presenter has some interesting graphics, and there are more at his organization's website. (Just remember that some of the axes on their site are logarithmic.) But this video itself shows the shifts in fertility plotted against life expectancy. It's very encouraging.


My ultimate point is that we don't have to wait until some future decade, or wait for life-wasting catastrophe, to improve the population trends. Empower women everywhere, and the current good trends will improve faster and build on each other.

-------------

Hey, that was my 300th post!

 

[angelsaramark]

X, propaganda is an age old art form. Try reading about Bernays (made the world eat bacon and eggs for breakfast) who is the father of modern propaganda. Regarding influenced persons, this forum is replete with clean brains from population reductionaries to Global Warmingiacs to whatever the unseen hand with a hidden agenda wants disseminated. So be quick to think deeply, be suspicious, study it out and then discard it or act. Global warming among other things, is a way for Al Gore to sell carbon indulgences and it's no more credible than the Catholic Church selling get out of hell not-for-free cards. Any idea coming from the top down (big guy) is generally not in the interest of the little guy.

 

[my_wan]

X, propaganda is an age old art form. Try reading about Bernays (made the world eat bacon and eggs for breakfast) who is the father of modern propaganda. Regarding influenced persons, this forum is replete with clean brains from population reductionaries to Global Warmingiacs to whatever the unseen hand with a hidden agenda wants disseminated. So be quick to think deeply, be suspicious, study it out and then discard it or act. Global warming among other things, is a way for Al Gore to sell carbon indulgences and it's no more credible than the Catholic Church selling get out of hell not-for-free cards. Any idea coming from the top down (big guy) is generally not in the interest of the little guy.

Angelsaramark, this is off topic and a derail. Under the guise of speaking on the issue of "propaganda" you used classic propaganda techniques. You mixed "population reductionaries" with "Global Warmingiacs" to not even marginally excuse the switch and bait to your topic of choice. You put a label on your skeptics to imply a stereotype of all your skeptics, "Global Warmingiacs". You then defined an archetype to go with your label and defined the motives, "sell carbon indulgences". You continued to imply the motives through renaming defined concepts, credits/indulgences, etc. You tailored your appeal to the audiences general lack of religion for emotional impact. Finally you finished with big guy equals bad and little guy equals good to appeal the the emotions of the mass.

Seems you do know a little about propaganda. Get lost, study your critics point of view as if it were fact that you honestly believe, then maybe you can come back and make a reasonable case. Till then just get lost.

 

[Iconoclast08]

<snip> this forum is replete with clean brains from population reductionaries [sic] to Global Warmingiacs [make me sic(k)] to whatever the unseen hand with a hidden agenda [my emphasis] wants disseminated. <snip>

Honk if you're in the Illuminati.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Some interesting posts here.

First of all, I agree with G-K-4's assertion that the global population increase RATE is slowing, though the population is of course still growing. As a society becomes more developed; as women become more educated and empowered; as medical knowledge and supplies become more available; as a nation "grows up", the rate of reproduction slows dramatically. Indeed, in many countries (including America) the native-born population is already below replacement rate, but immigration (and the offspring of those who have immigrated) keeps the population growing slightly. Similar demographics face the Scandanavian countries and Western Europe. Japan, with its cultural aversion to immigrants, is facing a gigantic working-age population shortage.

Another factor impacting global population growth--not unimportant, however sad it may be-- is that much of Africa is in the grip of an unimaginable AIDS epidemic. Add in the warfare, organized or guerilla, that is also decimating the (normal reproductive age) population, and you are slicing off a big contribution to world population growth. You are also removing one of the areas that would in a more benevolent circumstance be a big contributor to the solution. The developing world is not terribly efficient in its use of resources--though idiocies like growing rice in California certainly occur in the developed nations--and education, planning and implementation of more sustainable agricultural practices will be a boon.

Regarding a comment made earlier about overfishing, a recent article in The Economist referenced a study comparing fisheries that are controlled by some form of ownership-sharing agreement versus those that aren't. To paraphrase, once fishermen have a guarantee of a certain percentage of the harvest, they suddenly have a vested interest in expanding the population and keeping it healthy over the long term. A similar approach to water rights needs to be applied; and the concept of fisheries ownership needs to be expanded.

