World population

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: World population

#101  Postby margolotta » May 11, 2010 7:46 pm

amorrow wrote:It is my hope that some pharmaceutical companies will invest some R&D resources into innovative low-side-effect sterilization methods. That is what I am advocating because I see it as the first step. Next would be better research the notion and try to anticipate how it will fail. Obviously, some people will try and some will succeed in dodging the lottery and you have enough domestic stability to keep the dodge rate low. I do not expect that those who have infertility imposed upon them will develop deep resentments because, well, they won the "lottery of birth". That phrase is designed to remind us all that there will about 300 million viable spermatozoa from our father and only one of them was us (the rest were potential siblings, sort-of). If someone won the lottery of life and then was sterilized and never knew any other existence, then they come to accept and still appreciate such an existence, especially if it was clear to them that the alternative was a more crowded and unstable world. I have thought about China's one-child policy (OCP), but ILS is an attempt to refine that notion. ILS is definitely slower in getting the job done and it requires a slow, steady application of it. It does not directly regulate how many children you can have: in a sense, it regulates how many grandchildren you might ever have. What really disturbs me about someone line Nadya Suleman is not that she has had so many children: it is that the attitude she is likely to impart on her children is such that she seems likely to have 30 or 40 grandchildren. I find that much more irksome, and frightening, but that outcome seems to be already set in motion and, that case, what is done is done. ILS is about a proper plan for a peaceful future. It is a sort-of Master Plan but with no Master Race. The intention is that it would be not corrupted by eugenics and then, to achieve that end, it would not value anything: it would favor high IQ or anything else. The only thing I have come up with so far as to how you might allow for very small adjustments in one's odds in the lottery for some people. Those adjustments would be based on some kind of program where you attempt to quantify "good citizenship" or something along those lines, as long as the notion tended towards promoting peace and stability. My version of ILS is an attempt to identify what kind of future we really might want for the next generation. I think that most of us would prefer a future that is not at a population level that is significantly above what sane notion of what "sustainable" means. Most futures with an excessive amount of population is rather overwhelming and somewhat hopeless. We can do better than that.


Red my Emphasis: Scary :ill:
Would "good citzenship" maybe depend on political view of the parent, or perhaps skin color?
My avatar is from 2dgoggles
User avatar
margolotta
 
Posts: 33
Age: 34
Female

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: World population

#102  Postby Rome Existed » May 23, 2010 8:31 am

From what I've read the world population is supposed to peak at about 9 billion mid this century but will be about 5 billion by the end of the century.
User avatar
Rome Existed
 
Posts: 3777

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#103  Postby Dudely » Jun 18, 2010 6:01 pm

Ugh, not another one of these threads. The one over at RDF eventually got locked. Please excuse me if I sound jaded, there happens to be a lot of people with misconceptions about this topic.

There is no population problem, and if there was nature would fix it in short order, don't you worry. With our current level of technology, there will probably never be 10 billion humans on earth. The UN agrees with me.

The best way to reduce the population is to raise the standard of living as such that children become a liability, not an asset. In the third world (currently just about the only place birthrates are slated to be above replacement levels in a decade or two) when you have a child you can put them to work growing food. They pay for themselves and can go on to take care of you in your old age. With a high mortality rate the more children you have the more likely it is you'll be taken care of. Contrast that with the industrial world, where children require schooling for sometimes a full two decades before they are useful. That kind of investment is the biggest contributor towards falling birthrates, combined with a woman's right to choose what to do with her body (Saudi Arabia, despite being rich, still has a relatively high birth rate). The UN agrees with me on this as well.

Speaking of which, I find it amusing that population control advocates seem to almost always think that we're all out there popping out babies however we please and that it's happening way too fast. This couldn't be further from the truth- for the last thirty years birthrates have fallen; sometimes quite sharply. The reason so many people are alive is because we live about 30% longer than we did on average 50 years ago.

Don't worry. By the middle of this century population growth will have ground to a halt at 9 billion and by the end it will be in slow decline at 8 and a half billion- that's assuming 0 wars, and 0 epidemics. Plus the increase in agriculture technologies/yields* will ensure we all have lots to eat, even in the event of ecological disaster.

* The USA grows double (or triple, can't quite remember the specific stat. I think it was double) the wheat it did in the sixties and does it on 25 million less acres- the simple methods and strains which produced most of this increase have yet to be rolled out in much of the world)
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
 
Posts: 1450

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#104  Postby redwhine » Jun 19, 2010 8:13 am

Dudely wrote:Ugh, not another one of these threads.

Well it was dormant for over 3 weeks 'til you ressurected it. :P

Image

- a spare pair of rose tinted glasses, in case yours get broken.

...oh, and...

Image

...so you can continue to emulate Nero (fiddling while Rome burned).
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 68
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#105  Postby Dudely » Jun 23, 2010 2:39 pm

Yes, I know it was dormant, but I wanted to correct some misconceptions I saw in a few places. Forgive me :P.

