Ed Population Reduction?

[Dragoonster]

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

Yep, and this'll be the first population crunch, perhaps in this century, and unless we check it with foresight before it happens.

In the future though to take the place of direct foodstuff we could all be wearing IV bags full of vitamins/nutrients that are either synthesized or taken directly from mining/distillation operations. Food supply could become energy supply, where the resource is non-organic elements in the earth itself (or built from nuclear/subnuclear/space/etc). It might be possible for humans to survive as the only organic matter on the planet...if helpful bacteria could be replaced, and if we could also replace the CO2 and other helpful global environmental effects of other organics. Not a nice outlook, and avoided with population controls, or mitigated by off-planet migration. But who knows if our species is capable of doing so at the right times, long-term.

No matter what happens, a lot of non-human species and environments are going to be extinguished, continuing the rise of the last couple millenia and last couple decades. Maybe we'll recreate them too down the road, maybe they'll even be allowed to expand on their own again. In the spirit of this futurist and paranoid post, the priority now should be saving information from our dying planet. The huge seed bank being built is one such thing, not sure if there's a DNA bank?

 

[Soapy Sam]

All environmental problems, including AGW are a direct consequence of human overpopulation. It doesn't take billions either. For the postglacial megafauna of N.America, the overpopulation limit for humans was only a few tens of thousands of people.

Human birthrate is such an obviously hot potato that no politician dares to mention it.

The single most overwhelmingly positive contribution anyone can make towards limiting environmental impact is to die without issue. Plant some trees while you wait.
Now let's hear how that message can be made palatable to any voter in any nation anywhere.

 

[Scazon]

The single most overwhelmingly positive contribution anyone can make towards limiting environmental impact is to die without issue.

Come now, that only reduces the population by one or two. Arm the blind! take away their white sticks, and give them Uzis to get along the pavement, and RPGs for use when crossing the road, and subtle little knives for use in crowds. In the land of the armed, the blind man is king!

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

An excellently succint analysis, IMO.

Seems you do know a little about propaganda.

Only by experience, I think.

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.

I notice there's been no comeback. A good sharp metaphorical poke-on-the-nose can work wonders . Especially when it's delivered in such an unemotional manner.

What was he thinking ?

 

[CapelDodger]

Yep. We're far from overpopulated now, but we certainly will be in the future, without any widespread effort to reduce birth-rates.

Cold-bloodedly, it's infant survival rate that's the issue. The greater the infant survival rate the lower the birth-rate - once the society involved gains confidence in it. Improving infant survival doesn't immediately lead to a fall in birth-rate (which is generally controlled by societal norms such as age of marriage) so the effect is a large generation or two of new parents. Even with much lower birth-rates that still means a growing population. Which is the situation we're in now.

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.

To my mind it already has. China is a place where a government could impose a policy to avoid a predicted problem; there is nothing remotely like the Chinese government for the world as a whole.

I think population growth will be reversed by a sharply deteriorating infant survival rate in exactly the places where it was sharply improved over the last fifty years or so. One of history's nastier jokes.

 

[The_Animus]

Not a nice outlook, and avoided with population controls, or mitigated by off-planet migration.

Population controls don't work. We can educate people about birth control and give out condoms and prescribe pills and patches all we want. Aside from forced sterilization or extreme government policy like China's one child the population will continue to grow.

More food = more population is a fact of nature and present regardless of species in the community of life. Our ever increasing population requires ever increasing food, water, space, power, and materials with which to build all the buildings necessary to house our culture and to produce the vast amount of useless crap material possessions used to pacify the people and distract them from the ever increasing dissatisfaction with life as a result of the ever increasing problems due to our ever increasing population.

Yeah that probably shouldn't have been one giant sentence but regardless of poor sentence structure if you get the message that's good enough for me.

 

[angelsaramark]

Suffice it to say that I've been paid in the past to sell the idea of an overpopulated planet. They aren't paying me anymore. Do you think the world might have any problems that aren't being highlighted by the mass media?

 

[The_Animus]

I think it affects literally everything. Pretty much you name an issue and overpopulation is in some way involved. Crime, drugs, war, religion, corruption, famine, conflict over resources, laws. I think it's completely influenced our social interaction. Compared to when human settlements, tribes, etc. were small communities in which you were one of a few and thus important to the community, now you are one in tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions. You don't matter at all anymore. Before you'd live around and associate with the same people for pretty much your whole life. Now it's just your family and your partner and not even that sometimes. You constantly have people come into your life and leave again as your friendship dies, new job, go to different school, move to a new area, etc.

 

[Hindmost]

Population controls don't work. We can educate people about birth control and give out condoms and prescribe pills and patches all we want. Aside from forced sterilization or extreme government policy like China's one child the population will continue to grow.

More food = more population is a fact of nature and present regardless of species in the community of life. Our ever increasing population requires ever increasing food, water, space, power, and materials with which to build all the buildings necessary to house our culture and to produce the vast amount of useless crap material possessions used to pacify the people and distract them from the ever increasing dissatisfaction with life as a result of the ever increasing problems due to our ever increasing population.

Yeah that probably shouldn't have been one giant sentence but regardless of poor sentence structure if you get the message that's good enough for me.

Like a bunch of bacteria in a petri dish. We are running out of sugar.

glenn

 

[arthwollipot]

I have to say here, I never considered China's one child policy to be "extreme". I generally considered it to be a prudent way to address a serious problem. Remember, this is the nation of the Great Leap Forward.