The problem of a growing human population on a limited globe is certainly challenging, but I think it is not insurmountable. I think that omnivorous diet is natural to Homo sapiens, but certainly the standard American (and most Europeans) 's diet is too high in meat for either health or wise use of resources.

Investing in more sustainable practices, and using tax incentives to promote them--the current US agricultural policies and the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) discourage efficient use of land and other resources--should be able to get us to a point of reasonable equilibrium.

Famine, historically, has been more a product of food not getting to those who need it (often with the government / warlord / crony network obstructing it for political or personal gain) rather than a lack of food being grown. Throw in some bad policies, like punishing those who store food to sell in times of shortage as "speculators" and you can rapidly destroy a previously functional food economy.

So I guess I can be counted into the, "Neither rosy glasses nor gloom and doom" column on this.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

Really? I don't know. It might be, but I wouldn't have thought so.

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

Yes, and therein lies the problem with my proposal.

Hmm. "Carbon indulgences" is a nice term. I happen to be skeptical of carbon trading as a "solution" to climate change, so I may even use that.

 

[Tapio]

G-K-4, very good statements indeed! I'm especially interested in the ways we can offer sufficent education to women in developing countries.

A while ago I saw a documentary on how the situation of killing baby girls (or just letting them die) in Asia has gone from bad to worse. It was stated that this horrible behaviour is due to several reasons, of which the most important one had all to do with irrational, age-old beliefs (combined with marriage related issues, that also have their root in irrationality), surprise surprise.

Anyway, in this (fairly well made and seemingly reliable) documentary they gave an estimated number on how the amount of women in Asia is "missing" approximately 200 000 women compared to the amount of men (argh, this English is killing me, I hope you get the point). In the doc they found several villages around the countrysides of India, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh that don't have a single girl baby/child anywhere nearby, but are inhabited solely by men of whom most haven't even seen a live woman, other than their mother, in years.

This is all making the situation for the few women in these areas intolerable. You can only think of a situation where dozens of young men are living with virtually no contact with women and one day they are visited by a rare family with a couple of young daughters...the reports on what's happening over there are, well, uncomprihensibly horrible.

I don't have time right now to dig up statistics on the subject, but I've seen enough evidence (other than this one documentary also) to believe that the problem is real. If so, this must affect the birthrate in Asia. On the long run, drastically. The only way to prevent this madness from continuing is education, education, education. (On the oher hand, people campaining for tight birthcontrol must shout out in glee when hearing all this)

To me the saddest part of the documentary was, when a project to educate people on this subject was started in a certain area in the countryside of Pakistan, it all stalled (and eventually had to be stopped at some places) with the village elders (all men) not allowing any of the "heretic" material to be tought to their daughters. For them it was the "will of God" that, for example, if a woman gives birth to two baby girls in a row, the second one is to be killed soon after birth with a lethal dose of nicotine.

The picture of a young mother, numb with pain, with her own daughter in her arms, whom she had just murdered, and around her the older women of the village, all weeping desperately, is something I'll remember for the rest of my life.

Thoughts on this and the effect it has on the OP?

 

[Moochie]

Apparently, all our arguments may be moot:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081029/WWF_report_081029/20081029?hub=SciTech


M.

 

[technoextreme]

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.

Actually, I'll put this in a blunt way after I discovered the stupids that come out of the organization. The UN supports woo. I'm not going to believe anything that comes from an organization that has the objectivity of a two year old. Now please show me better evidence (Read: An actual research paper).

 

[Tapio]

Hi techno!

I'm not an expert, so if you have enlightening comments regarding these texts, please, bring them forth! If they're not close enough (or you can't find your way through them to something that is) to what you meant by "actual research paper", please tell me what will qualify.

Here's the first four articles I found. If your not happy with them, I'll search for more (there are actually surprisingly many studies done on the subject).

New Scientist

The International Development Research Center

New York Times

The University Of Chicago

Now, would you care to show me the evidence on what you told about the UN, and elaborate a bit more on how you seem to think everyone in there is involved in this woo supporting in such a manner, that you won't trust anything they report? This matter interests me in great detail.

 

[technoextreme]

Now, would you care to show me the evidence on what you told about the UN, and elaborate a bit more on how you seem to think everyone in there is involved in this woo supporting in such a manner, that you won't trust anything they report? This matter interests me in great detail.

I posted another link in the forum. It basically comes down to one sentence. They are providing fodder for creationists. At that point I'm not going to believe anything because you're supporting causes that end up hurting scientists than not. The only reason why I'm skeptical is because I know it's not a zero sum game. Any organic matter is capable of producing methane. Cows or plants.

 

[CapelDodger]

Sounds interesting enough that I just put in an interlibrary loan request for it.

Check out Jack Vance - the Demon Prince series, Araminta Station, Big Planet. Jack Vance combines the splintering effect with Deep Time, and applies a remarkable imagination to the mix.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

Exactly. If the older population invests in the productivity of the younger generation there's no problem.

 

[Dragoonster]

Reasonable projections on population indicate 8-9 billion people by 2050. A more immediate view...every four years, the equivalent of the US population is added to the planet. Considering that over 80% of our energy needs come from finite resources, there just has to be a tipping point. Malthus and his ilk just have the time table a bit off.

Technical inovation can stall some of the problems, but not eliminate them. Energy is still subject to the laws of thermo and it will be difficult to extract enough energy for the total population. Food production and distribution relies on cheap energy. The world economy was based on cheap energy.

The DOE projects that energy use will grow by 50% by 2030...that's a bunch of quads.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html


glenn

Yep. We're far from overpopulated now, but we certainly will be in the future, without any widespread effort to reduce birth-rates. I think initiatives like China's one-child policy are a peek into the future rather than an aberation, even if growth rates slow, any positive growth will eventually stretch capacity.

I don't think we'll have to worry about it for decades, perhaps centuries or even millenia. But it's not woo, and will probably be a future problem if there aren't enforced population measures. Or of course, if a "free-energy" system whose input comes from off-planet is developed.

An interesting look at this "energy crunch" is the Kardashev Scale. It's very far-forward thinking, but may still be relevant if Type I civilizations are subdivided further. Such as an oceanic Type I and how close we are to burning its resources out.

Without any tech to get Earth folks to a Type II, the question is how close we're able to get to Type I without a massive kill-off, ruthless though necessary population controls, or terrible environmental repercussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

 

[Tapio]

The only reason why I'm skeptical is because I know it's not a zero sum game. Any organic matter is capable of producing methane. Cows or plants.

Most certainly. Of course, methane isn't nearly the only thing we have to take into concern. As far as I can understand, one of the main points for re-evaluating our global livestock(and poultry, fish etc.) industry is, that we're using (and destroying) so much valuable space and energy (not even mentioning the amount of water and hardware) to grow food for our food, instead of straight forwardly growing us food.. Am I making any sense? In the end, the former way of getting people fed definetely produces more waste of every kind than the latter. This is what I understand all the studies and articles on the subject are trying to prove.

I'll stress this one more time. I'm not a fanatic stop-all-kinds-of-animal-use person. From all that I've studied on this subject, it's just become clear to me that on a large scale we need to re-evaluate and -create the ways in which we use meat as food for humans. And that this is a necessary thing to do if we are to keep the planet in a somewhat enjoyable condition for the next generations.

 

[Hindmost]

Yep. We're far from overpopulated now, but we certainly will be in the future, without any widespread effort to reduce birth-rates. I think initiatives like China's one-child policy are a peek into the future rather than an aberation, even if growth rates slow, any positive growth will eventually stretch capacity.

I don't think we'll have to worry about it for decades, perhaps centuries or even millenia. But it's not woo, and will probably be a future problem if there aren't enforced population measures. Or of course, if a "free-energy" system whose input comes from off-planet is developed.

An interesting look at this "energy crunch" is the Kardashev Scale. It's very far-forward thinking, but may still be relevant if Type I civilizations are subdivided further. Such as an oceanic Type I and how close we are to burning its resources out.

Without any tech to get Earth folks to a Type II, the question is how close we're able to get to Type I without a massive kill-off, ruthless though necessary population controls, or terrible environmental repercussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

I think we are closer to a tipping point when it comes to over population. Although there is sufficient land to grow food etc, we need lots of energy and lots of water to oroduce, transport and refrigerate all of it.

This special issue of the Scientific American may be interesting. After hearing about it on their podcast, I am going to download it.

http://www.sciam.com/special-editions/

glenn

 

[The_Animus]

Population is directly related to food supply. Increased food supply = increased population. Stable food supply = stable population. Decreased food supply = decreased population.