As for the rest of your post. . . is it supposed to be an argument for something? I haven't gone over it with a fine toothed comb, but I can be fairly certain no one has posted evidence in this thread that population control is necessary or what type and on what scale it would be beneficial. Everyone always seems to have an opinion on this topic but few do the research to back it up.

Nowhere did I say that 9 billion people aren't going to cause some problems. But Rome is not burning.
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
 
Posts: 1450

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#106  Postby redwhine » Jun 26, 2010 12:18 pm

Dudely wrote:>snip<

Nowhere did I say that 9 billion people aren't going to cause some problems.

>snip<

:ask: :think:

Dudely wrote:>snip<

There is no population problem, and if there was nature would fix it in short order, don't you worry.

>snip<

:whistle:
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 68
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#107  Postby redwhine » Jun 26, 2010 12:26 pm

Dudely wrote: >snip<

Everyone always seems to have an opinion on this topic but few do the research to back it up.

>snip<

True!

Here's an example...

Dudely wrote: >snip<

* The USA grows double (or triple, can't quite remember the specific stat. I think it was double) the wheat it did in the sixties...

>snip<

:doh:

ETA: The Punjab, which used to be known as the bread basket of India, has failing crops. 300 metre deep wells are dry so they are digging down to 500 metres. The water comes up brackish. India is now a net importer of wheat.

Do Canadian wheat farmers still dump their surplus in the sea (...to keep the price high...) rather than distribute it to the millions of people who are starving (due to a lack of realistic population control)?
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 68
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: World population

#108  Postby Dudely » Jun 26, 2010 2:09 pm

redwhine wrote:
Dudely wrote: >snip<

Everyone always seems to have an opinion on this topic but few do the research to back it up.

>snip<

True!

Here's an example...

Dudely wrote: >snip<

* The USA grows double (or triple, can't quite remember the specific stat. I think it was double) the wheat it did in the sixties...

>snip<

:doh:


:picard: I did the research, I just couldn't remember it verbatim and couldn't be bothered to look it up. I admitted the stat may be incorrect, which should prompt you to go look it up for verification if you require it. How is that the same as talking about a problem before talking about whether the problem actually exists on a scale by which spending money on a fix would be worth it?

redwhine wrote:
ETA: The Punjab, which used to be known as the bread basket of India, has failing crops.


[citation needed]

India's modern agricultural history is a lot more complicated than that. The only reason it's not an importer in the first place is because of modern agricultural improvements- which saved hundreds of millions of lives in that country alone just in the last 60 years. It was not an importer through part of the 70s and early 80s. Decreased gains due to over production in an area and poor management of crops is not an argument for the control of the amount of people available to eat the crops.

Could you please point out to me where on this graph it shows the wheat production in India is failing? I am having a hard time seeing it:
http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=in&commodity=wheat&graph=production

redwhine wrote:
Do Canadian wheat farmers still dump their surplus in the sea (...to keep the price high...) rather than distribute it to the millions of people who are starving (due to a lack of realistic population control)?


No.

The CWB does not dump wheat; its sole purpose is to maximize farmer returns. Using cost of production as a basis for calculating dumping is completely inappropriate for agriculture.

http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/hot/trade/relations/
I have a reference. I humbly await yours (indeed, I am curious whether they really did that at some point and to what scale. It would seem counter-intuitive).

As well, if you have a magic way to transport the wheat across an ocean for free the WTO would love to hear it. At it stands the Canadian wheat board spends a very large sum on subsidizing the export of a great deal of the surplus, since there is no way shipping something worth only pennies a pound over an ocean can last very long without being propped up by a huge expenditure. This cost comes out of the pockets of the farmers and is done so that as little goes to waste as possible:

"The CWB does not receive export subsidies from the Canadian government for its pooled marketing operations; the producers assume the cost of marketing grain products sold by the Board." http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb982-e.htm


redwhine wrote:
Dudely wrote:>snip<

Nowhere did I say that 9 billion people aren't going to cause some problems.

>snip<

:ask: :think:

Dudely wrote:>snip<

There is no population problem, and if there was nature would fix it in short order, don't you worry.

>snip<

:whistle:


Surely you can tell the difference between population being the problem and population causing a problem?

The fact that my kidneys produce urine is a problem for my body, but that does not mean I will stop drinking in an attempt to stem the flow; I will instead find a reliable toilet. Arguing that we don't have enough food and should therefore have less people seems like a bad plan. At every other time in history we increased the amount of food. What is the problem with doing that again?


Here is my argument: The population increase we are experiencing right now is caused by a massive increase in lifespan worldwide and any birthrate above 2.5, which mostly occurs in Africa and India. Instituting population control almost anywhere else (the exception being those with an ok birthrate but a very large immigration rate; read: China) is a stupid idea, as those places have, or will have within 30 years, a stable population which has, or has the potential to have, enough to eat. Any policies put in place won't see any benefit until after the benefit is needed, and so would be pointless.

In those places that do need some way to stem their population any easy fix cannot be applied, can only be applied partially, or would be so expensive it would no longer be considered an easy fix. Getting a remote tribe in Africa to use condoms or adopt the idea that getting pregnant is a choice a woman makes are examples. The only methods left at this point are those which are arguably almost as bad as having a bunch of kids only to have some of them die of starvation (the one major human result of over population).
Even if it was something we were willing to do it couldn't be applied in Africa, as there is not a strong enough government to even get HIV under control, and Africa is by far the largest contributor to the rising human population. It is comforting to know, then, that even Africa will have a stable population by the end of this century.

So it's not that I think we shouldn't fix the fact that 1 billion people are starving, or that crops are failing in some places, or that farmland is encroaching on wilderness, or any other host of issues involved with supporting 6, 7, or 9 billion people. I just think trying to fix those problems by using population control is shortsighted and absurdly simplifies the issues.
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
 
Posts: 1450

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#109  Postby redwhine » Jun 26, 2010 3:17 pm

Dudely wrote:
redwhine wrote:
Dudely wrote: >snip<

Everyone always seems to have an opinion on this topic but few do the research to back it up.

>snip<

True!

Here's an example...

Dudely wrote: >snip<

* The USA grows double (or triple, can't quite remember the specific stat. I think it was double) the wheat it did in the sixties...

>snip<

:doh:


:picard: I did the research, I just couldn't remember it verbatim and couldn't be bothered to look it up.

I rest my case.

Or I would, except that you do go on...

Dudely wrote: I admitted the stat may be incorrect, which should prompt you to go look it up for verification if you require it.

Oh really?

So anytime anybody posts unsupported drivel facts, it's beholden on me to do research in support of such assertions.

I didn't realise that that was how it worked.

Dudely wrote: How is that the same as talking about a problem before talking about whether the problem actually exists on a scale by which spending money on a fix would be worth it?

You saying there is no problem is talking about whether the problem exists or not, is it not? You say there is no problem and everybody has to agree does not a discussion make.

Dudely wrote:
redwhine wrote:
ETA: The Punjab, which used to be known as the bread basket of India, has failing crops.


[citation needed]

Oh, so only you are allowed to make unsupported assertions? :nono:

Sorry, RL calls. I will continue when time allows.
Like BEER? ...Click here!

What do I believe?

Atheism is myth understood.
User avatar
redwhine
 
Posts: 7815
Age: 68
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#110  Postby OHSU » Jun 26, 2010 3:57 pm

Forced implementation of ILS is without any doubt the best way I've ever heard of to make people rise up against their government. I was going to use the phrase "civil war", but society wouldn't be divided against itself, because the citizenry would never accept anything like this.

If by some inconceivable turn of events a government actually tried to implement this, that government would see a more concerted and determined public revolt than any government has seen in modern times. The image of an infant being sterilized, and the knowledge that it could be your baby next, would mobilize every person who could hold a gun, knife, club, or stone.

I have no doubt that a substantial percentage of parents in every society on earth would prefer to fight and die rather than have their children forcibly sterilized.
Last edited by OHSU on Jun 26, 2010 4:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
OHSU
 
Posts: 399

Print view this post

Re: World population

#111  Postby Dudely » Jun 26, 2010 4:08 pm

redwhine wrote:So anytime anybody posts unsupported drivel facts, it's beholden on me to do research in support of such assertions.

I didn't realise that that was how it worked.


I admitted directly in my post that the stat was unsupported and coming from my memory. I tried to find a reference but couldn't find a graph that went back far enough. Sue me.

redwhine wrote:
You saying there is no problem is talking about whether the problem exists or not, is it not? You say there is no problem and everybody has to agree does not a discussion make.


Everyone can think whatever they like, it's just not very rational to discuss solutions for something you know nothing about. I never said anyone has to agree with me.
redwhine wrote:
Dudely wrote:
redwhine wrote:
ETA: The Punjab, which used to be known as the bread basket of India, has failing crops.


[citation needed]

Oh, so only you are allowed to make unsupported assertions? :nono:


You can make them all you like. People just won't take them as seriously (hopefully) and they have a much less chance of standing up to scrutiny. And it's annoying to have to go look it up myself all the time.

Image
Here is a graphs of wheat in the developing world. It's not the US, but it still illustrates my original point.


EDIT: I doubt our views are very different redwhine. My arguments are aimed towards those who think forced sterilization or something similar will somehow make the world a better place. Though I can't say I know what all of them are, I'm sure your ideas on how to control populations are reasonable enough that I could agree with them given the right implementation.
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
 
Posts: 1450

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#112  Postby OHSU » Jun 26, 2010 4:25 pm

So, why was amorrow banned? What did I miss?
User avatar
OHSU
 
Posts: 399

Print view this post

Re: World population

#113  Postby Dudely » Jun 26, 2010 10:12 pm

Trolling and vandalizing the wiki.
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
 
Posts: 1450

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest