Global Population: What to do about our ever growing species?

[Rhynox Philibuster]

"The world's population has risen from two billion in 1930 to 6.8 billion now, with nine billion projected by 2050."

I pulled this from an article On BBC, check it out here if you like.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10578484.stm

In every major city across the United States you find appartment buildings in clumps and clusters, all strategically located near some sort of commercial hub. They are essentially boxes stacked on boxes stacked on boxes for people to exist in. What happens when there is no more room for any more boxes? Do we start living in trees? But, assuming that there are still trees to live in, what do we do with all the life forms already in the trees? Do we put them in boxes in the name of scientific progress?
In 1966 Rober Heinlein wrote a book " The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" in which the moon has become a penal colony. Are we (the human race) to be sent to populate the moon, or perhaps Mars? I know thats a stretch, but not much of one, after all Heinlein's story was set in 2075 and according to the BBC article scientists expect the global population to be around nine billion people twenty years before then. With our technolgies and advances on the International Space Station now, who's to say that in that time we won't have the capablilties to colonize another planet or some other satellite floating near earth's orbit?

I know this is really broad and spans more than just the issue of population growth. I see it as all tied together and I hope all of you reading this will have some interesting ideas and comments.

[Todderbob]

There's no such problem as over population in modern countries. You'd think there is, but there isn't. There are more than enough resources on Earth to supply 10+ billion people with food, water, clothing, shelter and entertainment -- comfortably.

And, people stop breeding once they have a moderately decent quality of life -- look at Russia, Ebgland and the USA. Some even have declining, rather than just mostly stagnant populations. The USA is still growing in population, but not nearly as fast as it used to.

Also, why would we start living in trees when we ran out of boxes to live in? We could just build more boxes. Also, apartments are in no way inferior to homes, homes are just boxes that are lonely.

[Hampshire]

In regards to the US people seem to complain either way.
We're either living on top of eachother too densely with no elbow room in "boxes stacked on boxes"
or we're part of the urban sprawl with lots of motor vehicles and 1/2 acre lots.

A mix of both is nice and it's what we seem to have.

And space really isn't an issue. If we wanted to we could build another New York City in the middle of Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming to put another 25 million people into.

[Simplicio]

Global population is projected to flatten out around 2050 at around 9 billion as growing prosperity and access to contraceptives cause people to have smaller families.

Space isn't really a problem, Canda's about 10 billion square kilometers, so we could move the whole projected maximum world population up there and everyone could get their own square kilometer. And something like half the worlds current population live in densly populated urban areas, if we all lived at the population density of Manhatten, we could all live in Ohio.

Resource allocation is a more serious problem, but that probably has more to do with growing prosperity then population growth. We can't support the current population level at a Western level of prosperity with todays technology, so future population growth just adds 50% to an already existing problem regrading limited resources.

[panache45]

If we have a population problem (and I'm not convinced that we do), perhaps it's time to challenge the belief that life's "purpose" is to reproduce.

[Der Trihs]

There are more than enough resources on Earth to supply 10+ billion people with food, water, clothing, shelter and entertainment -- comfortably.
Not really; there aren't enough resources to supply us long term right now. We are using up nonrenewable resources like water deposits left over from the last ice age and oil. And our farming practices deplete the topsoil. When those resources run out we're in serious trouble.

Raising the population to 10+ billion would just make matters worse.

[Chimera]

Soylent Green.

[Todderbob]

Not really; there aren't enough resources to supply us long term right now. We are using up nonrenewable resources like water deposits left over from the last ice age and oil. And our farming practices deplete the topsoil. When those resources run out we're in serious trouble.

Raising the population to 10+ billion would just make matters worse.The earth does have enough resources, we just don't currently utilize them in an effective, responsible manner.

[Alessan]

So long as we aren't firing billions of tons of resources into space, they're all still here on earth. We just have to figure out new ways of getting them.

[Chief Pedant]

The earth does have enough resources, we just don't currently utilize them in an effective, responsible manner.

Maybe, but it seems the correct order in which to proceed is to create a system which utilizes them in an effective, responsible manner FIRST and only THEN proceed to procreate...

Among the stupidest projections is a flattening of the population growth when we're all pleasantly wealthy. Right now the growth is occurring in countries that are unpleasantly poor, and exactly what is the evidence they are going to get developed before we overrun the planet? Even if we get 'em rich and get 'em to stop reproducing, what is going to be the collective ecologic footprint of 10 Billion wealthy people, since we put Getting Stuff well ahead of everything else, including our collective ecological impact? It's ridiculous and naive to assume we are suddenly going to back off our consumption. See Al Gore for an example of someone Deeply Concerned about our collective footprint while Personally Consuming like there is no tomorrow. (Which there may not be)

We've done a great job surprising the OverPopulation Doomsayers so far with technology such as advances in food production. But we're living on the edge kids; one big crisis and it's Farewell, Humans. There's no margin for error. And we are already pushing Gaia to the limit, always putting humans first.

If we have a hungry human and the only thing left to eat is the world's last passenger pigeon brood, they're goners.

Place all your bets on us sucking the earth dry until it kills us, with lots of hoopla and no actual personal sacrifice--including placing a limit on reproduction (China being a modest exception).

[Lemur866]

As for colonizing space, or the Moon, think for a minute. If you can build a closed habitat on the Moon that can support human life, why not build that habitat on Baffin Island instead? It would be a heck of a lot cheaper, plus if your habitat springs a leak everyone doesn't die.

[Rhynox Philibuster]

The moon is a lot bigger than Baffin Island.

[Rhynox Philibuster]

= )

[Simplicio]

The moon is a lot bigger than Baffin Island.

But see the posts above, square footage isn't really the limiting factor on human population.

[ITR champion]

Maybe, but it seems the correct order in which to proceed is to create a system which utilizes them in an effective, responsible manner FIRST and only THEN proceed to procreate...

Among the stupidest projections is a flattening of the population growth when we're all pleasantly wealthy. Right now the growth is occurring in countries that are unpleasantly poor, and exactly what is the evidence they are going to get developed before we overrun the planet? Even if we get 'em rich and get 'em to stop reproducing, what is going to be the collective ecologic footprint of 10 Billion wealthy people, since we put Getting Stuff well ahead of everything else, including our collective ecological impact? It's ridiculous and naive to assume we are suddenly going to back off our consumption. See Al Gore for an example of someone Deeply Concerned about our collective footprint while Personally Consuming like there is no tomorrow. (Which there may not be)
Actually if you look at the numbers, fertility rates have decreased quite a bit in all countries, rich and poor, north and south, capitalist and communist, religious and secular, hither and yon, ... The human population is expected to stabilize in the 9-10 billion person range around the middle of this century. As for resources, what resources are we in danger of running out of? Food? Thanks to improved technology, the human race farms roughly the same acreage as we did in 1950. As modern technology gets put into use throughout the third world, those countries will produce more. Fuel? We already have the necessary technology to power society without fossil fuels. The idea of "overpopulation" is simply false. There's no such thing.

