rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

This is going to happen anyway, almost certainly in Africa and definately in the western world. This will have nothing to do with the problem of getting rid of sewage using water, and everything to do with the world running out of minable phosphate rock.

So, onto step two, enable migration, and step three, local institutional reform.

Enable migration out of Africa? Bad idea.

Why's it a bad idea?

Because it will just export a problem that almost everybody else wants to export at the same time. Almost everywhere is already overpopulated. We are heading towards a new era where the process of globalisation goes into reverse. At all levels, from nations to individual people, we are going to have to become much more self-reliant and less reliant on the global system. Therefore we need to resist large migrations of people, although it is inevitably going to happen anyway.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:It's not the number of humans that is the problem necessarily, it is the level of consumption of a small part of them (and the potential level of consumption of the others going into the future)

It's both. Too many people, nearly all of whom want to improve their living standards.

Does. Not. Add. Up.

Sure, but gross population isn't the primary concern at present. It's overcomsumption in the west.

False dichotomy. Both are extremely severe problems in their own right.

No. Overpopulation isn't presently a threat to global civilisation. It probably will become that, but that's besides the point, as I mentioned, because it is the Western world's consumption that has driven us to the precipice of a giant cliff, and it is it that is continuing to push us over. African population just shouldn't even be on the radar at the moment. There's no need for threads and discussion about Africa when the West is raping and pillaging the planet and it's people right before our eyes. We should focus all efforts on this problem, not distractions like the African problem.

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

This is going to happen anyway, almost certainly in Africa and definately in the western world. This will have nothing to do with the problem of getting rid of sewage using water, and everything to do with the world running out of minable phosphate rock.

So, onto step two, enable migration, and step three, local institutional reform.

Enable migration out of Africa? Bad idea.

False; it's a great idea. Which aspects do you think are problematic? It increases living standards, removes people from problem areas and problem cultures.

And puts them where?

I'm speaking from the UK, which is horribly overcrowded and only 80% self-sufficient in food.

kiore wrote:Let them die of in famines etc I see written, an appealing thought to have wnen far away while eating your dinner, but it is not clear that any but the most massive famines really decrease the population that much and may actually encourage a spike in population as people recover.

Exactly. It's a self-centered view that justifies inaction on incorrect utilitarian calculations.

kiore wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Emmeline wrote:According to stats I've seen (mainly from Hans Rosling) a key factor in reducing family numbers is increasing child survival rates. Other key factors are of course better education and availability of contraception.

Right. So we solve an IMMEDIATE overpopulation problem by trying to reduce infant mortality?

I'm struggling with the logic here.

It seems you are struggling with logic here, try this, why did people in other countries stop having the large families of just a few generations ago?

You're missing the point. That was at a time when a massive expansion in the human population was still possible. Large parts of the globe were relatively uninhabited, or at least were only inhabited by aboriginal populations who had no voice and didn't matter (better off dead, so we might as well shoot them, so thought the British about native Australians.)

This...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/0 ... y-MIT-team



...is the problem.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

So, onto step two, enable migration, and step three, local institutional reform.

Enable migration out of Africa? Bad idea.

Why's it a bad idea?

Because it will just export a problem that almost everybody else wants to export at the same time. Almost everywhere is already overpopulated.

Not quite. We are already overconsumptive. If that migration just leads to more consumption of resources (and consequent CO2 output) then it is indeed a possibly pointless excercise. But if they are working in service industries, then perhaps the problems isn't as big as you might think it is.

I think humans are the only species that has reached a stage where nature isn't allowed to take its course when it comes to overpopulation.
We're horrified by images of saucer-eyed starving children on TV adverts, without considering for a moment what would happen in those areas if we could indeed "fix the problem" with the wave of a wand.
Those places are already overpopulated or just plain can;t support the number of people with the arable land available. If we ship in food aid and try and fix the food production problem with agricultural help, what would we achieve?

People there would see the situation improve, more food available, so they'd naturally start to have more kids. You can see it with animal populations, such as the kangaroos in Australia. Since the flood season early last year, numbers in my state alone have boomed up to an estimated 10 million of the big hopping buggers. Now, the paddocks are still full of fodder...there has been sufficient rain through the last year to keep the grass nicely plodding along. However, in this country drought of a savage and merciless nature is a natural part of the environment along with the floods. When the drought times inevitably come again, the kangaroos will die off in their millions, to the angst of environmentalists in the city who think this is unnatural. They have suggested in the past ideas like food drops and getting farmers to open paddocks up so they can have a feed. However, kangaroos are an opportunistic breeder...in poor times, they can do amazing things like "pause" the gestation process or even go so far as to reabsorb an embryo. In good times, they will switch everything back on and start breeding in large numbers very quickly.

Humans should have the advanced brain to realise that if times are tough, you shouldn't start having lots of kids. If things get better briefly, maybe you should wait to see if it's a permanent thing or just a passing phase of good times before having more kids. But unfortunately some humans seem to be "opportunistic breeders", and just keep on having kids in the depserate hope that it will somehow lift them out of poverty and into prosperity, and that if things get tough, some soft hearted people will just start feeding them, allowing their children to live and thrive and breed their own children to carry the cycle on.

How to fix it? I've got no idea. The "natural" solution is unpalatable to everyone. But on the other hand surely we can't just keep on sending endless aid to areas that just don't get better.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:Enable migration out of Africa? Bad idea.

False; it's a great idea. Which aspects do you think are problematic? It increases living standards, removes people from problem areas and problem cultures. It's functionally nearly identical to local institutional reform, which you thought was a great idea.

And puts them where?

The US, Europe, Canada, the Gulf states, Japan, pretty much anywhere they'd like to go. The UK being overcrowded is a subjective assessment, and it being "only 80% self-sufficient in food" is irrelevant.

johnbrandt wrote:How to fix it? I've got no idea. The "natural" solution is unpalatable to everyone. But on the other hand surely we can't just keep on sending endless aid to areas that just don't get better.

Let them exchange their labor for money in other countries, and let them send their own aid home if they like.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

kiore wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Emmeline wrote:According to stats I've seen (mainly from Hans Rosling) a key factor in reducing family numbers is increasing child survival rates. Other key factors are of course better education and availability of contraception.

Right. So we solve an IMMEDIATE overpopulation problem by trying to reduce infant mortality?

I'm struggling with the logic here.

It seems you are struggling with logic here, try this, why did people in other countries stop having the large families of just a few generations ago?

You're missing the point. That was at a time when a massive expansion in the human population was still possible. Large parts of the globe were relatively uninhabited, or at least were only inhabited by aboriginal populations who had no voice and didn't matter (better off dead, so we might as well shoot them, so thought the British about native Australians.)

This...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/0 ... y-MIT-team



...is the problem.

Immediate in the case of human populations is not tomorrow type immediate but as fast as possible, really unless you are intent on violently reducing the population by force a generation is what it takes. If you want to go down that road why stop at Africa? As you note the UK is only 80% self sufficient in food.. so why not start eliminating there? Or do you live there and better to suggest it for far away places.
BTW your charcterization of the Australian situation lacks accuraccy to say the least.
edit: for a primer to Australian history perhaps this book is useful: http://books.google.com/books/about/The ... T3CuOmPmEC

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

It's both. Too many people, nearly all of whom want to improve their living standards.

Does. Not. Add. Up.

Sure, but gross population isn't the primary concern at present. It's overcomsumption in the west.

False dichotomy. Both are extremely severe problems in their own right.

No. Overpopulation isn't presently a threat to global civilisation.

It is THE threat to global civilisation. It's Number One.

It probably will become that, but that's besides the point, as I mentioned, because it is the Western world's consumption that has driven us to the precipice of a giant cliff, and it is it that is continuing to push us over. African population just shouldn't even be on the radar at the moment. There's no need for threads and discussion about Africa when the West is raping and pillaging the planet and it's people right before our eyes. We should focus all efforts on this problem, not distractions like the African problem.

We need to consider both. The whole system stinks from top to bottom, and "we" are responsible for dealing with the top. That's what "Occupy" is all about, and in terms of what we should be actively doing, bringing down capitalism as we know it (or helping it on its way, because its doomed anyway) is it. However, none of this makes any difference to the fact that the number one problem facing humanity is that there are too many humans on this planet and we've left it too late to solve that problem without a catastrophe happening on a scale unknown never seen before. Your resistance to accepting what I'm saying is indicative of why we've left it too late. We don't want to think about this. We don't want to face up to the inconvenient truth that we have a major overpopulation problem, so we don't talk about it. This is true even of most of the green movement, including its leaders.

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Enable migration out of Africa? Bad idea.

Why's it a bad idea?

Because it will just export a problem that almost everybody else wants to export at the same time. Almost everywhere is already overpopulated.

Not quite. We are already overconsumptive.

Do you think it is going to be possible to convince everybody to become a vegetarian and give up owning cars?

Loren Michael wrote: The UK being overcrowded is a subjective assessment, and it being "only 80% self-sufficient in food" is irrelevant.

The UK is horribly overcrowded. Horribly. Anyone who thinks otherwise either doesn't live here, or is lost in idealism.

I know my home territory very well, Loren. I live in one of the most severely overpopulated regions of Europe and my job is teaching people to forage for wild food.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

MacIver wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

MacIver wrote:On the issue of foreign aid being lost because of corruption and when it does get through it doing more harm than good... in many cases this is what happens.

But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we concentrated on the basics like education (teach a man to fish) and maybe got NGOs to distribute the funds instead of giving them directly to governments (which I admit, in itself may cause problems) we may see better results. For me, foreign aid isn't purely an altruistic ideal, as the more developed Africa is, the more stable it'll be... and that be good for all of us.

And what, given the post-empire history of sub-saharan Africa, gives you reason to hope that Africa is going to become more developed? Africa is not progressing. At best, it is going sideways.

I don't really find sweeping statements like that useful to be honest. Africa is a huge place with a wide variety of circumstances. I've been to Africa - Madagascar and Kenya, and I've volunteered there, working on both conservation and humanitarian projects. And whilst my experience is limited to a few towns and a handful of villages I have seen first hand the improvement and progression possible. It all starts with the kids. The better educated they are, the more likely they are to improve their communities and their countries. The more you teach them of the natural world, the less likely they are to destroy it. The more likely they are to break the cycle of corrupt elites sucking the potential from the people and the environment.

These kids, in my experience, want to learn.

Of course they do. They are humans.

They want to improve themselves and their world. All they need is a chance, and I think they deserve it.

Yes, they deserve it. In an ideal world, all humans should have the same opportunities and rights to self-determination. But this isn't an ideal world. It is a world in overshoot, where the entire global economic system is busted because it does not recognise the physical limits to growth. This changes the ethical landscape. In the longer term, those parts of the world to emerge first from the coming catastrophe will be those that most quickly become independently self-sustainable (or close to). And I honestly believe that in sub-saharan Africa, the quickest way this will occur is if we get the hell out of there and let them face their own future on their own terms and solve their own problems their way.

What right does the western world, which is systematically destroying the global ecosystem, have to impose their "system" on a part of the world which is not systematically destroying the global ecosystem? Our way doesn't work either. Our way breaks the planet.

You seem to have some idealised opinion of African society. With the exception of a tiny majority of tribals most people, at least in the areas I've been have been to are doing significant damage to the environment and the ecosystem. They drive big cars and tucks (and can afford to do so because of the cheap fuel prices) that are ancient and unleash Christ knows how much carbon-per-mile. They employ destructive fishing techniques that strip the seabed clean. Pollution is everywhere and and is ignored by the authorities - because frankly even if the authorities are not inherently corrupt they have other more immediate problems to fret over. They have the same "capitalistic-infinite-growth-with-finite-resources mentality" that we do, it's only their system are even less efficient and more damaging.

The Western capitalistic system and ideals are not western in nature, they are human in nature. The West just so happened to be the first to put them into practice. There is no difference between us and them, not beyond the superficial level anyway. The only difference is because their society is a few decades behind ours they have a chance to learn from our mistakes. What right do we have to be there you ask? None. But if they want us there then what right to we have to say no?

kiore wrote:
Immediate in the case of human populations is not tomorrow type immediate but as fast as possible, really unless you are intent on violently reducing the population by force a generation is what it takes. If you want to go down that road why stop at Africa?

I have never advocated violence or reducing the population by force. I advocated leaving the least sustainable parts of the world alone, so a natural balance can be restored. This is not the same thing.

As you note the UK is only 80% self sufficient in food.. so why not start eliminating there? Or do you live there and better to suggest it for far away places.

When the full force of the monetary/economic crisis eventually hits home, I suspect the UK is going to become a very unpleasant place to live. We are going to be hit very badly, and most of us are totally unsuspecting and totally unprepared.

The laws of nature apply to us too.

BTW your charcterization of the Australian situation lacks accuraccy to say the least.
edit: for a primer to Australian history perhaps this book is useful: http://books.google.com/books/about/The ... T3CuOmPmEC

It was the cartoon version, but not unrepresentative of what happened. I have a ten-volume Children's Encyclopedia dating back to just before WWI. In it it says exactly what I just said - that the natives of Australia were so wretched and backwards that in some cases a decision was taken to "put them out of their misery."

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

Why's it a bad idea?

Because it will just export a problem that almost everybody else wants to export at the same time. Almost everywhere is already overpopulated.

Not quite. We are already overconsumptive.

Do you think it is going to be possible to convince everybody to become a vegetarian and give up owning cars?

Not actually necessary. You defend your position by painting the alternative as being necessarily extreme; it's not. People could be convinced to eat more sustainably and use more efficient means of transportation. Urbanization tends to help with both of those, which is happening already, and effective legislation (like a carbon tax) would help as well.

MacIver wrote:

You seem to have some idealised opinion of African society. With the exception of a tiny majority of tribals most people, at least in the areas I've been have been to are doing significant damage to the environment and the ecosystem. They drive big cars and tucks (and can afford to do so because of the cheap fuel prices) that are ancient and unleash Christ knows how much carbon-per-mile. They employ destructive fishing techniques that strip the seabed clean. Pollution is everywhere and and is ignored by the authorities - because frankly even if the authorities are not inherently corrupt they have other more immediate problems to fret over. They have the same "capitalistic-infinite-growth-with-finite-resources mentality" that we do, it's only their system are even less efficient and more damaging.

Fair enough, yes.

The Western capitalistic system and ideals are not western in nature, they are human in nature.

I don't agree. I think that's a lie that is peddled by political right-wingers. Yes, capitalism takes advantage of the natural human tendency to be motivated by greed, but this is not our natural state. Our natural state is tribal, or village-based, and based on trust and honour, not greed.

The West just so happened to be the first to put them into practice. There is no difference between us and them, not beyond the superficial level anyway. The only difference is because their society is a few decades behind ours they have a chance to learn from our mistakes. What right do we have to be there you ask? None. But if they want us there then what right to we have to say no?

Do they want us there? I seem to remember them kicking us out because they wanted to govern themselves.

Loren Michael wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Because it will just export a problem that almost everybody else wants to export at the same time. Almost everywhere is already overpopulated.

Not quite. We are already overconsumptive.

Do you think it is going to be possible to convince everybody to become a vegetarian and give up owning cars?

Not actually necessary. You defend your position by painting the alternative as being necessarily extreme;

No. My position is based on hard science. Yours is lost in idealism.

it's not. People could be convinced to eat more sustainably and use more efficient means of transportation.

See: Jevon's paradox.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

kiore wrote:
Immediate in the case of human populations is not tomorrow type immediate but as fast as possible, really unless you are intent on violently reducing the population by force a generation is what it takes. If you want to go down that road why stop at Africa?

I have never advocated violence or reducing the population by force. I advocated leaving the least sustainable parts of the world alone, so a natural balance can be restored. This is not the same thing.

Allowing a person to die through inaction and killing that person are not appreciably all that different. Advocacy of the former is often tantamount to the latter. Allowing a child to drown in a shallow pond when you have the opportunity to save it is not meaningfully different in utilitarian terms from drowning it yourself.

Causing people to die in Sub-Saharan Africa through inaction as opposed to violence is a way to conserve bullets and bombs while accomplishing the same goal that bullets and bombs would do. It's not a means to reduce suffering, it's a means to conserve munitions.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

MacIver wrote:

You seem to have some idealised opinion of African society. With the exception of a tiny majority of tribals most people, at least in the areas I've been have been to are doing significant damage to the environment and the ecosystem. They drive big cars and tucks (and can afford to do so because of the cheap fuel prices) that are ancient and unleash Christ knows how much carbon-per-mile. They employ destructive fishing techniques that strip the seabed clean. Pollution is everywhere and and is ignored by the authorities - because frankly even if the authorities are not inherently corrupt they have other more immediate problems to fret over. They have the same "capitalistic-infinite-growth-with-finite-resources mentality" that we do, it's only their system are even less efficient and more damaging.

Fair enough, yes.

The Western capitalistic system and ideals are not western in nature, they are human in nature.

I don't agree. I think that's a lie that is peddled by political right-wingers. Yes, capitalism takes advantage of the natural human tendency to be motivated by greed, but this is not our natural state. Our natural state is tribal, or village-based, and based on trust and honour, not greed.

I agree completely. But the tribal based society only works with tribal sized numbers. If you want to advocate we return to that then although I don't see how it's possible to instigate on a global scale I would support your goal 100% (it's been a dream of mine since my teens to fuck off to a commune and never come back! ). But the moment you start dealing with numbers in excess of a few hundred, or a minimum a few thousand then greed and pettiness come back with a vengeance, and thus capitalism is a natural state. Insomuch as it feeds of our natural states and is the path of least resistance. That's not to say I think we should just accept this.

The West just so happened to be the first to put them into practice. There is no difference between us and them, not beyond the superficial level anyway. The only difference is because their society is a few decades behind ours they have a chance to learn from our mistakes. What right do we have to be there you ask? None. But if they want us there then what right to we have to say no?

Do they want us there? I seem to remember them kicking us out because they wanted to govern themselves.

Of course they don't want us ruling them, I don't even want us ruling us. But some of them want us helping them. I'm not pretending when I volunteered for NGOs in Africa I did it for purely altruistic reasons. When I came back my both times my head was five times the size it should be and I was a smug little, self important cunt. But I really think that I did good over there. And that I was appreciated.

As I said, education is what matters. And sure, I spent a lot of time teaching English, maths and the basics like that. But what I'm most proud of is working with the fishermen of a small village south of Toliara on the west coast of Madagascar and convincing them to use nets with a larger weave. But we also spent a lot time with the kids of that village explaining in detail the life cycle and ecosystem of the reefs. So we had to convince the fishermen of the advantages of larger weaved nets. But the next generation of fishermen will know the benefits.