Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

Evolution, Natural Selection, Medicine, Psychology & Neuroscience.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#61  Postby Bernoulli » Sep 06, 2016 6:34 am

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Bernoulli wrote:Developed countries need immigration to keep the demographic distribution in a functioning state due to their lower fertility rates.


We've all heard this before, but what does it actually mean? Why can't this "functioning state" be maintained by other means, e.g. increasing the retirement age, reducing bloated welfare systems, increasing per worker productivity?


What does it actually mean? It means an aging population. Aged populations require the most welfare spending - health, pensions etc. If you have less workers to provide the economic output to support that aging population, then you get structural deficits (or you put taxes up). Increase retirement age? It's already high, not least for everyone who doesn't work in an office chair. Bloated welfare systems? What does that mean? Welfare has been paired back per capita in real terms for decades now in most of our countries. The largest part of low income welfare (as opposed to corporate welfare, which DWARFS low income welfare) is for aged pensions (in those countries like Australia that provide a state pension). It's already only about at the poverty line. You can't reduce it more. Increase worker productivity? Productivity has SOARED over the last 40 odd years. Automation will obviously continue to help in this regard.

And to what extent can immigrants really be said to contribute to a functioning state of society when they are attracted by its lavish welfare system,


What a crock of shit. If immigration is largely restricted to skills shortages and family reunion, then the welfare load is low.

are low-skilled and/or not proficient in the local language, increase its crime rates, and introduce terrorism and sociopolitical instability which scares off business investment and tourism?


Feel the fear, bro. :roll:

If immigration was reduced or banned, then locals would need to up their baby output to keep the demographic curve stable.


In which case they are no longer "curbing and reducing" their population or its aggregate ecological footprint.


Exactly my point. Hence why curbing or reducing immigration as proposed by you for ecological benefit is a silly idea.
User avatar
Bernoulli
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 901

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#62  Postby tuco » Sep 06, 2016 6:12 pm

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Alan B wrote:
It is becoming obvious to many people that the excesses of human overpopulation is having a deleterious effect on Planet Earth's biosphere which affects all living species on the planet.

Any ideas?


Be the change that you wish to see in the world.

-Gandhi


I like this.

What policy should be imposed, what government should do, what I dunno who and where but us should do.

Its like in the meat, vegetarian, threads. Meat or not meat, like if there was not a middle ground, like if leaving out one meat meal per week would not influence anything. We need radical solutions! Yeah, to bicker over. Moderate approaches are boring or something. Oh .. how did I get here? Nevermind.
tuco
 
Posts: 13776

Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#63  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Sep 06, 2016 9:44 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
CdesignProponentsist wrote:Why not simply use the methods already show to be effective?

Economic and gender equality, access to higher education, and reasonable standard of living. I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that these all have a correlation with lower fertility rates. Solve them and you solve the population problem.


For some reason the server lost my post text, so I'm editing the post to recover it.

Scientific American published an article - The Unmet Need For Contraception - back in 2000. I still have the original copy in my collection somewhere.


That might have been where originally read this. I have been subscribed to Scientific American since the early 90's. I'm also pretty sure I've heard the statistics since then from other sources as well.

There doesn't appear to be any need for draconian measures, that there is a win-win scenario if we are willing to tackle these other equality and quality of life issues, birth rates will naturally decline as a result.
'The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man
knows himself to be a fool.'
- As You Like It - William Shakespeare
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 11913
Age: 50
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#64  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Sep 06, 2016 10:04 pm

CdesignProponentsist wrote:
There doesn't appear to be any need for draconian measures, that there is a win-win scenario if we are willing to tackle these other equality and quality of life issues, birth rates will naturally decline as a result.

It would make me very happy if the only really necessary solution to this and its accompanying related problems was that we should just stop being dicks to one another. But it would also make me kind of sad, because we're not very good at implementing that sort of solution.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 42
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#65  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Sep 06, 2016 10:07 pm

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
CdesignProponentsist wrote:
There doesn't appear to be any need for draconian measures, that there is a win-win scenario if we are willing to tackle these other equality and quality of life issues, birth rates will naturally decline as a result.

It would make me very happy if the only really necessary solution to this and its accompanying related problems was that we should just stop being dicks to one another. But it would also make me kind of sad, because we're not very good at implementing that sort of solution.


Yes. It is the willingness part that is the most difficult I believe.
'The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man
knows himself to be a fool.'
- As You Like It - William Shakespeare
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 11913
Age: 50
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#66  Postby Ven. Kwan Tam Woo » Sep 08, 2016 5:50 am

Bernoulli wrote:
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Bernoulli wrote:Developed countries need immigration to keep the demographic distribution in a functioning state due to their lower fertility rates.


We've all heard this before, but what does it actually mean? Why can't this "functioning state" be maintained by other means, e.g. increasing the retirement age, reducing bloated welfare systems, increasing per worker productivity?


What does it actually mean? It means an aging population. Aged populations require the most welfare spending - health, pensions etc. If you have less workers to provide the economic output to support that aging population, then you get structural deficits (or you put taxes up).


Or people adapt rather than relying on Big Daddy Government to solve all their problems for them. Or you allow voluntary euthanasia for people over a certain age. Or you redistribute funds away from that corporate welfare you speak of and towards retiree welfare instead. Or you increase the fertility rate up towards replacement level. Or you implement some combination of these and other measures. All in all, I’m not seeing how an aging population necessarily precludes the possibility of a “functioning state” of society.

Increase retirement age? It's already high, not least for everyone who doesn't work in an office chair.

The natural and historical order of things is that people depart from this Earth when they become too old to making productive contributions to society. Any society which thinks that everyone can and should have 20, 30, or 40 year-long paid holidays is frankly spoilt and delusional; if life expectancies are increasing, and technological developments are reducing the need for physically demanding labour, then why shouldn’t productive lifespans increase with them??
Bloated welfare systems? What does that mean? Welfare has been paired back per capita in real terms for decades now in most of our countries.

Even if that’s true it’s still generous, especially if you compare it to what lies beyond the economic bubble-world of post-WW2 history.
And to what extent can immigrants really be said to contribute to a functioning state of society when they are attracted by its lavish welfare system,

What a crock of shit. If immigration is largely restricted to skills shortages and family reunion, then the welfare load is low.

“If” being the operative word.
are low-skilled and/or not proficient in the local language, increase its crime rates, and introduce terrorism and sociopolitical instability which scares off business investment and tourism?

Feel the fear, bro. :roll:

If I feel the fear, it’s because I see the reality.

If immigration was reduced or banned, then locals would need to up their baby output to keep the demographic curve stable.


In which case they are no longer "curbing and reducing" their population or its aggregate ecological footprint.


Exactly my point. Hence why curbing or reducing immigration as proposed by you for ecological benefit is a silly idea.


You did read the title of this thread, right? Population growth is a function of births, deaths and migration. As I pointed out, the ‘birth’ part of that function is already being addressed in high ecological footprint countries (especially developed countries). This leaves us with deaths and migration. Now since any measures to increase death rates are almost certainly going to involve serious violations of human rights, the only lever we have left at our disposal – notwithstanding some miraculous technological breakthrough which allows us to obtain all our energy/material needs from unicorn farts – is migration. So if the population ought to be further “curbed and reduced” – which, again, is the very premise of this thread which was *not* started by me – then I would much prefer a couple of decades of economic stagnation and societal readjustment as a result of low fertility rates rather than killing people en masse or ignoring the problem until it becomes too urgent and unpleasant to ignore any longer.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."
- Cicero

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo
 
Posts: 556

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#67  Postby Bernoulli » Sep 08, 2016 6:05 am

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Bernoulli wrote:
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Bernoulli wrote:Developed countries need immigration to keep the demographic distribution in a functioning state due to their lower fertility rates.


We've all heard this before, but what does it actually mean? Why can't this "functioning state" be maintained by other means, e.g. increasing the retirement age, reducing bloated welfare systems, increasing per worker productivity?


What does it actually mean? It means an aging population. Aged populations require the most welfare spending - health, pensions etc. If you have less workers to provide the economic output to support that aging population, then you get structural deficits (or you put taxes up).


Or people adapt rather than relying on Big Daddy Government to solve all their problems for them. Or you allow voluntary euthanasia for people over a certain age. Or you redistribute funds away from that corporate welfare you speak of and towards retiree welfare instead. Or you increase the fertility rate up towards replacement level. Or you implement some combination of these and other measures. All in all, I’m not seeing how an aging population necessarily precludes the possibility of a “functioning state” of society.


As long as per worker productivity increases can match the increase in welfare spend to revenue ratio, then there's no problem. Japan shows that this is hard to achieve. The simplest way is to both tax properly (i.e. stop giving the rich tax breaks and indeed tax handouts) and give incentives for people to pop more babies out.

Increase retirement age? It's already high, not least for everyone who doesn't work in an office chair.

The natural and historical order of things is that people depart from this Earth when they become too old to making productive contributions to society. Any society which thinks that everyone can and should have 20, 30, or 40 year-long paid holidays is frankly spoilt and delusional; if life expectancies are increasing, and technological developments are reducing the need for physically demanding labour, then why shouldn’t productive lifespans increase with them??


An increase in average life span doesn't equate to an increase in the ability to do something when you are 60. Sure, around the edges, medical advances can help people of a certain age be more productive and healthy than someone the same age from a couple of generations ago. But the main reason that average life span is increasing is that medicine has reduced and pushed back the catastrophic end of life diseases. So instead of say 50% of people being dead by 70 from cancer and heart disease, they don't get those diseases and kick the bucket until they are 80. Besides small advances, a modern healthy 70 year old is still as decrepit as a healthy one was a couple of generations ago.


Bloated welfare systems? What does that mean? Welfare has been paired back per capita in real terms for decades now in most of our countries.

Even if that’s true it’s still generous,


No it's not. When you take out the old age pension (the size of which is directly related to an aging population - something which you have stated you aren't really that concerned with), then welfare for the poorer makes up a tiny fraction of our national budgets. People on unemployment benefits are already living miserable lives. There's almost nothing that can be humanely taken away from them.

And to what extent can immigrants really be said to contribute to a functioning state of society when they are attracted by its lavish welfare system,

What a crock of shit. If immigration is largely restricted to skills shortages and family reunion, then the welfare load is low.

“If” being the operative word.


It's not operative in Australia. It's the reality. If your country just accepts anyone and everyone, then that's a problem with your country, not the concept of skilled immigration.

are low-skilled and/or not proficient in the local language, increase its crime rates, and introduce terrorism and sociopolitical instability which scares off business investment and tourism?

Feel the fear, bro. :roll:

If I feel the fear, it’s because I see the reality.


If you've got a conservative brain (like most people who are against immigration), then fear is driving you irrationally to some of these beliefs.

If immigration was reduced or banned, then locals would need to up their baby output to keep the demographic curve stable.


In which case they are no longer "curbing and reducing" their population or its aggregate ecological footprint.


Exactly my point. Hence why curbing or reducing immigration as proposed by you for ecological benefit is a silly idea.


You did read the title of this thread, right? Population growth is a function of births, deaths and migration. As I pointed out, the ‘birth’ part of that function is already being addressed in high ecological footprint countries (especially developed countries). This leaves us with deaths and migration. Now since any measures to increase death rates are almost certainly going to involve serious violations of human rights, the only lever we have left at our disposal – notwithstanding some miraculous technological breakthrough which allows us to obtain all our energy/material needs from unicorn farts – is migration. So if the population ought to be further “curbed and reduced” – which, again, is the very premise of this thread which was *not* started by me – then I would much prefer a couple of decades of economic stagnation and societal readjustment as a result of low fertility rates than killing people en masse or ignoring the problem until it becomes too urgent and unpleasant to ignore.


Did you read my posts in this thread? The title is based on a false premise - that is, that it is population itself that drives our problems. Population isn't the problem. It's the level of consumption by the rich West that is the problem.
User avatar
Bernoulli
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 901

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#68  Postby Thommo » Sep 09, 2016 4:52 am

Bernoulli wrote:Welfare has been paired back per capita in real terms for decades now in most of our countries.


Source?

ETA: Reason I ask is that it appears wholly untrue. E.g. UK figures provided by OBR:
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/docs ... 4_dn2B.pdf

Image

That's not population adjusted. But since the population grew by less than 15% over that period, rather than the >100% that would be required for the claim to be true, it should be apparent enough.

Incidentally, the only way that the aging demographic problem could be "solved" through importing young people would be to have an eternal exponentially increasing population. It should be apparent why that's not going to work out.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21927

Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#69  Postby Thommo » Sep 09, 2016 5:23 am

Re corporate welfare, this is a good read:

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2015/09/28/9 ... -nonsense/
The loose logic and hasty mathematics behind this £93bn corporate welfare number are a pity, because they mask what is still an important debate. While there is far too glib a distinction between the corporate sector and the rest of society, it is true that less scrutiny is applied to corporate reliefs than normal spending. Perhaps John McDonnell, Labour’s new shadow chancellor, will find some savings to make here. But there is no surer way of wrecking his credibility than to pretend £93bn sits ready to be plucked from corporate pockets.

(The article also provides a link to the original paper: http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content ... -State.pdf )
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21927

Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#70  Postby Bernoulli » Sep 09, 2016 6:42 am

Thommo wrote:
Bernoulli wrote:Welfare has been paired back per capita in real terms for decades now in most of our countries.


Source?

ETA: Reason I ask is that it appears wholly untrue. E.g. UK figures provided by OBR:
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/docs ... 4_dn2B.pdf

Image

That's not population adjusted. But since the population grew by less than 15% over that period, rather than the >100% that would be required for the claim to be true, it should be apparent enough.


I'll have a look at that. It's going to depend on what they count as welfare spending.

Incidentally, the only way that the aging demographic problem could be "solved" through importing young people would be to have an eternal exponentially increasing population. It should be apparent why that's not going to work out.


It doesn't require anything of the sort. If each generation outputs better productivity per worker such that the rate of change of productivity is greater than the rate of change of gross old age pension growth, then you don't need as many workers as previously.
User avatar
Bernoulli
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 901

Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#71  Postby Thommo » Sep 09, 2016 7:00 am

Bernoulli wrote:
Incidentally, the only way that the aging demographic problem could be "solved" through importing young people would be to have an eternal exponentially increasing population. It should be apparent why that's not going to work out.


It doesn't require anything of the sort. If each generation outputs better productivity per worker such that the rate of change of productivity is greater than the rate of change of gross old age pension growth, then you don't need as many workers as previously.


Whether true or not, that isn't solving the problem of aging demographics by importing young people.

This is actually one of the alternatives suggested by Ven. Kwan Tam Woo.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21927

Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#72  Postby Bernoulli » Sep 09, 2016 9:01 am

I just explained how it is a possible solution.

In reality you aren't going to rely on one approach alone. Australia dealt well with the aging demographic bubble by increasing skilled migration, and paying people to pop out babies. Like most neoliberal countries, though, we could do a hell of a lot better on cracking down on major tax avoidance and cutting corporate welfare. If that was done too, then we could afford to simply pay more out of the general budget towards the aged pension.
User avatar
Bernoulli
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 901

Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#73  Postby Thommo » Sep 09, 2016 9:36 am

Bernoulli wrote:I just explained how it is a possible solution.


Whether or not that is the case, it's still not a solution to the problem of ageing demographics by importing young people.

I think you may have misread the sentences you quoted to disagree with.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21927

Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#74  Postby Bernoulli » Sep 09, 2016 9:40 am

If so, then I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know why you introduced "young people" (unless someone else brought it up and I missed it). I've been talking about skilled immigration.
User avatar
Bernoulli
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 901

Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#75  Postby Thommo » Sep 09, 2016 4:51 pm

Bernoulli wrote:If so, then I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know why you introduced "young people" (unless someone else brought it up and I missed it). I've been talking about skilled immigration.


Yes, people of working age, i.e. young, that's what I referred to. You cannot solve the problem of ageing demography that way. All you can do is postpone it. Because those people are also ageing, they will eventually retire and have the same entitlements.

To fix the problem of ageing demographics you need to reach the point where demographics are no longer ageing, or have eternal exponential population growth. To "balance the books" you need contributions to social security to be set at a level such that a non-growing working population which is becoming a retired population at the replacement rate are contributing enough to fund the full retirements of all those retiring.

If any part of the solution to the problem is to have additional workers (whether born or immigrated) in order to fund retirement, that results in exponential growth because it's a pyramid scheme - the payout per individual exceeds the contribution per individual (after adjustment for inflation and growth).

Having productivity increase indefinitely is a different solution, because productivity per worker is a different variable than number of workers.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21927

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#76  Postby tuco » Sep 09, 2016 6:26 pm

Actually, all .. you .. need is to postpone the problem till it will solve itself through technological progress.
tuco
 
Posts: 13776

Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#77  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Sep 09, 2016 6:27 pm

tuco wrote:Actually, all .. you .. need is postpone the problem till it will solve itself by technological progress.

Nice. Let's just hand off all our problems to the kids rather than being grown-ups and dealing with our own shit.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 42
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#78  Postby tuco » Sep 09, 2016 6:29 pm

Well, there is no other solution.
tuco
 
Posts: 13776

Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#79  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Sep 09, 2016 6:33 pm

tuco wrote:Well, there is no other solution.

The solution you propose isn't a solution at all. Do you know that there is a technology that'll bail us out of this mess if we don't do anything? Or are you simply willing to wager the lives of future generations because, fuck it, it's not like it's your life on the line?

There are really quite simple solutions to human overpopulation: Improve the quality of life for humans all over the planet. And we could do that with existing technology. All it takes is for us to stop being irresponsible assholes- basically the sort of people who leave people in the future to clean up after the messes we make today.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 42
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Human Overpopulation: How can it be Curbed and Reduced.

#80  Postby tuco » Sep 09, 2016 6:35 pm

What? :) Who is talking about overpopulation? We are talking about ageing population. Go back to sleep bro.
tuco
 
Posts: 13776

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Biological Sciences

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest