Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#61  Postby Alan B » Apr 16, 2018 2:33 pm

Just a point, I do remember that some years ago (15, 20?) in order to combat the over-population of rabbits in Oz, anti-fertility virus was developed. The story (as I remember) was that it was stopped because it was contagious to other species. :dunno: :think: :ask:
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 8663
Age: 81
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#62  Postby THWOTH » Apr 16, 2018 3:28 pm

TopCat wrote:The population is well over 7 billion now and we're already verging on completely fucked.

It's hardly reassuring that it's only going to go up by another 50%.
The video shows that we can understand the limits of population growth. With that knowledge then the issue becomes focused on whether we're actually capable or inclined to plan accordingly. It's clearly true that we're capable, so the question is why are we not inclined to do so.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 36942
Age: 53

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

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#63  Postby THWOTH » Apr 16, 2018 4:31 pm

Thommo wrote:
TopCat wrote:
Thommo wrote:There is nothing we can do that wouldn't be the most horrendous genocide the world has ever seen and that's almost certainly a far worse option.

By far the best, IMO, of Dan Brown's novels is Inferno, which is about a mad scientist on a mission to release a genetically engineered, highly transmissible and infectious virus whose only effect is to reduce human fertility by a factor of about 2/3.


I've never actually read a Dan Brown, but that premise at least sounds more interesting than the others I've heard about.

The Testament of Jessie Lamb by Jane Rogers was published a year before Inferno. It deals with a near-future world in which a virus, MDS, has been released by unknown forces for unknown reasons, and which quickly becomes so widespread that it kills all pregnant women. The only 'cure' for MDS (Maternal Death Syndrome) is mandatory contraception - which of course is no cure at all. The book is a first person epistle charting the emotional and political development of an ordinary adolescent girl from Manchester on her journey towards womanhood, along the way addressing the social and economic conditions before MDS and its subsequent consequences, equality and gender, resource overuse, scientific ethics, the notion of the family and friendship, the status and value of children, and the failings of political systems which favour quick-fixes and resist change even in the face of an overwhelming, catastrophic shifts. In short, it's an anti-natalists wet dream of a book, but one that humanises that silly perspective before undermining it and showing it up for the morally bankrupt nightmare it truly is. It's a brilliant, but bleak book - a plaintive blues to lost innocence, opportunity and what-could-have-beens.

Amazon: https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Testament-Je ... skept01-21
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 36942
Age: 53

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

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#64  Postby TopCat » Apr 16, 2018 4:34 pm

THWOTH wrote:
TopCat wrote:The population is well over 7 billion now and we're already verging on completely fucked.

It's hardly reassuring that it's only going to go up by another 50%.
The video shows that we can understand the limits of population growth. With that knowledge then the issue becomes focused on whether we're actually capable or inclined to plan accordingly. It's clearly true that we're capable, so the question is why are we not inclined to do so.

Understanding the demography is nowhere near enough to understand how to solve the the problem of 11 billion people all with a high enough standard of living to not want more than two kids per family.

We'd need to also understand how to reduce our consumption per capita by enough for 11 billion people to live sustainably on a small blue dot.

That is a much bigger problem.
TopCat
 
Posts: 573
Age: 55
Male

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

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#65  Postby Macdoc » Apr 16, 2018 6:10 pm

It's actually not ....you do not need to reduce consumption or lifestyle.....you do need to reduce unsustainable consumption and there is a huge difference between the two.

Take an example ....I don't worry about electricity consumption in Ontario as we use no fossil fuel

Image

This is the entire current population of the planet in the Grand Canyon.

Carbon neutral is the first global goal and sustainable treatment of earth resources including the biome ....it is coming but it's too slow so bio-diversity is suffering.

The technology is there for high population and high living standard being sustainable but not in place yet.
One good sign is the re-wilding of certain areas as rural populations go into urban growth which is also getting denser.

Tracking how Japan deals with the demographics of population decline is cautionary.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 12750
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#66  Postby THWOTH » Apr 16, 2018 6:58 pm

TopCat wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
TopCat wrote:The population is well over 7 billion now and we're already verging on completely fucked.

It's hardly reassuring that it's only going to go up by another 50%.
The video shows that we can understand the limits of population growth. With that knowledge then the issue becomes focused on whether we're actually capable or inclined to plan accordingly. It's clearly true that we're capable, so the question is why are we not inclined to do so.

Understanding the demography is nowhere near enough to understand how to solve the the problem of 11 billion people all with a high enough standard of living to not want more than two kids per family.

We'd need to also understand how to reduce our consumption per capita by enough for 11 billion people to live sustainably on a small blue dot.

That is a much bigger problem.

Well, understanding the mathematical limits of population growth is not a solution to resource shortage, but it at leasts takes the sting out of the oft-trotted out assumption that population growth is unstoppably linear and exponential. I'd agree that consumption, by which I mean resource use, is a difficult and knotty matter to unravel and address, and it's only one of many difficult knotty issues all competing for our attention. As I hinted, planning ahead in light of what we already know (about resource levels, consumption, energy, food production, etc) is key here, so we have to look to why we as societies are seemingly reluctant to embark upon this kind of long-term analysis and implementation. We all know what we could to about global warming for example, and yet we're neither intellectually, emotionally, and/or politically ready to put it into practice. I think we're reluctant to address these kinds of issues because we're told that it means having less today so that other people can have more in the future, and that just doesn't seem quite fair. By my lights, throwing one's hands up and hoping we'll be dead before the shit really hits the fan is no fairer either, it just shifts the responsibility onto others further up the line.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 36942
Age: 53

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

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#67  Postby Macdoc » Apr 16, 2018 7:21 pm

Good post tho recognise we are not much resource short as having distribution of them issues.

AGW mitigation is well on it's way but not before some serious consequences.

Some societies plan ahead - the Dutch and water defenses.

Preserving New York City water supply watershed to name a couple...London Barrier another.

Humans tend to muddle through and we are just touching the Holocene maximum in this decade.

The Arctic warming at 4 x the rest of the planet will never be business as usual in any human time frame. Cumulative small steps, marine preserves, sustainable catch labelling, bio-engineering crops for more erractic weather, life cycle of product recycling all help.

A big enough epidemic could knock population back a chunk.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 12750
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#68  Postby Alan B » Apr 17, 2018 12:15 pm

11 billion living 'sustainably'?
Define 'sustainably'.

Does this include reducing methane and carbon dioxide producing animal and vegetable food sources that contribute to AGW?
(Not forgetting that these 11 billion will also contribute methane and carbon dioxide as bodily functions...).

If so, what will these 11 billions live on?
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 8663
Age: 81
Male

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

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#69  Postby Alan B » Apr 17, 2018 12:26 pm

Alan B wrote:I have heard of Dan Browns book, but I wasn't aware of its premise. If it were possible to reduce the fertility by 2/3 (without the gory details that the film portrays), how long would it take to reduce the population to, say, two billion (assuming the death-rate stays the same)?

Edit
Perhaps a mathematics clever-clogs could do an estimation (using the latest fertility in Hermits link as the starting point)?

I missed a point here. At the moment we still have a net positive birth-rate. We need to aim for a net negative birth-rate. Although in Hermits link it shows a decline in the net birth-rate, the population is still increasing...
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 8663
Age: 81
Male

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

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#70  Postby Alan B » Apr 17, 2018 12:34 pm

Macdoc wrote:It's actually not ....you do not need to reduce consumption or lifestyle.....you do need to reduce unsustainable consumption and there is a huge difference between the two.

Take an example ....I don't worry about electricity consumption in Ontario as we use no fossil fuel

Image

This is the entire current population of the planet in the Grand Canyon.

Carbon neutral is the first global goal and sustainable treatment of earth resources including the biome ....it is coming but it's too slow so bio-diversity is suffering.

The technology is there for high population and high living standard being sustainable but not in place yet.
One good sign is the re-wilding of certain areas as rural populations go into urban growth which is also getting denser.

Tracking how Japan deals with the demographics of population decline is cautionary.

Quite graphical. Are there equivalent graphical representations for the amount of land use for (a) living area (b) the food source, both arable and non-arable and (c) the effect on other species?
Last edited by Alan B on Apr 17, 2018 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 8663
Age: 81
Male

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

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#71  Postby Alan B » Apr 17, 2018 12:38 pm

Double post.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 8663
Age: 81
Male

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

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#72  Postby felltoearth » Apr 17, 2018 2:11 pm

Alan B wrote:11 billion living 'sustainably'?
Define 'sustainably'.

Clean water in, clean water out is an example.
Balanced use of renewable resources.
etc
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 8246
Age: 50

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#73  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 17, 2018 2:46 pm

felltoearth wrote:
Alan B wrote:11 billion living 'sustainably'?
Define 'sustainably'.

Clean water in, clean water out is an example.
Balanced use of renewable resources.
etc


Fine. Who's going to put in the necessary work, and who's going to pay for it?

I don't give much of a fuck if you have a conceptual definition of sustainable. Haven't you heard about "Tragedy of the Commons"?

This is the main problem with moralism. Simply knowing the right thing to do is not enough.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 25273
Age: 6
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#74  Postby zulumoose » Apr 17, 2018 2:55 pm

This is the main problem with moralism. Simply knowing the right thing to do is not enough.


Knowing the right thing to do is essential though. No matter how simple and clear any concept is, there is usually no difficulty finding a pool of denialists somewhere, who generate a lot of noise and keep the ignorance flowing. It is relatively easy to accomplish something when the vast majority are on the same page, to the extent that it is social/political suicide to remain in denial.

I have met a number of people who think it is absolute rubbish that there is a population explosion anywhere, even in Africa, or that there can be too many people, or that it holds back housing/education/progress when you have 10 kids. There is nothing so stupid it cannot be believed by those who want to.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 2620

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#75  Postby Macdoc » Apr 17, 2018 3:06 pm

Cito
Fine. Who's going to put in the necessary work, and who's going to pay for it?

I don't give much of a fuck if you have a conceptual definition of sustainable. Haven't you heard about "Tragedy of the Commons"?

This is the main problem with moralism. Simply knowing the right thing to do is not enough.


so you'd rather sit on your hands and wail. :roll: There are lots of people moving towards sustainable in dozens of fields ....why not join them instead of shitting on the idea . :nono:

or at the very least inform yourself.

https://www.unenvironment.org/regions/a ... nable-food

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/sustaina ... ex-eng.htm
fish

https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/art ... e-forestry
silva culture

coffee....just one of thousands of initiatives

Recently the impact of coffee growing on the environment has been much debated in the specialty-coffee industry, with labels such as Song Bird Coffee and Sanctuary Coffees surfacing in the market. The movement shows promise for one simple, market-driven reason: it asserts that people can have their coffee just the way they like it and also save the rain forest. Indeed, some believe that Americans' growing taste for fine coffee could help to reverse an agricultural fiasco that has turned one of the world's most benign crops into an enemy of the environment. "All we have to do is get just a small fraction of North Americans and Europeans to demand shade-grown coffee, and we can push the industry back and save tremendous amounts of habitat," says Chris Wille, the ECO-O.K. director for the Rainforest Alliance. "And no one has to sacrifice anything."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... st/377733/

How Brazil Has Dramatically Reduced Tropical Deforestation - The ...
https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/... ... ropical-...
For decades, the issue of deforestation had been seen in Brazil in terms of national sovereignty—as something raised by foreign NGOs pressuring to save Amazon forests even at the cost of Brazilians' right to economic development. It was often pointed out that those concerned with “saving the rainforest” came from ...

https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/art ... restation/

The drop in rain forest destruction in Brazil astonished me

Carbon offsets ...

https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/carbon-offsets/

and reduction in coal for power....

Ontario - one of the larger economies on the planet eliminated coal from 25% to zero in a decade.

Britain has dropped dramatically near to zero ....

China hit peak coal far ahead of schedule and globally

Coal hits a plateau - Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/966cb972-9d2 ... 2067fbf946
Sep 19, 2017 - Latest projections suggest that global consumption has reached its peak. ... The EIA thinks coal consumption in China may now have peaked, as industrial demand for steelmaking and heat declines from now on, and after 2023 demand for power generation is increasingly displaced by renewables and ..


Has China Hit Peak Coal? – Brink – The Edge of Risk
https://www.brinknews.com/has-china-hit-peak-coal/
Mar 18, 2018 - China's coal consumption has steadily decreased by a few percentage points every year since 2013, prompting our pronouncement of a coal consumption peak in an article published in the summer of 2016 in Nature Geoscience. This declaration was echoed quickly by the former minister of the National Energy


who pays ? we do. :roll: :coffee:
Last edited by Macdoc on Apr 17, 2018 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 12750
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#76  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 17, 2018 3:07 pm

zulumoose wrote:there is usually no difficulty finding a pool of denialists somewhere, who generate a lot of noise and keep the ignorance flowing.


Ah, OK. You obviously know what's the right thing to do. In any event, the denialists are against it. Department of Tautology Department.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 25273
Age: 6
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#77  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 17, 2018 3:08 pm

Macdoc wrote:There are lots of people moving towards sustainable in dozens of fields ....why not join them instead of shitting on the idea.:


I'm not shitting on the idea, a priori. I just want to know how it's implemented. If all you're doing is asking me to join something, well, I've heard the god botherers asking me to join them, too.

I'm childless, so I've done my part. In more ways than one.

Macdoc wrote:who pays ? we do.


Hey. I'm willing to pay the ultimate penalty. How about you? Why perpetuate a failure? God botherers can do this equally-well! I don't believe humans have the Special Sauce. Do you?
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 25273
Age: 6
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#78  Postby THWOTH » Apr 17, 2018 3:15 pm

Alan B wrote:11 billion living 'sustainably'?
Define 'sustainably'.

Does this include reducing methane and carbon dioxide producing animal and vegetable food sources that contribute to AGW?
(Not forgetting that these 11 billion will also contribute methane and carbon dioxide as bodily functions...).

If so, what will these 11 billions live on?

Sure, it's almost impossible for one person to live 'sustainably' let alone 11bn. But surely one person can live more sustainably than they currently do by making small changes and some different choices? Isn't the point to understand the issues and make a move towards greater levels of sustainable living rather than baulking at the seemingly overwhelming prospect of 11bn people somehow living totally sustainable lives? If we accept that our way of life is unsustainable in the long run shouldn't we be trying to do something about that now?
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 36942
Age: 53

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

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#79  Postby laklak » Apr 17, 2018 3:15 pm

You can always post a ribbon thingy on facebook. That counts.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 17231
Age: 64
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Human Over Population. How to Stem and Reduce.

#80  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 17, 2018 3:17 pm

THWOTH wrote:
Alan B wrote:11 billion living 'sustainably'?
Define 'sustainably'.

Does this include reducing methane and carbon dioxide producing animal and vegetable food sources that contribute to AGW?
(Not forgetting that these 11 billion will also contribute methane and carbon dioxide as bodily functions...).

If so, what will these 11 billions live on?

Sure, it's almost impossible for one person to live 'sustainably' let alone 11bn. But surely one person can live more sustainably than they currently do by making small changes and some different choices? Isn't the point to understand the issues and make a move towards greater levels of sustainable living rather than baulking at the seemingly overwhelming prospect of 11bn people somehow living totally sustainable lives? If we accept that our way of life is unsustainable in the long run shouldn't we be trying to do something about that now?


Do you know what most people say? You first!

I'm childless. That's like saying "I gave at the office."

I'm fucking childless. I don't own a fucking automobile. I'm no globetrotter, like macdoc is. How difficult is all that to comprehend? You want me to take care of macdoc's kids? Good fucking luck with that.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 25273
Age: 6
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest