Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Frightening Reports From South of the Saharan

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#161  Postby UndercoverElephant » Apr 16, 2012 9:58 pm

Ben Six wrote:Here's a graph of countries by birth rate and here's a graph of countries by female literacy. There's a pretty strong correlation there: Somalia, Niger and Burkina Faso, for example, are among the top ten in the first graph and bottom in the second. I agree that education is vital, then, but it's not as simple as that because, for one thing, such countries are among the most highly religious in the world and often have prejudices against women having any ambition than child-bearing. To lower their birth rates, then, they need significant cultural shifts that can't be imposed from outside. (One only as to look at Iraq or Afghanistan to grasp the failure of such ambitions.)


I think [edit: hope] everybody here agrees with that.
Last edited by UndercoverElephant on Apr 16, 2012 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
UndercoverElephant
 
Posts: 6626
Age: 55
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#162  Postby UndercoverElephant » Apr 16, 2012 10:18 pm

MacIver wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
MacIver wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:

But it relies on the cities importing resource from outside. As things stand, "outside" means the whole planet, via a fossil-fuel based global transport system.


Yes, but a decentralised civilisation would require even more energy.


How can eliminating the need for massive amount of long-range transport and of goods and people require more energy?


Because decentralisation doesn't eliminate the need for massive amount of long-range transport and of goods and people, it increases the need for it. Unless you're stating that people are just going to stop requiring/requesting/demanding complex electronics, metal, plastic, artificial fabrics and a whole host of other goods that cannot be made locally.


I think our priorities are going to change. I think that a lot of people in the UK who currently demand, for example, the latest complex electronics, are going to find themselves very seriously worrying about how they are going to afford to heat their homes and keep their cars on the road.



And with non-urbanised populations you see the fertility rate rise but with urbanised ones you see it fall. If one it truly concerned about population rise in my opinion one must wholeheartedly support the urbanisation of the planet.


I don't think that is going to work.


You don't think what's going to work? It's an indisputable fact that the more urbanised a society the lower its birthrate, whether we look at the Developed world or the Developing one.


I don't think further urbanisation is going to solve our sustainability problems. Yes it lowers the birthrate, but it raises the both the amount of consumption and the dependence on a doomed global economic system.

Having mulled it over, that video you linked to causes a mixed reaction in me. What I've said about dependence on imported resources and tendency towards increased consumption are true, but it is also true that this a solution coming from the people which is outside of the existing global economic system. And that is definately a good thing. Bottom-up solutions of this sort are to be welcomed. But there is a weak link in this chain, and it is dependence on free market food and energy prices.


Ah, I see. You're predicting a near apocalyptic event which will fundamentally change society. I don't necessarily see it as a certainty.


I am indeed predicting an apocalyptic event which will fundamentally change society, and if you don't see it as certain then you might want to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2oyU0Ru ... ure=relmfu

Dennis Meadows (one of the original authors of the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth") on why it is too late for sustainable development.


But for the sake of argument lets say these "die-offs" are possible, or even likely. Then what happens?


That's what we are currently playing for. What happens will be determined by what human being make happen. Our decisions now and in the coming decades.


We go back to an rural agriculture society and again see a massive increase in fertility rates instead of the levelling off we're currently seeing? We just enter another cycle of urbanisation/decentralisation? People won't be any more accepting of short lives toiling away in the fields in the future than they are now. And I'm not confident that our species has the gumption to learn from history, we haven't shown any evidence of it so far.


We cannot return to the past. We aren't going "back" anywhere, be it the stone age or something resembling the lifestyle of the Amish; we're going forwards to somewhere unknown. All I know for sure is that our choices as a society will probably be better if as many people as possible have as good an understanding as possible of what is happening, why it is happening and what the possible options are from here. Education is critical, as we have agreed.

Nobody has The Solution, because this is a predicament, not a problem. But predicaments still need to be responded to, even if they have no solutions. All I am saying is that unless we recognise overpopulation as the number one problem, our responses are likely to be sub-optimal.


If you had kept watching the video (or even better read Whole Earth Discipline) you would of seen that there are solutions to the food problem, the main being GM crops.


GM crops which are resistant to herbicides made by megacorporations from oil?

GM crops which bust the laws of physics?

GM is helpful in certain situations, less helpful in others, potentially harmful in still more, and will make no more than a small dent in the overall problem. The problem isn't that we can't grow enough food, but that we can't accept that we have to stop growing the entire human operation on earth. There's no point in focusing on just one issue - food, energy, climate, etc... There is an overall problem with too many humans doing too much stuff, consuming too many resources and producing too much waste. GM crops can't solve that problem. All they can do is delay the inevitable and end up making it worse.


