I don't need your damn opinion on my family size!

The BBQ Pit
81

You need a cite for common sense?:smack: Ignoring the facts is the last refuge of the “we must grow school of thought.” Did I say that commodities are becoming more expensive (yes, I am asking for a cite)? I don’t think so. In fact, many commodities are becoming cheaper. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? What I said was that an increasing population leaves less of any limited commodity on a per-person basis. This is a fact that cannot be argued (It’s that conservation of mass-energy kind of thing).

Maybe I failed math. Let us assume that the world contains 1x10^100 bbls of oil in the crust (A very large amount). Are you are saying that regardless of population, the amount of oil available per capita is the same? Obviously this is not true. The more people that exist, the less there is per person, regardless of the amount available. This is a statement of fact, not an opinion. This has nothing to do with price.

Ah, but you say it is production that is important, and production can keep pace with population. However, lets examine this fallacy. Even if oil production increases with population, while the per capita supply would stay constant, the amount of oil avaible per person is less than if would be if the population increased:

Hypothetical:

1990

Population: 5B people
Oil production: 10B bbl
Availability: 2 bbl/person

2020

Scenario 1 - More People is Better

Population: 10B people
Oil production: 20B bbl
Availability: 2 bbl/person

Scenario 2 - ZPG is good

Population: 5B people
Oil production: 20B bbl
Availability: 4 bbl/person

See, your population growth dropped the amount of produced resources available to me by 50% (2 bbls vs 4 bbls). What part of this do you not understand? Or can oil magically only be recovered when a person is born? Does this also happen with land area? Every time a person is born a little more land can be used that could not be used before?

If you want to support your position, you must use an intellectually honest position (or you will be ignored by all but the irrational, who admittedly are more numerous, so i guess maybe irrational arguements are better in some ways).

82

Of course if some “People” managed to invent ways that decreased our reliance on oil (Technology) then really the fact that there is physically less oil is not as relevant as you seem to think.

83

Wow, culture. Good thing this is already in the Pit.

I’m trying to argue in good faith here. Calling me irrational won’t win you points. Insulting others isn’t a great debating tactic.

If you want to learn what not to do, search for the usernames Halo13 and Chumpshy. Then come back and we’ll discuss this coolly.

What you’re ignoring in your discussion of oil supply is the role of technology. Say, for hypothetical purposes, that there’s enough gasoline in the world to give every person one hundred gallons.

In 1950, with cars getting about 10 mpg, that would get you 1000 miles down the road. A more efficient engine, say one getting 25 mpg, will get you 2500 miles away.

If you owned a Toyota Echo, like my wife, you’d be 4000 miles further away. The further away the better, if you ask me.

Lower Manhattan was running out of usable real estate quickly in the late 19th century. Introduce steel-beam construction, mechanical elevators, climate control, and electric lighting and voila, skyscraper construction became not only possible, but economically efficient. You can now get many more offices and apartments onto the same land.

These are facts that you are ignoring, and this is making your arguments irrational.

84

Make that Chumpsky.

85

Yep. And when I had you [sarcasm] at the incredibly tender age of 25 [/sarcasm], lots of people were shocked that I was having kids so young. Of course your dad was only 23 and looked about 17, so he caught even more flak than I did. Just think what people would have said if the baby before you had lived – I would have given birth for the first time at 23 or 24!

I’m really glad DH and I had four living children “so soon” in our marriage. We very much wanted children, we love having them, and we had each one on purpose. (Yes, we’re recidivists!) I doubt we’ll be having any more, but the barn door isn’t slammed and if God gives us a surprise, I’m sure it will be pleasant. :smiley: I feel kind of sorry for people who have their kids late, or have no kids, or have only one, because they miss out on so much fun – but that’s obviously just my bias. I feel sorry for people who don’t sing, too. Similar value-neutral sorry feeling. I would never, ever dream of saying anything to these people indicating that their choice is somehow wrong! People are different, and they make different choices, and isn’t that part of what makes things interesting?

For the record, iampunha, you were born when Daddy was 23 and I was 25; your next older sister, when we were 25 and 27; the next sister, when we were 27 and 29 (but I turned 30 the next day); and your brother, when we were 30 and 32. I’m now 46, soon to turn 47 and be prime again, woo hoo!

86

Just goes to show that if you want your “facts straight,” it might be best not to rely on an overrated conservative humorist.

According to ["]the US Census Bureau](http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html[/url), Pennsylvania in 2001 had a population of 12,287,150 people in a land area of44,817 miles.

Population density: 274 persons per square mile

According to USAID, Bangladesh has a population of 133 million in a land area of 55,598 square miles.

Population density: 2,401 person per square mile

So, to review, Bangladesh has a population density of almost 9 times that Pennsylvania.

And the effective crowding problems are made much worse in Bangladesh by the fact that so much of the country consists of low-lying estuaries that are extremely prone to flooding. Also, the large percentage of the population involved in subsistence agriculture (compared to a place like Pennsylvania) makes the crowding pressures even greater.

87

My mistake. I was quoting from memory.

Turns out the comparison was to the suburb of Fremont, California. The population density is identical.

I will begin my self-flagellation now.

88

And a good thing it’s a minority belief. Even if I accept your point that certain natural resources are limited, what if I contend that it’s far better for my family to have those resources than for you to have them? Your comment suggests that I should care as much about your welfare as I do about my family’s welfare. In fact, if given a choice between your going thirsty and my son going thirsty, I would not hesitate for an instant to choose to keep my son hydrated.

By the same token, of course, you would likely favor yourself and your family over mine.

It seems like it’s a standoff - neither of us have an objective reason to claim superiority.

  • Rick
89

Well, if that’s the case, i was just wondering whether O’Rourke (or you, for that matter) was attempting to make any sort of serious point about the issue of population density by looking at Fremont and Bangladesh. Because i’m not quite sure what he could conclude from such a comparison.

On the one hand, we have a struggling developing country where: 60% of the labor force works in agriculture; life expectancy is 59 years; the infant mortality rate is 66 per 1000; adult literacy is 41%; 40% of the population is under 15 years of age; there are 5 telephone lines per 1000 people; GNP per capita is $360; and which ranks at number 132 out of 162 on the Human Development Index.

On the other, we have a thriving city in a prosperous region in the richest country on the planet, where: 0.1% of the population works in agriculture, fisheries, and forestry (49.8% are management and professional); median houshold income is $76,579 (median family income over $80,000); and with over 40% of the over-25 population having a Bachelor’s degree or higher.

Seems to me that about the ONLY thing these two places have in common is population density. And, at the risk of drawing with too broad a brush, i don’t think it’s beyond the limits of reason to argue that many of Bangladesh’s problems are the result of its population density, while much of Fremont’s population density is the result of its economic success.

(figures on Bangladesh taken from USAID website, linked in last post; figures on Fremont from Bay Area Census website)

90

This thread has had my bullshit detector going off like a fire alarm.

I’m with javaman and culture on this one – their arguments seem to me to be unassailable, and even the best counter to theirs – that technological change can compensate for population increases indefinitely – is deeply flawed. It’s like someone saying, as they’re plunging down the side of a skyscraper, “Well, I just believe that the way technology is going, it’ll allow me to plunge downward indefinitely – I may NEVER hit the pavement!”

While it’s true that technology has done some incredible things for agricultural production, it’s also true that technology has its limits, while human fecundity has none. And it’s also true that as a general rule the affluence of society is best measured in terms of per capita income, and you can increase it by both increasing wealth and decreasing population.

While it’s true that most of the world’s population increase is coming from Third World countries, I see nothing wrong with inhabitants of First World countries saying, “We wish to remain wealthy – to that end, we will not have so many babies.”

Plus, it seems unlikely that Third World inhabitants will listen to calls to limit their family size while First World countries are calling on their inhabitants to maintain or even increase their family size. To be fair, we should just have a general consensus that large families are Not Good.

Therefore, I look askance at large families. I’m sure it can be wonderful to grow up in one, I also suspect it can be a living hell, depending on the parents. But I don’t wanna see people around the world dying of starvation by the hundreds of millions should technology hit the wall anytime soon.

Guess that makes me an monster. Funny, that’s how I feel about people who don’t give a crap about population growth.

91

The point is that Bangladesh has many problems, as do many other developing countries. Population density is not, in and of itself, a problem.

Monsoons, poverty, inefficient agriculture, illiteracy, lack of development - all would be Bangladeshi problems even if Bangladesh were sparsely populated.

Honk Kong has a far higher population density in many areas, yet is not an economic basket case.

Please excuse my previous error. I hope my point is clearer now.

92

I hear you … I get another version of that.
I have been married for almost 4 years, and people are outraged that we don’t have kids yet!
We want kids, it just hasn’t happened yet. Leave me the fuck alone with my uterus!!

93

What are the limits on technology? Could you have forseen twenty years ago much of what is in our stores now?

Can you name any period in the last thousand years that saw technological innovation cease?

If there are no limits on human fecundity, why are many countries at zero or negative population growth now? If there are no limits, the numbers should be rising everywhere.

94

Holy underwear, Batman.

For those of you who believe that having too many people will rob the planet of resources vital to all of humanity, may I suggest that you refrain from reproducing, effective immediately?

Please make a note in your calendar to smother your parents in their sleep on the seventieth birthday. That’ll give them a few years to enjoy retirement.

Please review your living wills. Please emphasize that you are to never be on life support, lest you never wake and waste valuable resources that the rest of the world could use.

Do not forget to submit your name to the Wall of Generous People committee. We do not want to forget the sacrifices that you are making, by performing your duties above.

I wish I were that selfless.

Oh, and for those who are afraid of cities growing, I would like to take this time and advise you that your condominium residences are now ready for you. Please make all cheques out to SapphireWolf Housing, Inc. Your deposits are due the day of move in. Please be sure to advise us of your move in date, whether you prefer Uranus or Pluto, and if you want the fruit basket delivered to your doorstep.

Thank you!

95

Mr. Moto:

You are correct, my response was tainted with obnoxiousness and I came off as an a$$-hat. I appologize.

However, I still believe you are missing my point. Let’s use your example. If there were only half as many people in the world, i’d be 8000 miles away and you would be even happier (although you would like me if you ever get to meet me).

The point stands, if you increase the size of the denominator, the results gets smaller. This is a fact, and cannot be disputed.

Manhatten has the most expensive real estate in the world (or near to it). Is this supposed to make me happy?

While we do not know the limits of technology (I believe there are none), we also do not know the time-line for technology (fusion energy, anyone?).

Briker:

I truly am saddened by your position. If you read my post, you will see that my minority beliefs would like to keep all of our children hydrated, yours included. However, your majority belief appears to state it is best to look out for number one, and let the rest die in the dry wash if required. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you that your position does represent the majority. I believe this needs to change, and I claim moral superiority for my position. Do you truly not care what happens to everyone else’s children or are you simply trying to make a point?

96

The population density the chair I am sitting in is about 4,6000,000 people/sq mile, or about 2000 times more than bangladesh, and the per capita income is about $100,000/year, with an average education level a graduate degree and no significant diseases. Maybe the key to success is population density?

Or maybe you have to look at entire systems rather than cherry picking?

You decide. Seems to me the entire system includes the entire world, and the system is in pretty sorry shape

97

Aww, sorry. :slight_smile:

98

Which is exactly what they’ve done. For the umpteenth time, the majority of Americans are not having enough children to maintain replacement values.

And Americans are not alone. The same is true of Italians, Germans, French and Britons.

We are not having “so many babies.”

Say it with me. We are not having "so many babies."

Do you have any concept of what disastrous combination of events would be required to not only diminish the current food supply (which is sufficient to feed many more than it does, but is limited due to distribution problems and flat out waste) but eliminate our capability to raise higher yield crops and take advantage of many acres which are currently unfarmed that could be pressed into service should the need arise?

I mean honestly, when it comes down to it, if you’re so lock and stock into your theories of possible impending doom, then don’t have children. Continue the trend of the developing nations. Better yet – go do something to help improve the way of life for those in developing nations who tend to have many children due to inadequate family planning resources and out of the fear that their children will die before they’re out of toddlerhood.

99

Listen folks–the planet does not have infinite resources. Regardless of what technologies we come up with to stretch these resources (aside from spaceflight which will negate the entire problem), eventually we will run out if we breed like rabbits. This is just common sense.
Now, having said this, I don’t think we’re breeding like rabbits. It seems to me that once a nation reaches a certain level of prosperity, population growth tends to level off or even slowly decline. I don’t have any scientific proof for this but it seems likely that evolution would favor a species that could regulate its population when it was living in a plentiful environment. If you’re in a poor country with a high child mortality rate, of course you’re going to have as many children as possible because you’re likely to lose a few of them before they grow up. Somebody said you have to look at the entire system rather than one aspect of it (i.e. population growth) before making these calls and I agree with that.
Having said that, though, I think that limiting population growth in the developing world as well as upgrading their infrastructure and food production is probably the best way for them to become a developed nation. Otherwise they’re dependent on their excess populations either migrating or dying. Neither one of these control methods is stable enough to ensure continuous growth. Again, I’m not advocating that we stop people from breeding in the Third World; what I am advocating is giving them the tools and knowledge to improve themselves along with methods to control their birth rate and ensure that the children they do have make it to adulthood.
Anyway, I guess my feelings on this are that unless a large family is necessary to ensure that at least someone makes it to the next generation, it is a luxury but one I am hesitant to condemn. If you can afford it–fine–but don’t expect society at large to pick up the tab if you can’t (like certain Mormon extremists).

100

I’m a strong advocate of birth control - and the overpopulation of this planet could be better controlled if we could find a happy medium between birth control and conception.

I’ve never wanted to have children, and even now that I’m in a very serious relationship that will lead to marriage, I still don’t. There are times when I think I may want one child, but then I rethink my decision and feel that I would be better off with 2 or 3 cats. I’m getting the feeling that I’m one of those people who probably shouldn’t have children. :wink:

I have a question. To those of you who want to have a big family (or any kids at all), would you consider adoption? There are plenty of children in this world who need a loving family - and if you want a baby and be parent, should it really matter if they spew forth from your loins or not?