Population growth is good because it reduces inbreeding

Let’s take, for example, the inbreeding coefficient F for population size N

Inbreeding reduces in proportion to N. Now, the deviation from hardy Weinberg equilibrium A, for alpha, is

A = 1/ 2n-1

Therefore as population increases A falls. In a 300 million population such as the US, A is about 1/(6x10e8). This means about 1 in 600m deleterious alleles exist per genome due to population limits, or in a 3 billion base pair typical human genome, about 5 alleles. For comparison,

From the 1000 Genomes Pilot data, we now see that an average individual typically carries ∼60 missense variants that severely damage protein structure and ∼100 loss-of-function variants.25

This means a doubling of population reduces the rate of deleterious mutations 2-4%.

Therefore although Population Control maybe justified for other reasons, it will increase the prevalence of genetic disorders by a measurable amount. These are very generous estimates because they ignore inbreeding which greatly lowers N.

Welcome to the SDMB. We are notoriously pro-incest so prepare yourself for a truly great debate. Good luck.

Are you worried about being culled in the coming great depopulation scheme being put forth by Bill Gates and George Soros? I have their numbers, I can text them to save you if you want.

You may very well be right, but genetic disorders are a much, much smaller problem than the strain that massive population increases place on resources. The increase in the collapse of eco-systems such as fisheries, river basins, farmlands, etc. The ecological damage may not even be nearly as terrible as the social and psychological damage. I take the view that human beings are not infinitely adaptable, and there must be some limit to the population pressures humans can endure without going quite mad.

I actually agree with that, I mentioned that is a good reason in my initial post, and I can elaborate.

The Wolfcamp Shale in the Permain Basin was estimated to have 46.3 billion barrels, with an additional 20b in the Delaware Basin.



Now, the recovery rate is 5-10% in Wyoming and other shale fields totally depleted so that leaves 3-7 billion ultimate recovery. The Permain is producing most of the 11 million bpd US production and Wolfcamp is doubling every year so it is close to peak.

The falling oil production since Feburary might be peak shale oil and the beginning of the end for that whole industry. This will have dire consequences. In a symmetrical hubbert curve it will deplete in 3 years and kill 99% or whoever depends on oil.

So what’s the debate here? And which is your stance? That depopulation is bad? Or good?

I dont think it can be stopped and the consequences will be dire.

You don’t think which can be stopped? Population growth or population control?

99% of people will be annihlated; maybe that’s an exaggeration but we are already seeing tanking oil production, growing food poverty and rapid eocnomic collapse despite most lockdowns ending.

Wait. What? I’ve never voted for that.

I’m neither pro incest nor pro inbreeding.

And I’ve never thought of this specific advantage of population growth. So, population growth reduces inbreeding. I wonder if it encourages speciation as well.

Oil production is tanking because DEMAND for oil has tanked due to the economic problems. While lockdowns are slowly ending, a lot of people are still staying close to home because the disease ain’t going anywhere.

For example, my state (Kansas) is in Phase 3 of reopening, but we’re not moving to Phase 4 for at least another week. My employer still has most of us working from home. I’ve been to a couple of drive-thru restaurants in the last few weeks, but neither I nor anybody I know have been to dine-in establishments. Other than the grocery store and the pharmacy, I have made two trips to the home improvement store in the past three months, and that’s pretty much it as far as shopping. With far less driving, I don’t need to refuel the car much. Some people are out and about, but a lot of us aren’t, and yes, that means the economy is going to remain in dire straits for some time to come, for reasons that have nothing to do with the Hubbert curve.

This in no way answers my question.

Then why did you state it as a fact?

  • Inbreeding
  • Outbreeding

0 voters

We are? Wow. I have got to pay more attention to polls in IMHO.

Come to think of it, that might be the other message board I frequent.

Thank you for the effortful answer. People will move to areas with more renewable energy so it isnt much of an advantage. Nevada is 25% renewable but has no people so it will be swamped. The overall renewable rate is around 10% for the United states so it will be serious. Lower population density makes transport harder and amplifies the problem.

Oil demand has been increasing as shown by increasing price from negative in Feburary to normal now. This has done nothing to stop the collapse. Nothing related to oil production was shut down, only the demand side, which is mostly open now.

Anyone ever seen that movie The Hills Have Eyes, Beware!!!

Ok well maybe that was Nuclear mutation, but there is still Wrong Turn and that X-Files episode!

Why will people move?

  1. Energy can be moved around. California already gets a chunk of its electricity from hydroelectric plants in the Pacific Northwest; the TransWest Express, now in the permitting process, will be a long-distance electric transmission line to bring wind energy from Wyoming to Las Vegas, where it can join the existing grid for delivery to southern California and parts of Arizona. Long-distance transmission is neither cheap nor trouble-free, but it’s not impossible either.

  2. Renewable energy can be developed. Nevada is now producing more than eight times as much power from renewable sources as it was twenty years ago, while Kansas is producing about 50 times as much. For the US as a whole, in 2001 the nation was producing 5 to 6 million megawatthours of electricity from renewable sources each month; in April of this year the nation produced 43 million megawatthours. (Source: Energy Information Administration)

While the price of oil has been rising in recent weeks, it’s still down about 35% from where it was just six months ago, so no, it’s not a normal market now. While not all of the data is yet available, the EIA is forecasting that global demand for petroleum and liquid fuels dropped by 17 percent in the second quarter (April-June), and will still be down by seven percent in the third quarter (July-Sept.). (cite) Supply fell more slowly than demand (which fell off a cliff in March), and is slowly rising, but a LOT of stuff still isn’t open. The transportation sector is the largest user of crude oil products, but the cruise ships aren’t going anywhere, the airlines are still operating very much reduced schedules, and millions of people either don’t have a job to go to at all or are working from home, so commuting is way down. All of these are still suppressing demand, and the EIA predicts US demand will remain below 2019 levels for the remainder of the year and into 2021.

I just want to say: Excellent use of pie chart, and I love your avatar. :heart_eyes:

Please, back to the debate.