[Chief Pedant]

Actually if you look at the numbers, fertility rates have decreased quite a bit in all countries, rich and poor, north and south, capitalist and communist, religious and secular, hither and yon, ... The human population is expected to stabilize in the 9-10 billion person range around the middle of this century. As for resources, what resources are we in danger of running out of? Food? Thanks to improved technology, the human race farms roughly the same acreage as we did in 1950. As modern technology gets put into use throughout the third world, those countries will produce more. Fuel? We already have the necessary technology to power society without fossil fuels. The idea of "overpopulation" is simply false. There's no such thing.
See, because overpopulation is a politically incorrect thing to advance, folks like you want to say stuff like "We already have the necessary technology to power society without fossil fuels." Without even bothering to refute that, I'd just like to point out that...we don't use those technologies. Maybe we got enough resources to sustain 25 Billion without any adverse environmental consequences...but see, ITR; here's the thing. We won't. We haven't and we're not gonna. We're gonna do what's easy. And we're gonna get Stuff. What's possible is irrelevant. The question is, what is? The Tanzanian wants to be me and I want to be Al Gore. The Tanzanian's looking to go from his scooter to a Hummer and I want to go by private jet instead of coach bus. He wants his first house and I want a third one. Plus I want to eat as good as Al Gore. ;)

So, for instance, if you care about AGW, make the following calculation: Half the population makes half the AGW impact. And by the way, twice the population is going to HUGELY worsen AGW (if buy into the concept) because the population growth is occurring in the areas which currently have minimal footprint, and our plan is to get them rich so they don't reproduce so vigorously. Getting them rich means Tata Nanos and also lawnmowers and other Stuff. And right now Stuff is what creates carbon footprints. There is no chance people waiting for Stuff are going to wait for you and your buddies to fix the energy grid and demand Stuff only when we find non-fossil fuel technology to make their Stuff with.

While I recognized the political sensitivity around shouting "Stop having babies!!!" it is nevertheless what we need to do.

[Lemur866]

The moon is a lot bigger than Baffin Island.

The moon has a surface area about the same as Africa. Even if we could transport people to the surface of the moon for free, it would still cost a lot more to support them on the moon than to support them on Baffin Island.

There are vast areas here on planet Earth with essentially zero people. For the next hundred years or so, I predict there will be more people living in Antarctica than on the moon, by two orders of magnitude. That is, if we had a lunar settlement with 1000 people, I'd predict at least 100,000 people living in Antarctica. And this is basically because anything you can build on the moon you can build at least 100 times cheaper in Antarctica.

Anyway, cities are the most ecologically friendly way of living. 1 million people living on Manhattan have a smaller ecological footprint than 1 million people living in single-family suburban homes. Space for housing isn't the issue, go out into the midwest and you'll see miles and miles of cheap land, you can buy some and build a house there and you won't have to see another human being for months.

[sqweels]

Actually if you look at the numbers, fertility rates have decreased quite a bit in all countries, rich and poor, north and south, capitalist and communist, religious and secular, hither and yon, ... The human population is expected to stabilize in the 9-10 billion person range around the middle of this century. As for resources, what resources are we in danger of running out of? Food? Thanks to improved technology, the human race farms roughly the same acreage as we did in 1950. As modern technology gets put into use throughout the third world, those countries will produce more. Fuel? We already have the necessary technology to power society without fossil fuels. The idea of "overpopulation" is simply false. There's no such thing.
Shortages of water is looming a serious problem in many parts of the world, especially those that rely on glacial sources.

And you can't just assume that technology repeatedly boost food production to keep up with population growth. Beware the principle of diminishing returns.

And if the technology exists to power society without fossil fuels, there has been tremendous foot-dragging in implementing it. We're still a long ways off.

But it's ironic that you seem to be saying that the threat of overpopulation is is not a problem because one day that problem will be solved. It's like saying, "we don't need to call the fire deprtment to put out the fire, because the fire will get put out by the fire department after we call them".

People reducing their fertility is indeed the solution. So people need to make sure that they reduce their fertility. It's ironinc that many of the people who claim re can rely on technology to solve our food and energy problems oppose oppose the use of technology to reduce our fertility.

As for the claim that there's "no such thing" as overpopulation, the issue is much more complex than simply comparing the Earth's population with the total amount of basic resources theoretically availble. There are all sorts of barriers and bottlenecks--political, economic, and practical--preventing resurces from being distributed in a timely fashion. Not only would any supply-side solution be socialism in spades, it would only be temporary without the predicted/hoped-for reduction in fertility.

Overpopulation can exists side-by-side with underpopulation, such as accross national borders or even socio-economic class lines. It might be said that overepopulation is the reason that inner-city neighborhoods and schools are such a mess. And overepopulation South of the Border might be said to be driving illegal immigration, while much of the opposition to it is concern about its overpopulation-y effects.

[Cisco]

I heard a Paultard ranting in public the other day about overpopulation.

(Imagine lots of slobbering, and flailing arms. Actually, just imagine Animal from the Muppets as a fat 30 year old with dishwater hair and you're pretty much there.)


Anyone who says we have overpopulation is an IDIOT!!! You know WHY?!! Because in high school, my math teacher said everyone in America could fit inside ORLANDO, FLORIDA!!!! Next time someone tells you that there is overpopulation, tell him he is an ASSHOLE!!!! We could all fit in ORLANDO!!! HAHA!!! GODDAMN, people are STUPID!!! HAHAHA! What's with all these STUPID people? Am I the only one with a BRAIN?!
And we'd all be happy and comfortable and our food would materialize from nowhere and our waste would dematerialize to nowhere :smack:.

[Chimera]

Soylent Green.

I mean, Mr. Wiggin here has a great suggestion on that;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2PyeXRwhCE

[Hampshire]

And if the technology exists to power society without fossil fuels, there has been tremendous foot-dragging in implementing it. We're still a long ways off.


Necessity is the mother of invention. Always has been, always will be. Alternative power exsists many places but it really won't be tapped until necessary.
"Holy crap, gasoline just hit $50/gallon? How much is that natural gas sedan again?"

[Alessan]

So even if we are faciong overpopulation - and I don't thing we are - so what? The population will eventually reduce itself through the usual means of war, famine and plague, we'll have a bad couple of centuries, and things will return to normal.

[Der Trihs]

So even if we are faciong overpopulation - and I don't thing we are - so what? The population will eventually reduce itself through the usual means of war, famine and plague, we'll have a bad couple of centuries, and things will return to normal.You rather answered your own question.

[Chimera]

That's just the thing. It's all Economics and Availability. Cheap Oil meant that nothing else got developed, just as cheap cars and gas meant death for some forms of public transportation until costs and demand reached a point where it was desirable again. There was no point in tapping the shale sands of Canada until the rising price of oil met the dropping price of the technology required to extract the oil. As prices rise and availability drops, research and development will bring in other technologies on-line.

But they don't exist in a vacuum and they don't pop into existence fully formed like Athena sprouting from the head of Zeus.

[Cat Whisperer]

So even if we are faciong overpopulation - and I don't thing we are - so what? The population will eventually reduce itself through the usual means of war, famine and plague, we'll have a bad couple of centuries, and things will return to normal.
I agree that we are likely to see population reduction through drastic means, but the problem with that scenario is that we will have used up and degraded so many natural resources by that time.

I read a book recently (Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update (http://www.clubofrome.at/archive/limits.html)) that addressed all of these issues as a whole; what they figured out was that we can reach a state of equilibrium on earth, but we have to change a bunch of things to do so. For us to continue doing things as we are will result in collapse, and collapse is not kind to your average human.

[Lemur866]

If you really want to reduce population growth, move to Africa and teach school to girls. Education and civil rights for women are the way to reduce fertility, and besides that are good in and of themselves. If you wanna do nothing about population growth, talk about how we should force people to stop having kids.

Because guess what, you're not going to go over to Africa and start forcing women not to have kids. Give them an education, give them options, and they'll voluntarily choose to control their own fertility. Draconian China-style population control measures won't work in places without a strong central government. And note that fertility is dropping all over the world. It doesn't just happen when people are forced to by the government, it also happens when people can choose for themselves.

[Wesley Clark]

There's no such problem as over population in modern countries. You'd think there is, but there isn't. There are more than enough resources on Earth to supply 10+ billion people with food, water, clothing, shelter and entertainment -- comfortably.

And, people stop breeding once they have a moderately decent quality of life -- look at Russia, Ebgland and the USA. Some even have declining, rather than just mostly stagnant populations. The USA is still growing in population, but not nearly as fast as it used to.

Also, why would we start living in trees when we ran out of boxes to live in? We could just build more boxes. Also, apartments are in no way inferior to homes, homes are just boxes that are lonely.

Not only do they stop growing and start declining, but virtually all nations start declining in population once they hit a decent level of wealth. Especially the east asian countries. You need 2.1 kids per woman to keep population stable, and east asian nations only have about 1.3 while western europe is about 1.7. Japan's population is projected to be cut in half from 130 million to 65 million over the next 100 years. I think that Israel is the only nation with a growing population (excluding immigration). The US pretty much breaks even and all other wealthy nations are declining.

The sad part is the nations that lead the world in human rights, civil rights, scientific & medical innovation, etc. are declining while the basket case countries are seeing their populations explode. The populations of Somalia, Uganda, Afghanistan, etc will explode while Taiwan, Japan, Germany, Spain, etc. decline.

[Ionizer]

The sad part is the nations that lead the world in human rights, civil rights, scientific & medical innovation, etc. are declining while the basket case countries are seeing their populations explode. The populations of Somalia, Uganda, Afghanistan, etc will explode while Taiwan, Japan, Germany, Spain, etc. decline.

Sorry, but I just have to mention that when I read the 'exploding' bit, I thought of suicide bombers/terrorism. Very good observation there; news headlines verify this of late ;) Good points, though, overall.

[Cisco]

Not only do they stop growing and start declining, but virtually all nations start declining in population once they hit a decent level of wealth . . .
The issue isn't about raw numbers, it's about impact. If you have 10 million people who live like kings, consume all the resources, and wreck everything in sight, you're overpopulated. If you have 10 billion who live sustainably, you're fine. The problem isn't that we're literally going to run out of places to stack people (see the Orlando example above.)

[Mijin]

See, because overpopulation is a politically incorrect thing to advance...

Once again everyone else is arguing from a position of political correctness :rolleyes:


Right now the growth is occurring in countries that are unpleasantly poor, and exactly what is the evidence they are going to get developed before we overrun the planet?


Poor countries are going through the same demographic transition that we in the West already passed through. If you count England as a country (rather than as part of the UK), it's one of the top 5 most densely-populated countries in the world. We've had our population explosion, but now we've stabilised (but for immigration).

Why do we think poor countries will do the same?
Well, for one thing a country has to be increasing in wealth before its population can explode; extreme poverty is associated with high death rates. And such a country doesn't need to become anywhere near a Western standard of living before its population start thinking about careers, family planning etc rather than just surviving.


But we're living on the edge kids; one big crisis and it's Farewell, Humans. There's no margin for error.


I think a population "correction" is about the worst scenario that's realistic.

Unless you're positing something much bigger than catastrophic resource failures, extreme climate change and civil unrest.


And we are already pushing Gaia to the limit, always putting humans first.


Yep. We should put Gaia ahead of ourselves, and commit mass suicide.

Then Gaia can go back to looking unspoiled and the wonderous circle of life can resume.

[Chief Pedant]

Once again everyone else is arguing from a position of political correctness...

Yep. We should put Gaia ahead of ourselves, and commit mass suicide.

Then Gaia can go back to looking unspoiled and the wonderous circle of life can resume.

So...Mijin: to the OP question: is overpopulation a serious problem or is it not?

See here (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://gpso.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/bartlett-scientists-political-correctness4.pdf) for a hint.

[Peremensoe]

I think a population "correction" is about the worst scenario that's realistic.

Unless you're positing something much bigger than catastrophic resource failures, extreme climate change and civil unrest.

Jesus, that's not bad enough?

[Mijin]

So...Mijin: to the OP question: is overpopulation a serious problem or is it not?


The OP question is what to do about overpopulation.

I have no solution for this. And your implied solution is to shout "Stop having babies!".

But the real issue of course, is resource use and ecological damage / pollution etc. The fact is that we in the west have a vested interest in saying that the problem is population, and not about responsible resource use because the latter would make it more "our" problem and less "theirs".


Jesus, that's not bad enough?


I was responding to the suggestion that overpopulation could imminently cause our extinction. I'm skeptical about that.
I'm obviously not saying "Oh come on, this will just be a worldwide catastrophe of nightmarish proportions, tops".

[Rhynox Philibuster]

So even if we are faciong overpopulation - and I don't thing we are - so what? The population will eventually reduce itself through the usual means of war, famine and plague, we'll have a bad couple of centuries, and things will return to normal.

Whats normal?

[Rhynox Philibuster]

The OP question is what to do about overpopulation.

I have no solution for this. And your implied solution is to shout "Stop having babies!".

But the real issue of course, is resource use and ecological damage / pollution etc. The fact is that we in the west have a vested interest in saying that the problem is population, and not about responsible resource use because the latter would make it more "our" problem and less "theirs".



I was responding to the suggestion that overpopulation could imminently cause our extinction. I'm skeptical about that.
I'm obviously not saying "Oh come on, this will just be a worldwide catastrophe of nightmarish proportions, tops".


Could we avoid this catastrophe in any way? What about mass sterilizations of random...or selected groups of people?

[Marley23]

Could we avoid this catastrophe in any way? What about mass sterilizations of random...or selected groups of people?
That's correctly seen as an enormous violation of human rights and basic decency: you don't take away someone else's right to reproduce. Sorry, the Nazis took eugenics off the table as the solution to any kind of population crisis. It's a non-starter. As is pretty much any part of the overpopulation debate that relies on other groups of people not having sex. This is a resource issue, not a population issue.

[Der Trihs]

Could we avoid this catastrophe in any way? What about mass sterilizations of random...or selected groups of people?Hardly. That's the sort of thing that starts the wars we want to avoid. Not to mention that the sort of societies that go around forcibly mass sterilizing people are the sorts that should collapse.

[Cisco]

Could we avoid this catastrophe in any way? What about mass sterilizations of random...or selected groups of people?
Again, it's not raw numbers. It's behavior and impact.

[BrainGlutton]

If we have a population problem (and I'm not convinced that we do), perhaps it's time to challenge the belief that life's "purpose" is to reproduce.

Unfortunately, that's a very old idea -- older, in fact, than ideas. Or humanity. Or multicellular life-forms. You are descended from a very, very long line of successful breeders. It's a hard habit to break.

[Mijin]

But the philosophy that the meaning of life is to reproduce does not follow automatically from either the fact that reproduction got us here or that we're biologically wired up to reproduce.

But I don't think a campaign to reverse this philosophy would have much effect. Few people have babies on principle.

[Apollo]

According to Prof. Hans Rosling the solution is raising the living standards of the poorest.

Hans Rosling on global population growth
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

[ivan astikov]

I like my TED talks. That one was particularly pleasing. A ray of hope among the doom and gloom.

[Chief Pedant]

The OP question is what to do about overpopulation.
I have no solution for this. And your implied solution is to shout "Stop having babies!".
But the real issue of course, is resource use and ecological damage / pollution etc. The fact is that we in the west have a vested interest in saying that the problem is population, and not about responsible resource use because the latter would make it more "our" problem and less "theirs".
I was responding to the suggestion that overpopulation could imminently cause our extinction. I'm skeptical about that.
I'm obviously not saying "Oh come on, this will just be a worldwide catastrophe of nightmarish proportions, tops".
I think you should be able to distinguish between "Stop having babies!" as a linguistic shorthand for summarizing the fact that overpopulation is a problem and "Stop having babies!" as an entire solution, but perhaps not...

We in the west, like people everywhere, have a vested interest in ourselves and an elective, altruistic interest in the rest of the world. The problem is not resource use or overpopulation; it's resource use and overpopulation.

I'm just trying to get the knee-jerk liberals here (and have been trying for a couple of years or more here on the Dope) to admit that the world is overpopulated and that it is an enormous problem.

The west has invented ways for the world to support many more people than it would support if only dependent and incompetent populations at the mercy of the environment existed. The developed world consumes, on a per capita basis, an enormous share of total resources, having developed the means to get at them and consume them. They now propose to help extend all of that development to populations otherwise unable to develop themselves, and some developing countries are successfully playing catchup on their own, anyway.

Therefore, several billion people are on a pathway to begin consuming at as near western levels as possible, and therefore...

Overpopulation is a huge problem. It is the biggest problem we face for the future of the world's ecosystems and for the future of the human species. Assuming AGW is a correct hypothesis, its root problem is too many people creating all that CO2, but even without that we are eating the earth like mice run amok during a harvest time plague.

Right now, the liberal response to overpopulation (because where new population growth is occurring renders it politically incorrect to say otherwise) is, "Let's get the developing countries rich, and they will stop reproducing on their own." This is a stupid (not to mention, untested) approach. In the first place, it leaves 9 or 10 billion people all of whom will have as a target consumption maximum what the developed world is enjoying now. In the second place, it is pure speculation that the timing of getting rich will be such that 9 or 10 billion is a correct upper limit.

The first step around "What else should we do?" is to recognize that overpopulation, all by itself is a huge problem. Way too many people in the west consuming, and way too many people in developing countries about to consume. For the life of me, I can't figure out how overpopulation became such a politically incorrect thing to admit.

So, is overpopulation a problem?

Is it? C'mon; just say it. Say it. Say it without finding two or three other things that are also a problem. It will be a good first step on the road gloriously free of political correctness. And possibly my first cured patient here. ;)

[Baboonanza]

But if over-population is such a problem won't it cure itself? If the water supply becomes exhausted people will die off until demand meets supply. It's the Invisible Hand :). Whether the consequence of this is really bad for the West (which is unlikely to be the primary point of failure in the foreseable future and realistically all we really care about) depends on where and when it happens, and much weaponry the affected people have. If it happens to say, India, because China has dammed it's rivers and isn't allowing enough water though and India nukes some of those dams it could be pretty bad for everyone. Alternatively if it happens far enough in the future that the West is too weak to control access to the imported resources it needs it could be bad for us too.

I'm not sure the problem is really solveable without killing lots of people. As Der Trihs has pointed out, we already exploit many natural resources at unsustainable levels. Fish stocks are one example, stocks are crashing everywhere but fish is the major source of protein for millions of people around the world. And you can bet that people will continue eating fish Japan, the US and Europe while poeple starve to death in south-east asia.

What we really need is a good plague. That'd sort it all out.

[Mijin]

Chief Pedant, let me start with where I agree with you.

1) There is an overpopulation problem (I don't call it the problem though: "the" problem is a function of population and how people live).
2) The way we live in the West is arguably not sustainable just for we, 1 billion people. All signs are, the world can't take billions more buying hummers.
3) The developing world's population probably is higher due to technology from the West e.g. the green revolution.

Now, inevitably, the points where I disagree.

Firstly, you have an idea of the West being the main driver of development of the developing world. This simply isn't the case. Sure, we give aid, but not of the massive sums that would be required to "buy" a country into prosperity. If anything, we've held back development with subsidies and tarrifs.

Secondly, sure, as countries get wealthier their birth rate drops. This isn't some wacky theory: not only is the correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg) strong, but countries can be seen to move along the graph as they develop (in fact, even in the developed world, an increase in GDP continues to correlate with a decrease in fertility rate).

Finally, I think our main effort should be on trying to live a relatively comfortable life sustainably. Even if the world were composed solely of those countries that are already developed: our way of life still would not be sustainable long term.
The world's higher population is forcing us to make many of the changes that we would have had to eventually anyway. But I'm under no illusion that it will be easy.

[Steve MB]

Right now, the liberal response to overpopulation (because where new population growth is occurring renders it politically incorrect to say otherwise) is, "Let's get the developing countries rich, and they will stop reproducing on their own." This is a stupid (not to mention, untested) approach.

Yep, the process that happened in every nation to date that became economically and technologically developed to modern Western levels is "untested".... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Chief Pedant]

Yep, the process that happened in every nation to date that became economically and technologically developed to modern Western levels is "untested".... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

It's untested because there is no guarantee you can make every country rich enough to stop reproducing.

Either you've missed the point, or I perhaps made it badly.

I agree that if you have an educated and wealthy country, you will have fewer progeny, but that's a big "if."

But the process of making the currently poor and underdeveloped wealthy--even if we can pull it off--will hugely strain the earth. Being wealthy is shorthand for Stuff, and having Stuff--infrastructure; houses; cars; TVs; food...--is the reason the developed countries put such a disproportionate strain on available resources.

That's why overpopulation is a problem Right Now and why we need to stop reproducing Right Now. It's a stupid stupid strategy to wait until we have 50% more peeps which we hope will THEN spontaneously stop reproducing because they've become Rich. But that's the liberal response, because it is politically incorrect for them to say to developing countries, "Stop making babies! Right NOW!"

[sqweels]

I'm just trying to get the knee-jerk liberals here (and have been trying for a couple of years or more here on the Dope) to admit that the world is overpopulated and that it is an enormous problem.
This is interesting, because I tend to see a lot of denail of overpopulation as coming from conservatives as a function of their opposition to family planning.

Also, conservatives tend to side with their own group, while liberals are notorious for seeing the other side's point of view. So conservatives regard seeing the environment's point of view as hating humanity the same way they regard seeing foreigners' point of view as hating America.

[sqweels]

Right now, the liberal response to overpopulation (because where new population growth is occurring renders it politically incorrect to say otherwise) is, "Let's get the developing countries rich, and they will stop reproducing on their own."
What I tend to hear from "liberals" is that if we raise the status of women then birth rates will drop because they will be more willing to use family planning.

But there are a lot of cultural barriers to overcome, both in terms of gender roles, and in religious opposition to contraceptive use. So yes, the c-word is definitely in play here.

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>
What we really need is a good plague. That'd sort it all out.
One thing I'm not worried about is the earth's ability to sort out the human problem it has. If we can't manage to make ourselves sustainable as a species on planet earth, we WILL perish. I don't know if it's better or worse that some humans will probably survive the collapse.

Oh, speaking of a good plague, there are African countries that will have negative population growth due to AIDS. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=KBvphLYVbDMC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=negative+population+growth+africa+aids&source=bl&ots=IAk1e8VsX7&sig=Z6LCpybWfs3I27ZX9hw9SZYWf5s&hl=en&ei=M5U8TN-4NJPUtQPM2aDaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=negative%20population%20growth%20africa%20aids&f=false)

[Cisco]

Who do you guys think makes a bigger impact on the planet: 300 million Americans or a billion Africans?

[Alessan]

The earth doesn't have a "problem." Problems are a human invention. The earth doesn't care one way or another whether or not it has life on it, or whether it exists at all. Neither does anything else except us.

Also - no species has ever been sustainable, nor has any species ever reached equilibrium with its environment. Every living creature in the past 2 billion years has either seen its numbers either constantly increasing or constantly decreasing. Population booms followed by extinctions are the way nature works - they're what give the museums so such a big variety of exotic fossils. The only thing different with humans is the size and speed of our impact.

[Steve MB]

Being wealthy is shorthand for Stuff, and having Stuff--infrastructure; houses; cars; TVs; food...--is the reason the developed countries put such a disproportionate strain on available resources.

Non sequitur. A hundred fifty years ago, there was great strain on the supply of whale oil; now, the supply of whale oil is of no particular importance. Your "Stuff" shorthand commits the fallacy of composition (i.e. the supply of Resources X, Y, and Z are each limited; ergo, the supply of resources generally is limited).

[Steve MB]

Who do you guys think makes a bigger impact on the planet: 300 million Americans or a billion Africans?

Not having noticed Americans causing large-scale desertification lately, I'll give this one to the Africans.

[MrDibble]

Not having noticed Americans causing large-scale desertification lately, I'll give this one to the Africans.

Oh (http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-193/fig5.gif), Really (http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-193/tab6.gif)? Source (http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-193/002-193.html)

[MrDibble]

Who do you guys think makes a bigger impact on the planet: 300 million Americans or a billion Africans?

I think this picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint.svg) answers that question.

[Cisco]

I think this picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint.svg) answers that question.
Yeah, my point exactly.

It's not raw numbers.

And I don't know as much about Africa particularly, but I know that a lot of Latin America's footprint comes from factories, mills, and foundries that are there to supply goods to the United States*, which I think should count, at minimum, as a shared footprint. I would not be surprised if Europe uses Africa for similar purposes, though that is just a guess.

*And not out of some altruistic desire to create jobs or boost the standard of living in those places; they're there because the wages they pay and the pollutants they produce are illegal in the US. It's corporate law-dodging, plain and simple, and should be illegal.

[orcenio]

The problem is over-consumption not over-population; plain and simple. here is a quote from Fred Pearce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Pearce) By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution. Take carbon dioxide emissions — a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions. (http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2140)Here are a few other choice quotesThey show that sustaining the lifestyle of the average American takes 9.5 hectares, while Australians and Canadians require 7.8 and 7.1 hectares respectively; Britons, 5.3 hectares; Germans, 4.2; and the Japanese, 4.9. The world average is 2.7 hectares. China is still below that figure at 2.1, while India and most of Africa (where the majority of future world population growth will take place) are at or below 1.0.In the end of the article he rationally sums up my opinion very nicely...In any event, it strikes me as the height of hubris to downgrade the culpability of the rich world’s environmental footprint because generations of poor people not yet born might one day get to be as rich and destructive as us. Overpopulation is not driving environmental destruction at the global level; overconsumption is. Every time we talk about too many babies in Africa or India, we are denying that simple fact.(Emphasis mine)

[Mijin]

And I don't know as much about Africa particularly, but I know that a lot of Latin America's footprint comes from factories, mills, and foundries that are there to supply goods to the United States*,


Good point.

And not out of some altruistic desire to create jobs or boost the standard of living in those places; they're there because the wages they pay and the pollutants they produce are illegal in the US. It's corporate law-dodging, plain and simple, and should be illegal.

...but I think you go a bit far here. Generally, when a rich country takes advantage of a poor country's cheap labour, it's actually to the benefit of both countries. Just look at China.

The pollution issue is different though as economics shouldn't trump the need to minimize climate change etc

[Chief Pedant]

Who do you guys think makes a bigger impact on the planet: 300 million Americans or a billion Africans?

The question of overpopulation applies to all places.
Cutting in half the population of Americans would result in a much larger impact reduction than cutting in half a billion Africans.
So the US needs to exercise population control.

A billion Africans are all looking to get Stuff as fast as possible; the only reason they don't have more stuff is because they haven't figured out how to get it, not because of some sort of superior moral position. So cutting that population in half will decrease, by half, their future impact. So Africa needs to exercise population control.

If you just want to look at who is using up the resources, it's easy: It's the developed world, which has the ingenuity and means to do it.

The current plan, so to speak, is to extend that ingenuity and means to the places that haven't figured out how to Get Developed on their own, or who are slow to figure it out, including Africa.

So the issue remains: too many people. Way too many people already and way too many people in the pipeline.

We need to stop making babies.

[Mijin]

Oh, what a surprise: african stupidity has been shoe-horned into another thread.

Once again it's the cause of the world's ills...but oh wait, by your own reasoning it's a good thing this time: it's good that they're too dumb to act as irresponsibly as we have.

I want to respond more specifically to your implications about economics and sustainable living, but I'd just be ignored again. Anything but "Africans are teh dum8" makes me a PC liberal.

[Cisco]

...but I think you go a bit far here. Generally, when a rich country takes advantage of a poor country's cheap labour, it's actually to the benefit of both countries. Just look at China.
Couple points here . . .

First, you are correct on an economic level, but that doesn't conflict with anything I said.

Second, the "benefits," to the extent they exist, are only economic. The trade-off is destruction of habitat, pollution, and destruction of cultures. One paper mill in South America can completely destroy an entire village of farmers and fishermen that has lived there sustainably for centuries. While the country as a whole might economically benefit from the revenues of said mill, that village absolutely does not.

[Mijin]

First, you are correct on an economic level, but that doesn't conflict with anything I said.


Well I mostly agreed with you, but the point I disagreed with was where you were saying that american companies building factories in poorer countries should be illegal.
It shouldn't be. If anything there's an emissions loophole to be closed there but you don't need to ban the practice to do that.

[Cisco]

Well I mostly agreed with you, but the point I disagreed with was where you were saying that american companies building factories in poorer countries should be illegal.
It shouldn't be. If anything there's an emissions loophole to be closed there but you don't need to ban the practice to do that.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. What should be illegal is essentially "importing" something that's illegal here. E.g. if we ban "chemical x" (say a dangerous bleaching agent used in the production of paper), companies should not be able to just move to a country where chemical x is legal, or import from a country where it's legal.

[figure9]

So long as we aren't firing billions of tons of resources into space, they're all still here on earth. We just have to figure out new ways of getting them.

I have to disagree with this one. Some resources are used up when they are used up. Although the atoms that make them are still here on Earth the resource is not.
Extreme examples: I drink the last bottle of a vintage wine. Can you turn my urine back into wine? Anybody had a passenger pigeon sandwich lately?
Let's get more mundane. Cut down a forest. Where are you going to get more trees? Can you "just figure out a new way of getting them"? Burn a barrel of oil. How exactly are we going to track the molecules down and reassemble the hydrocarbons? I suppose we could do it if we had enough energy. That seems self defeating though, since the reason for burning the oil was to get energy.
Resources can be depleted even without firing them into outer-space.

[Lust4Life]

Of course we don't have an overpopulation problem because everyone "knows" that future and as yet unknown technology will come to our rescue.

I mean it always has in the past hasn't it ?

And everyone "knows" that with afluence comes smaller families automatically.

Not just for people from Culturally European descent or the Chinese with their Draconian "one child only" legislation, but everyone regardless of religion or culture.

And we all "know" that all of the present "basket case" nations will in time become affluent in their own right regardless of the fact that they still haven't become so after thousands of years.

And of course in the last half century or so having tens of billions of dollars of aid in money, food and equipment given to them................

Plus education and training.


Yep just a matter of time............


But of course pointing out a de facto situation is obviously racist.


And we've plenty of space to build new cities the size of New York, might be a bit of a [problem for them if they want to drink or wash but hey the future magic, er sorry technology will take care of that won't it?

Personally I think food, water and fuel rationing will be fun myself, that and only having power on for so many hours a day.

I don't think that Americans will like not having their own cars though it will be ameliorated by having much more densley packed and larger cities.

Not because of lack of space but because it will result in less loss of power caused by electricity going longer distances over the network and of course lesser distances travelled by transport will use less fuel.

As people keep saying there are still plenty of natural resources in the world and will be for some time.

Just that it will be harder physically to extract and the cost will rise steeply.
Maybe it will be rationed by price in the future.

Could be quite a fun thing saving up all year to be able to afford a road trip to see your relations in the next state.


And lets face it the rise in crime, wars, terrorism and pollution will make the world a more interesting place, great for T.V. programmes.

All this will be totally worth it just so feckless people can persist in filling the world with their offspring at the cost of other more responsible people.

Anyone who says that theres a crisis are obviously delusional, not to mention racist, Fascist, supporters of Eugenics and Concentration camps and anyway they're wrong because, because.......because its not fair and I don't want it to happen.

So THERE !

Crisis ? What Crisis ?

[orcenio]

Anyone who says that theres a crisis are obviously delusional, not to mention racist, Fascist, supporters of Eugenics and Concentration camps and anyway they're wrong because, because.......because its not fair and I don't want it to happen.

So THERE !

Crisis ? What Crisis ?(emphasis mine)

...they tend to be slightly hysterical too...

What with the: Sky is falling due to "underclass overrbreeding" 'n all...

[Bryan Ekers]

Of course we don't have an overpopulation problem because everyone "knows" that future and as yet unknown technology will come to our rescue.

I mean it always has in the past hasn't it ?

It has a good track record.

And everyone "knows" that with afluence comes smaller families automatically.

It has a good track record.

Not just for people from Culturally European descent or the Chinese with their Draconian "one child only" legislation, but everyone regardless of religion or culture.

All the more reason to educate people and expose them to other cultures so religion (or at least religion that mandates huge familes) can gradually fall from favour.

[Mijin]

Lust4Life, if you read through the thread, people have given good arguments to support some of the assertions you've listed.
You've chosen to ignore the arguments and then imply their conclusions are dogma.


And everyone "knows" that with afluence comes smaller families automatically.


This is a case in point. Earlier I explained demographic transition and showed how birth rate is corrolated (inversely) with GDP, and I linked some statistics.
They showed that a nation doesn't need to become affluent for its birth rate to drop. Any increase in wealth is corrolated with a decrease in birth rate. Even in already developed countries.

And do we see an increase in wealth? Sure, south america, much of asia, eastern europe and russia are seeing an astonishingly quick rise to prosperity.

How about africa? Well, this is less encouraging, but if there's "good" news it's that africa is so poor that estimates of anticipated population growth there are being revised downwards (why? Because *very* poor countries have very high death rates).

[orcenio]

How about africa? Well, this is less encouraging, but if there's "good" news it's that africa is so poor that estimates of anticipated population growth there are being revised downwards (why? Because *very* poor countries have very high death rates).According to the UN* the death rate for Africa seems to be roughly the same as Europe, but no where as low as Latin AmericaAfrica: 2005-2010 12.5
Europe: 2005-2010 11.4
North America: 7.8
Asia: 2005-2010 7.4
Latin America: 2005-2010 6.0 (http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp)Africa also has the strongest growth rate (http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp), second highest population (http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp) (and population density (http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp)) data projections of all world regions for the next 50 years. In fact, the only regions in Africa that will experience a shrink in population in the next 50 years would be the Southern and Northern parts (http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp).

However I don't see why anyone would be cracking their heads open due to these data projections for the simple fact that Africans have nowhere near the environmental footprint as westerners (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12681069&postcount=58). Wholesale, unsustainable environmental destruction is a thing developed nations do with their reckless overconsumption.

It is probable that these new Africans (along with the rest of the developing world) might increase their environmental footprint as they gain in affluence; however this does not need to be true if current developed nations finally addressed their reckless overconsumption through internationally agreed environmental regulations.

As I quoted Fred Pearce in my last postIn any event, it strikes me as the height of hubris to downgrade the culpability of the rich world’s environmental footprint because generations of poor people not yet born might one day get to be as rich and destructive as us. Overpopulation is not driving environmental destruction at the global level; overconsumption is. Every time we talk about too many babies in Africa or India, we are denying that simple fact.If you want to save the world, curb your consumption. Don't shift blame to an imaginary African fifty years from now.

[Mijin]

According to the UN* the death rate for Africa seems to be roughly the same as Europe, but no where as low as Latin America

Of course statistics can be misleading here. Europe has a high crude death rate because of its ageing population. Africa has a high crude death rate because of high infant mortality and infectious disease rates.
A better comparison is probably the age-specific mortality rate. I can't find a good link for this right now, but suffice it to say: Africa's is much higher than Europe's for whatever age you care to pick.

Having said that, it appears that population projections for africa have been revised back up recently as death projections for AIDS have been revised downwards.


However I don't see why anyone would be cracking their heads open due to these data projections for the simple fact that Africans have nowhere near the environmental footprint as westerners. Wholesale, unsustainable environmental destruction is a thing developed nations do with their reckless overconsumption.

Yeah, I made this point too.
We like to say the problem is population projections, so we can blame other people.

[BrainGlutton]

Who do you guys think makes a bigger impact on the planet: 300 million Americans or a billion Africans?

300 million Americans. We use more resources.

[sleeping]

I do think that our present economic system is unsustainable and the primary threat to our survival as a species. At the most basic level, there is no system for balancing resource consumption with waste production.

Obviously, what we consider to be the level at which the planet is overpopulated depends largely on what sort of lifestyle we deem acceptable. However, being living organisms, I don't think this is such a nebulous debate: everyone needs food, shelter, and healthcare. So we have a pretty firm basis for determining what the minimum quality of life ought to be.

The distribution of contraceptives can help prevent overpopulation, but it is not the most powerful tool. Far more important is the social, economic, and political empowerment of women. Research has shown that the availability of contraceptives has a negligible effect on unwanted pregnancies, since women with little power and social mobility will take on the gender role of baby factories. OTOH, when women vote, run for office, earn a pay comparable to that of men, etc., they can make their own choices about their lives--and the result is a falling birth rate.

So, those who are concerned about overpopulation need to prioritize these 3 things:

-stop global climate change, especially CO2 emissions
-control the exploitation of land, rivers, oceans, and the air in order to ensure sustainable economic development
-make certain that economic development targets women in particular

[Chief Pedant]

So, those who are concerned about overpopulation need to prioritize these 3 things:

-stop global climate change, especially CO2 emissions
-control the exploitation of land, rivers, oceans, and the air in order to ensure sustainable economic development
-make certain that economic development targets women in particular

Assuming the AGW construct is correct, and that climate change is bad, stopping global (anthropogenic) climate changes will simply improve the planet's ability to sustain even more people who will, in turn, consume more of the planet. In effect, you've removed a feedback loop for population control.

If you ensure sustainable economic development (whatever that is, and assuming you could actual do it) you also remove a feedback loop and promote even more humans multiplying.

I realize those two causes may be close to your heart, but they have nothing at all to do with eliminating over-population and will, in fact, worsen it.

The approach to overpopulation needs to be directed at making fewer babies. Anything that simply increases the comfort level of everyone we have now will increase the numbers of babies being made. One of the main reasons developed countries have fewer children is that their population has figured out that babies consume resources. Me 'n momma can live better if we only have to share with two kids instead of five. If we found a way to have all the babies we want and still have unlimited resources, then the drive to have fewer babies would be diminished.

[orcenio]

Assuming the AGW construct is correct, and that climate change is bad, stopping global (anthropogenic) climate changes will simply improve the planet's ability to sustain even more people who will, in turn, consume more of the planet. In effect, you've removed a feedback loop for population control.You know; no matter how many times I read your posts, I am always shocked at your use of logic. Your position: If we westerners finally address our over-consuming ways it will only remove a "feedback loop for population control." Just wow.If you ensure sustainable economic development (whatever that is, and assuming you could actual do it) you also remove a feedback loop and promote even more humans multiplying.Again; you leave me at a loss for words...I realize those two causes may be close to your heart, but they have nothing at all to do with eliminating over-population and will, in fact, worsen it.over-population doesn't exist, over-consumption (regardless of the population which does it) is what is killing the planet.

[Mijin]

One of the main reasons developed countries have fewer children is that their population has figured out that babies consume resources. Me 'n momma can live better if we only have to share with two kids instead of five. If we found a way to have all the babies we want and still have unlimited resources, then the drive to have fewer babies would be diminished.

So the more resources a nation has, the more its people think "oh, if we have fewer children our resources will go further...". This makes no sense; you'd think the opposite if anything.
Not to mention that this hypothesis flies in the face of all the actual data on the subject.
Note also that in the developed world, we are already close to the situation of babies being "resource-neutral". e.g. in britain, you get child benefit payments proportional to the number of children you have. Yet britain has an ageing population like most of the west.

[Chief Pedant]

So the more resources a nation has, the more its people think "oh, if we have fewer children our resources will go further...". This makes no sense; you'd think the opposite if anything.
Not to mention that this hypothesis flies in the face of all the actual data on the subject.
Note also that in the developed world, we are already close to the situation of babies being "resource-neutral". e.g. in britain, you get child benefit payments proportional to the number of children you have. Yet britain has an ageing population like most of the west.

Nope. The resources my child consumes are my personal family resources. No one (on average) is actually altruistic enough to care about what share of the world's (or nation's) resources they consume. That's just a liberal pipe dream and lip service.

As humans we're essentially selfish, putting our own creature comforts first and all else second. Think Mr Gore and his personal consumption as your basic role model here: we say one thing about what's best for the world as a whole (minimal footprint) but personally behave about what's best for me (pretty much maximum consumption, or at least consumption without any real thought of following the Tanzanian lifestyle).

Children are a net drain on a family's resources, especially if the family is independent of the government dole. That's why wealthier families have fewer children. Kids consume time and money, and wealthier families have figured that out. Cite (http://www.russellsage.org/chartbook/householdform/figure4.5/view) For poorer families (and this includes families in nations that subsidize children), children are seen as a source of income (or sometimes the parents aren't robustly cognitive enough to figure out they are a net drain). Obviously in some social circumstances and cultures there's no calculation at all. Kids just show up somehow as part of the cycle of life.

[Chief Pedant]

Again; you leave me at a loss for words...over-population doesn't exist, over-consumption (regardless of the population which does it) is what is killing the planet.

Well, congratulations, orcenio! We finally agree. Hugs.

Yes. Over-consumption is killing the planet.

Now, let's do the math: If we had half the people across the board doing the over-consumption, we'd have...half the consumption. That was easy, wasn't it?

Next, let's do the logic: If the path to lowered reproduction is getting poor people rich, wouldn't that increase over-consumption even more? (Hint: "Why yes, it would.")

Finally, let's do the direct observation: Has any country, population, family or individual ever decided to consume less and go backwards? (Hint: "Of course! Ed Begley, Jr, and um...um...well, there must be at least one other guy.")

In summary: We need to stop making babies. Now. After we figger out how to consume less per person, and after we actually execute that plan, then we can give ourselves permission to have more babies.

Now try not to bother me again. I am boarding my Gulfstream from my second home here in Geneva to a conference on How to Minimize Your Carbon Footprint and Conserve Earth's Resources at the Ritz in Tokyo. They claim they've got a new giant tuna (http://most-expensive.net/tuna-fish) in from the Tsukiji, and I'm anxious to get some before it's gone. It's not like West Atlantic bluefin is getting any easier to find.

[orcenio]

Well, congratulations, orcenio! We finally agree. Hugs.Yeah...Don't touch me.Yes. Over-consumption is killing the planet....and over-population doesn't exist.Now, let's do the math: If we had half the people across the board doing the over-consumption, we'd have...half the consumption. That was easy, wasn't it?Yes. You are simply refusing to recognize/debate that it is the minority developed nations who are the sole over-consumers and that overconsumption is the root cause of concern.Next, let's do the logic: If the path to lowered reproduction is getting poor people rich, wouldn't that increase over-consumption even more? (Hint: "Why yes, it would.")That would increase consumption. But it stupid to complain about imaginary/theoretical people taking up the life-rafts when you are drilling holes in the boat.Finally, let's do the direct observation: Has any country, population, family or individual ever decided to consume less and go backwards? (Hint: "Of course! Ed Begley, Jr, and um...um...well, there must be at least one other guy.")Until developed/western nations directly address their unsustainable consumption, all chicken-littlisms about third world over-breeding is a hilarious farce. You are the person who is killing the planet, not some imaginary/theoretical African who lives 50 years in the future.In summary: We need to stop making babies. Now. After we figger out how to consume less per person, and after we actually execute that plan, then we can give ourselves permission to have more babies.How about just the developed/western world stops reproducing? That would fix the problem of over-consumption just as well (...well, only in another 50 years or so when the developed world dies off).Now try not to bother me again. I am boarding my Gulfstream from my second home here in Geneva to a conference on How to Minimize Your Carbon Footprint and Conserve Earth's Resources at the Ritz in Tokyo. They claim they've got a new giant tuna (http://most-expensive.net/tuna-fish) in from the Tsukiji, and I'm anxious to get some before it's gone. It's not like West Atlantic bluefin is getting any easier to find.Yeah... about what you said in your last post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12704377&postcount=74). Do you really expect us to believe that you care about the environment? People who care about the environment don't complain that responsible consumption removes the death "feedback loop" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12704446&postcount=75) that comes with climate change.

It's just too illogical and stupid.

[Mijin]

Nope. The resources my child consumes are my personal family resources. No one (on average) is actually altruistic enough to care about what share of the world's (or nation's) resources they consume. That's just a liberal pipe dream and lip service.


You've completely misunderstood me here. I was not saying that people make their family planning decisions for the good of their society (although, in a minority of cases, some people may well do...but that's not what I was saying).

I was saying that the idea that the rich don't have children because of the resource requirements of a child, and the poor do because they are, essentially, too stupid to realise that children are a net drain is ludicrous. It's wrong on both counts.

The phenomenon of falling birth rates relative to GDP is well-understood and explicable without needing to invoke some theory of "us smart, them stupid".

[sleeping]

One of the main reasons developed countries have fewer children is that their population has figured out that babies consume resources. Me 'n momma can live better if we only have to share with two kids instead of five. If we found a way to have all the babies we want and still have unlimited resources, then the drive to have fewer babies would be diminished.

Do you really think that people in non-developed / developing countries do not understand that children consume resources? Really?

Historically, parents have decided to have many children because it provides them with labor for their farms. (Obviously, there are also cultural aspects to this, but those cultural tropes are rooted in the economic side and are common to all ethnicities.)

In an industrial society, children may not provide as much of an economic advantage as they do in an agrarian one. That, combined with the higher status of women, will cause the birth rate to drop.

But the major threat to the planet--and our survival as a species--is overconsumption. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, Westerners (and Americans in particular) consume far more than people in Third World countries. If the consumption rate of Westerners suddenly dropped to that of the Third World population, overpopulation would not be an issue. Conversely, if the per-capita consumption of the Third World population is raised to that of Americans, an additional 2 planets would be necessary to supply them with the necessary resources.

I do think that the problem of overpopulation needs to be fought through both environmental / business regulation and limiting the birth rate (which, as I've pointed out, has far more to do with the status of women than the availability of contraceptives). However, consumption / regulation side of it is far more important than the birth rate. Because the former is spiraling growing exponentially with no inherent control mechanism, while the latter does have a control mechanism, since human beings naturally adjust to the changes of their societies and environment.

[Lust4Life]

There are two couples living in a street, each couple owns a car.
Two cars equal %100 of cars.

One couple has two children, so thats four people have the use of one car.

The second couple has eight children, so thats ten people have the use of one car.

The second couple then start lecturing the world on how unfair it is that only four people have the use of %50 of the cars while two and a half times more people have to make do with the other %50.

As the second couple have even more children the statistics make things appear even worse , with the greedy first couple still having one car and still only having two children.

It never occurs for one moment for the second couple or their apologists to blame themselves for their feckless behaviour.

That said I advocate population reduction for all countries including the Western ones.

The death throes for Humankind from over population will be slow and painful.

Unfortunately it will involve the extinction of many more species before we ourselves go down the toilet.

We don't NEED large workforces anymore as a result of computerisation, mechanisation and production robots.

So children being born today won't be necessarily funding the ageing populations retirement but will more likely be in competition with them as the unemployed for what resources there are.

Basically a no win situation for everyone.

[sleeping]

As the second couple have even more children the statistics make things appear even worse , with the greedy first couple still having one car and still only having two children.


Because that's what poor people do--they have more and more children just to bilk more money out of others. :rolleyes:

[Chief Pedant]

You've completely misunderstood me here. I was not saying that people make their family planning decisions for the good of their society (although, in a minority of cases, some people may well do...but that's not what I was saying).

I was saying that the idea that the rich don't have children because of the resource requirements of a child, and the poor do because they are, essentially, too stupid to realise that children are a net drain is ludicrous. It's wrong on both counts.

The phenomenon of falling birth rates relative to GDP is well-understood and explicable without needing to invoke some theory of "us smart, them stupid".
In a poor society, children are not necessarily seen as a net drain on the family resources. They may be seen as a net benefit to support their parents by, for instance, working the family plot.
In a developed society, children are seen as a net drain on the family finances.

[Chief Pedant]

But the major threat to the planet--and our survival as a species--is overconsumption. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, Westerners (and Americans in particular) consume far more than people in Third World countries. If the consumption rate of Westerners suddenly dropped to that of the Third World population, overpopulation would not be an issue. Conversely, if the per-capita consumption of the Third World population is raised to that of Americans, an additional 2 planets would be necessary to supply them with the necessary resources.


Total consumption is per-capita consumption times people.
The developed countries, having duped out how to get more better than the undeveloped countries, consume far more per-capita, and represent a much higher per-capita drain, on resources. In fact, without development, most societies have an upper limit to population maintained by nature. You can only support so many people by hunting and gathering if you don't have the wherewithal to change the course of the natural world.

It's perfectly true that overpopulation would not be the problem if the developed world hadn't figured out how to control nature. But they did, and in addition to using that control to grab all the resources they wanted for themselves, they extended enough development to less-capable populations to allow those populations to expand as well; those under-developed populations are now trying to play catchup and get Stuff just like the developed world has.

I don't argue for any particular morality here. Sure; the developed world rapes the earth for their personal convenience. Sure; the under-developed world consumes less per capita. But that's not on account of the under-developed world's superior morals; it's on account of their sub-par competence (or bad luck, if you are a Jared Diamond fan, but either way, they reason they aren't consuming more is because they can't and not because they wouldn't if the could).

It's lovely talk to say the major threat is "over-consumption" but that's meaningless. We are wired for selfishness and over-consumption, and frankly, no-one is going to under-consume to a degree sufficient to diminish the strain on the world's resources. Instead, the current under-consumers are going to figure out as best they can how to join the over-consumers. THAT's why we need to stop making babies, wherever they are made.

If someone manages to get us all to under-consume first, then we can perhaps give ourselves permission to make more babies. Unfortunately, the same technology that lets us support more people in the first place by changing nature (industrial farming, transportation, control of disease, city infrastructure, communication...) also gives rise to all the over-consumption.

It's not by any moral authority the Developed countries somehow get to tell the Under-developed countries to stop making babies. The West has no moral authority whatsoever, since it is overconsuming. However the current plan is to extend that development to the under-developed, and since those populations are growing like made and hoping to consume like mad (actually, to consume the way the West consumes) this overpopulation is an enormous problem.

I suspect what will happen is that the developed countries will continue to consume, and under-developed countries will continue to pro-create while trying to consume, and we'll eventually over-run the joint even more. That's the nature of the Tragedy of the Commons; no one puts group interest ahead of self-interest.

That that is so does not render overpopulation a non-problem. But hey; I got mine, so I guess it's silly to worry that the next few billion won't get what I got, huh?

[Mijin]

We don't NEED large workforces anymore as a result of computerisation, mechanisation and production robots.

So children being born today won't be necessarily funding the ageing populations retirement but will more likely be in competition with them as the unemployed for what resources there are.


Computerisation and mechanisation if anything *create* jobs in the developed world and have little effect on the developing world.

They create jobs because they raise productivity and wealth in a country; which will indirectly create jobs elsewhere.
You might just as well say "Dammit, who invented the spade?! So many people used to be employed digging earth with their hands, those jobs are gone now".

And in the developing world, a robot worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars isn't really competing for the same jobs with a guy (or even a factory of guys) on a couple of dollars a day. Again, look at china: one of the main places where robots are made, yet so many employers there pick cheap manual labour instead.

If robots become super cheap and super smart...that's a different story. I suspect that there will be much more good than bad in such a scenario, but that's too much of a tangent for me to elaborate on.

In a poor society, children are not necessarily seen as a net drain on the family resources. They may be seen as a net benefit to support their parents by, for instance, working the family plot.

Fine.
When you earlier said that in the developing world we'd "figured out" that babies require resources, the implication, I thought, was that in the developing world they only have babies because they hadn't figured that out yet.
It's not like that, and I'm pleased that what I'd inferred isn't your opinion.

[Lust4Life]

Computerisation and mechanisation if anything *create* jobs in the developed world and have little effect on the developing world.

.

I can remember very well as a school leaver in the seventies seeing large offices full of people pushing paper around, from colleague to colleague and from their business to other businesses.

Those same offices process mor work, more efficiently and much more rapidly with a minute fraction of the workers previously employed.

Yes computerisation creates jobs but on nowhere the scale that it has downsized them.

Likewise a robot on an assembly line can work 24/7, its work is always consistent(no bad hair days, late nights, hangovers etc. to interfere with standards), doesn't have breaks, holidays, sick days.

Doesn't need pep talks, Health and Safety training or disciplinaries.

Also doesn't get severance pay or a pension.

At the present level of development robots aren't suitable for many jobs but as time goes on they will more and more be able to replace humans in the workplace.

[psikeyhackr]

Nuclear War!

It's not an intelligent solution but it is what will probably happen..

psik