Add significantly increased yields with the same input of water and energy to the fact that worldwide urbanisation will see a tapering off of the population increase, and eventual population decline you'll see there are solutions that do not require billions of people dying off.


I wish I could believe that. It would make my life a whole lot easier. :(
UndercoverElephant
 
Posts: 6626
Age: 55
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#163  Postby johnbrandt » Apr 16, 2012 10:44 pm

Sometimes I think the whole thing is so big a problem that most people throw a few bucks in the collection tin in the street and forget about it. There are countries where kids need to go out and do some sort of work to help support their families from very young ages instead of, as out children do, have the luxury of lazing about in school and university until they are twenty years old. It's a concept so alien to most westerners that there is a vast network of charities involved in trying to get these kids to stay in school. Now, that's a perfectly good target...but it doesn't ask the awkward question of "what is the family supposed to do for the extra income that those children would have been bringing in to the house just to help them survive?". To them, a child sitting in school until they are fifteen or more years old is unproductive. They only see another mouth to feed who isn't contributing in (in their eyes) any real way to the family. Yes, when the kid is educated, they will have better prospects for work and bring in a lot more money than they would have collecting scrap as a child on rubbish dumps, but the families in those countries just don't seem to see things in the long term.
This could link to the problems of overpopulation...if you tell those people "hey, if you stop having kids you'll be far better off in the future", they will turn around and want to know how that helps them now. They're probably more worried about the day to day of surviving now than what they could be like in ten or twenty years time.

Lots of interesting graphs and facts and figures here...but it still seems like one of those things that just might be too big a problem to fix. It can be maintained (ie: continuous and never ending foreign aid) , but probably not solved.
"One could spend their life looking for the perfect cherry blossom...and it would not be a wasted life"
User avatar
johnbrandt
 
Posts: 4040
Age: 59
Male

Country: Oztralia, ya fahn cahn
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#164  Postby UndercoverElephant » Apr 16, 2012 10:57 pm

johnbrandt wrote:It can be maintained (ie: continuous and never ending foreign aid) , but probably not solved.


Could.
UndercoverElephant
 
Posts: 6626
Age: 55
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#165  Postby johnbrandt » Apr 16, 2012 11:27 pm

UndercoverElephant wrote:
johnbrandt wrote:It can be maintained (ie: continuous and never ending foreign aid) , but probably not solved.


Could.


Thank you. That's probably better.
I often wonder if it almost seems a "competition" between charity agencies sometimes that gets in the way of real work on the ground. I know there are good charities who put the people first and provide aid in the form of technical help and assistance instead of just throwing money at them (and these, if any, are the only ones I will donate to), but a lot of the smaller ones just seem to spend large sums on endless TV adverts, each trying to out-do the other with emotive imagery, to get you to send cash cash and more cash! This creates charity burnout in a lot of the public and they end up just switching off.

Again, not sure how this could be controlled either.
"One could spend their life looking for the perfect cherry blossom...and it would not be a wasted life"
User avatar
johnbrandt
 
Posts: 4040
Age: 59
Male

Country: Oztralia, ya fahn cahn
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#166  Postby UndercoverElephant » Apr 16, 2012 11:37 pm

johnbrandt wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
johnbrandt wrote:It can be maintained (ie: continuous and never ending foreign aid) , but probably not solved.


Could.


Thank you. That's probably better.
I often wonder if it almost seems a "competition" between charity agencies sometimes that gets in the way of real work on the ground. I know there are good charities who put the people first and provide aid in the form of technical help and assistance instead of just throwing money at them (and these, if any, are the only ones I will donate to), but a lot of the smaller ones just seem to spend large sums on endless TV adverts, each trying to out-do the other with emotive imagery, to get you to send cash cash and more cash! This creates charity burnout in a lot of the public and they end up just switching off.

Again, not sure how this could be controlled either.


The charities are mainly addressing tactical problems anyway. I think this debate is about long-term global strategy, not tactics.
UndercoverElephant
 
Posts: 6626
Age: 55
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#167  Postby rEvolutionist » Apr 17, 2012 12:15 am

UndercoverElephant wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:

Once again, in your opinion. And in your post just prior to this one, you accepted that it was my absolute belief that overconsumption was is the big problem, and yet here you are again asserting dubious actions to my comments. Are you that stubborn that you can't accept that you are presenting an unevidenced opinion, and that other people can honestly have different opinions to you?


I think your opinion is mis-informed and dangerous.

From my point of view, you are attempting to downplay the most serious problem humans have ever or will ever face. It is therefore my moral duty to attack that opinion.


Good for you. But you should try and back it up with some evidence. Just bleating X repeatedly and saying Y is wrong, is just silly.


How many times do I have to post that graph before you take it as valid evidence?


That graph doesn't say anything about overpopulation being the problem. It's just one of many metrics on that graph. What are you talking about? :scratch:
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#168  Postby rEvolutionist » Apr 17, 2012 12:20 am

UndercoverElephant wrote:
MacIver wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:

But it relies on the cities importing resource from outside. As things stand, "outside" means the whole planet, via a fossil-fuel based global transport system.


Yes, but a decentralised civilisation would require even more energy.


How can eliminating the need for massive amount of long-range transport and of goods and people require more energy?


You're confusing globalisation with population dynamics. Why are you assuming that globalisation would just go away if people would only just move out of the cities and decenteralise? :scratch: The two are totally seperate issues.


And with non-urbanised populations you see the fertility rate rise but with urbanised ones you see it fall. If one it truly concerned about population rise in my opinion one must wholeheartedly support the urbanisation of the planet.


I don't think that is going to work.


What are you talking about? It DOES work. All the metrics support it.
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#169  Postby rEvolutionist » Apr 17, 2012 12:29 am

Acetone wrote:
No you're not. You're fucking imputing motive where there is none. You are engaging in mind reading and you are getting it wrong. So stop doing it.

Oh how Ironic.

And don't forget, they're "stupid" too. They deserve it.
Don't play these games and then cry when someone else does it to you.

Here's what I actually said.
they want to be stupid then they can be stupid without international aid. I'm sure within a year the population problem there will be fixed.
Which in context of the posts my opinion is clear. 'Fix the problem or face the consequences'. So after all other attempts are depleted the drastic measure (instead of an occupation) at the end would be removing all foreign aid from the region or at least those countries that continue to not fix the problem.
I then FURTHER made my opinion clear that this is a matter of POLICY makers and their POLICIES being stupid and not the citizens and that the act of removing foreign aid has as a CLEAR motive to make the citizenry see how big a problem it actually is and FORCE their governments to change. International backlash, internal backlash, both of which would lead to change. This has a cost advantage over an occupation AND it'd probably not kill as many people. (think about it, if they pushed the situation far enough for an OCCUPATION to occur by international forces it's PRETTY DAMN CLEAR that they won't just let you come into their country and occupy it, this would be an act of war and we all know how these occupations turn out.)

Not once did I say Africans right now are stupid OR that they deserve anything. So fuck you?


Lol. It's clear the context you and all of us were speaking in was in regards to individual citizens having too many babies. Yes, I know you qualified your statement later, but that was after you were called out for making a disgusting comment about "stupid" people. And to be clear, it's not just the "stupid" comment which has riled some people up. It's the overall tone of your post and the attitude of 'fuck 'em, i've got mine'. Consigning hundreds of millions of people to the scrap heap is a disgusting ideology and it has rightfully been called out as such.
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#170  Postby Acetone » Apr 17, 2012 12:37 am

So your response is to keep at what you just bitched at Undercover about?
Acetone
 
Posts: 5440
Age: 35
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#171  Postby rEvolutionist » Apr 17, 2012 12:42 am

No. Perhpas you should reread what he's been saying to me. He's agreed in one post that my motives are pure and it's my absolute belief that overconsumption is the problem, but then he goes right on to impute motives in the following posts. I've never said I think your "stupid" comment was how you are claiming it is. I think it was aimed at the people, and therefore I'll continue to say that whilever you bring it up.

And I should add, Acetone, (after reading JB's post above and being reminded what he previously posted) that the "stupid" comment wasn't only aimed at you.
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#172  Postby Warren Dew » Apr 17, 2012 1:00 am

kiore wrote:http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,8;journal,138,166;linkingpublicationresults,1:300313,1
Kerala is a small, densely crowded state in South India. It is a poor state, even by Indian standards. Its per capita income of US$80 lies well below the all-India average of US$120, and it suffers from the lowest per capita caloric intake in India. Nevertheless, Kerala has managed to achieve the demographic transition from high (premodern) to low (modern) birth and death rates-something no other Indian state has been able to attain. Indeed, the magnitude of Kerala's fertility decline-the birth rate fell from 39 in 1961 to 26.5 in 1974-has never before been observed in a nation with comparable levels of income and undernutrition. Other indices of Kerala's social development are equally surprising: levels of literacy, life expectancy, female education, and age at marriage are the highest in India, while mortality rates, including infant and child mortality, are the lowest among Indian states.


The Kerala effect may be overstated but increasing the autonomy and educational levels of women in conjunction with decreasing infant and child mortality seem effective strategies not only reducing population growth and improving the health outcomes in general, they also seem the most humane response to this issue.

How do we know that those are the causative factors, though? How do we know the primary causative factor isn't the fact they they had "the lowest per capita caloric intake in India"?

I'd suggest that all the factors are relevant. Kerala likely achieved such an early demographic transition specifically because inability to afford food increases the cost of having children and thus accelerates the shift to lower fertility. If the woman knows she can't afford to feed more than a couple of kids anyway, then it's not such a sacrifice to delay marriage to get more education first.
User avatar
Warren Dew
 
Posts: 5550
Age: 64
Male

Country: Somerville, MA, USA
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#173  Postby UtilityMonster » Apr 17, 2012 1:12 am

Wiðercora wrote:
Well, I imagine that any invasion would lead to numerous casualties.


I think the occupations would be agreed upon by the general population if they entailed substantial sums of aid, which I have also consistently advocated for.

Now, in those nations where the government refuses to implement population control measures and the citizens oppose occupation by the UN, I would not advocate waging war. Rather, apply economic sanctions until the nations come around. Trust me, it wouldn't take long. When I talk about taking control of each nations' government, I am not advocating making the nations police states. It wouldn't involve putting a number of troops on the ground as seen in places like Iraq. It would only involve disposing the leadership and controlling from there, using already existing structures, such as the police force and the like.

Loren Michael wrote:

I think it's a lot easier than you think, to the extent that there's a problem at all.

Low hanging fruit = fixing the toilet problem and reducing the barriers to migration.

Higher-hanging fruit - insofar as it's not clear how it would/should be accomplished - would be local institutional reform.


No, it is obviously not a lot easier than I think. If it was, we would have seen some measure of progress. We haven't. Humans are actually quite adept at solving simple problems. I agree with the two articles you linked, but so? That isn't going to be a panacea by any means. Drastic measures are needed - now.

Loren Michael wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:We have to accept basic fact #1: THERE ARE ALREADY TOO MANY HUMANS ON THIS PLANET.


The basic fact is that there is inefficient organization and utilization of the humans that are here, not that there are too many. Basic fact number two is that there is a network of collective action problems that keep inefficient organizational policy in place.


The fact that we have not been able to organize humans to live environmentally sustainable lives at this point means that there are too many people. Both the lack of organization and total size of the population are problems. Fixing either one would solve the problem. I suggest making changes to both. You think we should only adjust the organization of society? Why not prevent people from being born who are not going to contribute meaningfully to the world and who are inevitably going to suffer greatly? Jared Diamond argues that wars and genocide are often caused by overpopulation - I'm inclined to agree. As we pack 300 million people in Nigeria, we will wonder whether we should have just nipped this problem in the bud. By then it will be too little, too late, because people like you claimed that things would just solve themselves.

I'm not suggesting there is going to be some massive catastrophe, just that the average level of human well-being will be lower if we do not attempt to reduce population growth by all reasonable means on the continent of Africa.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
AndreD wrote:The best option would be to withdraw all aid to Africa and let natural selection have its way.


By far. The best for Africa, and probably the best for us too. But we must also stop meddling in their affairs for own interests (i.e. we must accept that we can't go in and complicate the situation because we want to get our grubby hands on their non-renewable resources.)


No, that will accomplish nothing. Just leaving them alone to deal with the problem themselves is only going to exacerbate things. The populations in Africa are not as high as they are today because we are funding it. States like Nigeria, Botswana, and even places like Sudan are largely self-sustaining. Cutting off all aid would cause a number of deaths, but new people would rapidly fill their places and die as they did.

Also, natural selection does not operate in the time scale of a century or so in homo sapiens. We don't reproduce rapidly enough for it to have any meaningful effect in that time period. Regardless, the idea is brutal. You sound like Herbert Spencer.

rEvolutionist wrote:It's not the number of humans that is the problem necessarily, it is the level of consumption


It is obviously both.
The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"
User avatar
UtilityMonster
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1416
Age: 33
Male

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

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#174  Postby Calilasseia » Apr 17, 2012 1:23 am

A relevant article is this one.

Which also notes that there is a startling correlation between per capita income and controlling family size. To check the data, I went to the CIA World Factbook, and plotted an Excel histogram of fertility versus per capita income. With the exception of a few oil-rich outliers that buck the general trend, the trend is unmistakable. High fertility go hand in hand with perilously low per capita income and grinding poverty.

From that article:

Changes in South Korea and the Philippines present a stark example of how family size plummets when consumers are offered a range of appropriately priced contraceptive options through convenient channels. In 1960 families in both countries had an average of about six children. By 1998 fertility had fallen to 1.7 in South Korea. In the Philippines, though, fertility was
still 3.7, because family-planning help is harder to get there. Economic research strongly suggests that small family size is
a prerequisite to higher per capita income. The difference in fertility rates between South Korea and the Philippines thus
probably goes a long way toward explaining why income in South Korea reached $10,550 per person in 1998, whereas in the Philippines it was only $1,200.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22639
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#175  Postby Acetone » Apr 17, 2012 2:28 am

Calilasseia wrote:A relevant article is this one.

Which also notes that there is a startling correlation between per capita income and controlling family size. To check the data, I went to the CIA World Factbook, and plotted an Excel histogram of fertility versus per capita income. With the exception of a few oil-rich outliers that buck the general trend, the trend is unmistakable. High fertility go hand in hand with perilously low per capita income and grinding poverty.

From that article:

Changes in South Korea and the Philippines present a stark example of how family size plummets when consumers are offered a range of appropriately priced contraceptive options through convenient channels. In 1960 families in both countries had an average of about six children. By 1998 fertility had fallen to 1.7 in South Korea. In the Philippines, though, fertility was
still 3.7, because family-planning help is harder to get there. Economic research strongly suggests that small family size is
a prerequisite to higher per capita income. The difference in fertility rates between South Korea and the Philippines thus
probably goes a long way toward explaining why income in South Korea reached $10,550 per person in 1998, whereas in the Philippines it was only $1,200.

This still leaves the discussion at ground 0, how to get African nations to have lower fertility rates? Sure, once they do this they'll 'prosper' (relatively) but the obstacle is them getting to that point.

Africans have a lot of access to contraceptives and they are easy to obtain... so I don't think this article really fits the situation in areas of concern in Africa.

However, widespread corruption obviously causes lower per capita income and severely puts the population at a disadvantage to change that. Perhaps the correlation doesn't only go low family size --> higher GDP. Perhaps it first goes 'perception to have better GDP --> contraception use --> low family size --> higher GDP'. So attacking the bottom (corruption in Africa which causes them to not perceive the ability to achieve a much higher GDP) would naturally benefit everybody (worldwide; in more than just a feel good sorta way because obviously removing/lowering corruption is good. Assuming the population size in Africa will become a problem).
Acetone
 
Posts: 5440
Age: 35
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#176  Postby rEvolutionist » Apr 17, 2012 3:02 am

UtilityMonster wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:It's not the number of humans that is the problem necessarily, it is the level of consumption


It is obviously both.


How is it obviously both? All that matters is the gross consumption of humans on the planet. It doesn't matter if it is very high consumption with less people, or low consumption with a lot of people. The problem is the level of gross consumption. And that is being contributed most by the developed western world. I agree that the population boom in Africa and India, and the current huge population in China, are serious problems for the future as those people undergo a rise in living standards with an attendant rise in consumption per capita. But for the moment, the real problem is stopping the western individual from consuming the planet right out from under us (including the pollution and environmental degradation that attends that). If we don't do that, it will make little difference whether Africa has 1 billion or 10 billion people. When the west collapses, and with it financial and agricultural/educational aid and natural and processed fertilizers, the African population will inevitably sort itself out anyway. The African people won't be the downfall of our civilisation. It will be the West, long before that. And it's highly likely that disease epidemics will decimate the African population if sanitation and health standards stay low. They almost certainly won't have the opportunity to contribute to the downfall of our civilisation and species. It will be us here in the west that will hold that dubious honour.
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#177  Postby Warren Dew » Apr 17, 2012 3:11 am

MacIver wrote:Because decentralisation doesn't eliminate the need for massive amount of long-range transport and of goods and people, it increases the need for it. Unless you're stating that people are just going to stop requiring/requesting/demanding complex electronics, metal, plastic, artificial fabrics and a whole host of other goods that cannot be made locally.

Most of those items are light weight and thus cheap to transport. Food and furniture account for more of the transportation cost. When we get to the point where we no longer have fuel to transport food long distances - commonly transcontinentally or intercontinentally today - the decentralizing to be closer to the food and materials sources will decrease our ecological footprint.

The developed world may be a long way off from that, but I wouldn't dismiss out of hand the idea that it might make sense for Africa. My concern would be the generally higher fertlity rates of rural populations.
User avatar
Warren Dew
 
Posts: 5550
Age: 64
Male

Country: Somerville, MA, USA
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#178  Postby UtilityMonster » Apr 17, 2012 3:26 am

rEvolutionist wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:It's not the number of humans that is the problem necessarily, it is the level of consumption


It is obviously both.


All that matters is the gross consumption of humans on the planet.


Yes, but we won't take as big of a hit to our consumption patterns on a per capita basis if we reduce the population as well as our consumption, as opposed to just our consumption. I think this means that the average human would be better off, which I think is desirable.

rEvolutionist wrote:
It doesn't matter if it is very high consumption with less people, or low consumption with a lot of people.


Wrong. You are only thinking about environmental impact, not about the well-being of a given individual on the world. Lower consumption typically means worse lifestyle. Also, I just want to preempt any confusion of consumption with waste - most of it is not, especially in developing nations where the most rapid transformations are taking places (and sacrifices will have to be made there as well).

rEvolutionist wrote:
And that is being contributed most by the developed western world.


This is becoming less true every day. China now pollutes more than any other nation on the world, and with rapid development all over the world (save perhaps Africa) the entire world is dramatically increasing the level of pollution.

rEvolutionist wrote:
I agree that the population boom in Africa and India, and the current huge population in China, are serious problems for the future as those people undergo a rise in living standards with an attendant rise in consumption per capita. But for the moment, the real problem is stopping the western individual from consuming the planet right out from under us (including the pollution and environmental degradation that attends that). If we don't do that, it will make little difference whether Africa has 1 billion or 10 billion people. When the west collapses, and with it financial and agricultural/educational aid and natural and processed fertilizers, the African population will inevitably sort itself out anyway. The African people won't be the downfall of our civilisation. It will be the West, long before that. And it's highly likely that disease epidemics will decimate the African population if sanitation and health standards stay low. They almost certainly won't have the opportunity to contribute to the downfall of our civilisation and species. It will be us here in the west that will hold that dubious honour.


Whoa, hold on there. When the West collapses? What kind of conspiracy is this? I don't think a 3 degree Celsius rise in temperature over the course of a century is going to cause collapse (although it would generate a host of problems, no doubt).

Also, it would matter what the population is in Africa. The more people there are, the more suffering there is. It is not a positive development for the world when the poorest, least educated, most violent, least healthy nations are contributing the most to population growth. It makes the world worse off. Plus, there is no doubt that it will only make environmental problems worse. While the West is contributing the most on a per capita basis, why would throwing more fuel in the fire do any good?

So, let me get your position straight. You think we should encourage more responsible reproduction in Africa, but should not resort to extreme measures such as passing UN resolutions forcing them to control population growth better?

If so, I would agree we should try to encourage reform through their own governments. I just think they will continue to prove incompetent on this issue and the variety of others they have failed to solve. I think takeover is long overdue. Maybe I'm just an imperialist at heart.
The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"
User avatar
UtilityMonster
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1416
Age: 33
Male

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

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#179  Postby rEvolutionist » Apr 17, 2012 4:01 am

UtilityMonster wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:It's not the number of humans that is the problem necessarily, it is the level of consumption


It is obviously both.


All that matters is the gross consumption of humans on the planet.


Yes, but we won't take as big of a hit to our consumption patterns on a per capita basis if we reduce the population as well as our consumption, as opposed to just our consumption. I think this means that the average human would be better off, which I think is desirable.


I can't remember the exact figure, but I think the average American (and therefore more or less Australia, UK, Canadian etc) consumes something like 1000 times the resources of the average person in the developing world. If this stat is right (or even a factor of ten out), then I think it's obvious where the real problem is.

rEvolutionist wrote:
It doesn't matter if it is very high consumption with less people, or low consumption with a lot of people.


Wrong. You are only thinking about environmental impact, not about the well-being of a given individual on the world. Lower consumption typically means worse lifestyle. Also, I just want to preempt any confusion of consumption with waste - most of it is not, especially in developing nations where the most rapid transformations are taking places (and sacrifices will have to be made there as well).


I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here. As I said, it is the overall level of gross consumption that is putting our species and the bioshpere under threat.


rEvolutionist wrote:
And that is being contributed most by the developed western world.


This is becoming less true every day. China now pollutes more than any other nation on the world, and with rapid development all over the world (save perhaps Africa) the entire world is dramatically increasing the level of pollution.


Yeah, I lump China in with the west now, more or less. But Africa is a totally different kettle of fish. China needs to be part of the solution process along with the rest of the west.


rEvolutionist wrote:
I agree that the population boom in Africa and India, and the current huge population in China, are serious problems for the future as those people undergo a rise in living standards with an attendant rise in consumption per capita. But for the moment, the real problem is stopping the western individual from consuming the planet right out from under us (including the pollution and environmental degradation that attends that). If we don't do that, it will make little difference whether Africa has 1 billion or 10 billion people. When the west collapses, and with it financial and agricultural/educational aid and natural and processed fertilizers, the African population will inevitably sort itself out anyway. The African people won't be the downfall of our civilisation. It will be the West, long before that. And it's highly likely that disease epidemics will decimate the African population if sanitation and health standards stay low. They almost certainly won't have the opportunity to contribute to the downfall of our civilisation and species. It will be us here in the west that will hold that dubious honour.


Whoa, hold on there. When the West collapses? What kind of conspiracy is this?


There's no conspiracy in accepting the obvious fact that living grossly unsustainably isn't sustainable. By that definition, there HAS to be a collapse at some point. The only question is, when? That MIT paper talks about 2030. Personally, I feel shit's going to fall to peices well before that. But even if it is 2030, it won't be Africa that caused it. It is us here in the west with our unsustainable lifestyles.

I don't think a 3 degree Celsius rise in temperature over the course of a century is going to cause collapse (although it would generate a host of problems, no doubt).


Well, as I just mentioned, it's not just climate change that we face. We face a storm of environmenal, financial and social problems. And even if you were to just focus on the climate change aspect, there was that latest paper from the IPCC (i think) that has been discussed in another thread here which suggests the reality could be a hell of a lot worse than a 3 degrees rise in 100 years.


Also, it would matter what the population is in Africa. The more people there are, the more suffering there is. It is not a positive development for the world when the poorest, least educated, most violent, least healthy nations are contributing the most to population growth. It makes the world worse off. Plus, there is no doubt that it will only make environmental problems worse. While the West is contributing the most on a per capita basis, why would throwing more fuel in the fire do any good?


I definitely agree it's a big problem and thoroughly undesirable. I'm more debating UE's assertion that population explosion in Africa is the biggest threat facing the globe now. It's simply not. And all that does is to tacitly allow the greedy west to get off the hook slightly for the blame it should rightly wear. The west needs to stop it's unsustainable habits NOW. We shouldn't be blaming Africa for problems that might occur sometime in the future. We should be hammering the shit out of the way capitalism is practiced in the west to try and hit the skids before we go over the cliff.

So, let me get your position straight. You think we should encourage more responsible reproduction in Africa, but should not resort to extreme measures such as passing UN resolutions forcing them to control population growth better?


More or less. I wouldn't back anyone "forcing" them to do anything. But I think an incentive system of some sort could be justified if it was put together properly.

If so, I would agree we should try to encourage reform through their own governments. I just think they will continue to prove incompetent on this issue and the variety of others they have failed to solve. I think takeover is long overdue. Maybe I'm just an imperialist at heart.


:lol: Perhaps. The funny thing is that your views align in a way with @Andyx1205 's views (and in dark moments, mine) on occasions that a benevolent dictatorship is what might be needed to save the world from the shit we are heading into. You just limit your authoritarianism to Africa. I'd say if the global community was to take control and enforce things on the Africans, I'd only go along with that if it enforced proper economic and environmental behaviour on the whole world (including particularly the west). But we all know that won't happen while the UN is structured the way it is now. I think the coming decade will be interesting to see if the American model (their foreign policy, and the "washington concensus") or the European model will dominate global governance. If it is the American model, I think we'll be close to finished by the end of a decade, or at best the next. If it is the European model, well, we'll have to see what pans out. Either way, we are in for a lot of trouble I think. And on that note, I'm heading to the shops to stock up on tinned food and bottled water... :shifty:
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

#180  Postby Calilasseia » Apr 17, 2012 4:09 am

Well, one of the problems with the above "the West will destroy itself" scenario, is that it could be rendered completely null and void, if one of those disease epidemics in Africa turns into a pandemic. At which point, Western consumption won't matter a jot.

Here's a little scenario that has those in the know shitting themselves when they think about it.

We already know that certain, shall we say, interesting viruses are capable of jumping species to humans, and have done on occasions with frightening results. The candidate I have in mind for a particularly nasty pandemic centres upon filoviruses, because [1] they have already demonstrated a capability to jump species to humans, and [2] when they do, they exhibit a level of mortality that leads to them being called 'slate wipers'. The problem with filoviruses is that they take up to 7 days to reach the point where their activities lead to the emergence of symptoms, and by then, it's usually too late. Now at the moment, the method of transmission limits their potential for pandemic activity, because they need to be transmitted by contact with infected body fluids. But all it takes is for one of these viruses to acquire the relevant mutations, and become transmissible via the airborne route, and quite literally, all hell breaks loose.

The problem here being, that it will take time for scientists to alight upon the fact that any new strain is transmissible by being carried on air droplets in breath. While they're busy finding that out, the virus could spread from its initial emergence point very easily. All that would be required, for example, would be for a UN aid worker to be rotated out of the area, having inhaled the virus before its new capability was recognised, and board transportation to an airport, say, Lagos in Nigeria. From there, the now infected aid worker travels to Cairo, say, and then to Frankfurt, en route to a reunion with family in the USA or the UK. Once he passes through Frankfurt International Airport, he dumps his own virus load into the air there, which is then duly circulated around the air conditioning system, and infects thousands of other people. Who all then duly board planes for a range of destinations, from London through New York to places as far afield as Brisbane, Auckland and Tokyo. Whereupon these new, sub-clinical infectious cases dump their virus load into the air conditioning systems of airports in those cities, and this set the stage for the virus to spread, effectively, right around the globe in around 36 hours.

Suddenly, the virus starts erupting in clinical fashion, with florid symptoms, in people in all of these places. At this point, the shit really has hit the fan. You now have in place all the ingredients for a Hollywood nightmare movie made real. If the virus in question happens to be Ebola Zaire, or a related serotype, that nightmare becomes a particularly intense one, because this serotype , last time it struck, had a 90% mortality rate. The combination of 7 day incubation period before clinical symptoms manifest themselves properly, airborne transmissibility of a mutant strain, and extremely high lethality, makes an air-transmissible filovirus the stuff that keeps some people awake long into the night.

Now, if you have a population explosion in places such as Nigeria, Uganda and other sub-Saharan African nations, you're creating a nice little reservoir of juicy cell cultures for species jumping viruses to hijack. As those expanding populations start putting intolerable pressure on native ecosystems, and resort to such unsavoury practices as bushmeat hunting to stave off starvation, then they'll be setting themselves up as sitting targets for any sufficiently opportunist virus, to take advantage of an extremely abundant source of brand new and susceptible cells to press into service. These people will, in time, be effectively advertising themselves to such a virus with a 50 foot neon sign, saying "Please Infect Me". The absence of decent healthcare infrastructure in these countries, and the ever-decreasing likelihood of this ever appearing as the population grows, will mean that those people will be right in the front line. Bushmeat transmission is, after all, regarded within the scientific consensus as being the means by which HIV jumped ship from chimpanzees to humans, and we all know where that led.

At the moment, Western civilisation is the only civilisation that stands a chance of catching such viruses before they become a real, as opposed to potential, threat. But our politicians are too busy spending the money on ever more ingenious ways of killing foreigners, or trying to cosy up to multinational corporations driven by myopia and avarice, to get together and sort out the relevant problems properly. Scientists can only do so much with finite funds, and when you have idiotic attempts to curtail scientific research funding thrown into the mix, the issue simply becomes more critical. As a consequence, it's in our long term interests not only to spend money making sure that species jumping viruses don't turn into pandemics, it's also in our long term interest to try and put the brakes on that reservoir of cell cultures growing to the point where the opportunities are there for the taking. If that means a less than delicate level of interference in local cultures, then at some point, that's a bullet we have to bite, not only to ensure that we are saved from the threat, but that the sub-Saharan Africans themselves are saved from the threat.

Which, of course, ignores the fact that idiot politicians are already interfering in these places. What's more, that interference is of a sort that frankly makes me shudder. Such as Scott Lively, who openly brags about having persuaded Ugandans to kill gay people (who, incidentally, aren't usually regarded as being contributors to the population explosion). You can read more about that here, with his nasty little boast about "dropping a nuclear bomb" on the so-called "gay agenda", and his peddling of lies leading to Uganda implementing hate legislation (for example, Lively claimed that the Rwandan genocide was caused by gays). He's not the only Christofascist thug meddling in Africa - others, aided and abetted by certain personages in the Catholic Church, are peddling lies about contraception and stoking a large fire under the cauldron of demographic nitroglycerine. Yet others are peddling yet more lies, aimed at pushing Uganda further and further into becoming a theocracy. And we all know what happens to reason, scientific progress and constructive social policies in a theocracy. It's not as if American Christofascists are reticent about their aims for the USA, let alone other parts of the world, you only have to listen to the likes of Rick Santorum, who regards contraception not as a useful public service, but as an evil to be destroyed. When you have powerful politicians peddling that mindset in the developed world, the developing world is basically fucked. Unless those of us who value the future of the human species start taking on these malevolent influences head-on.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22639
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest