Is Technology Advancing at the Cost of Our Planet?

[mheslep]

I suggest you look at your data again, it is nasty.

The data is, the data. My point was that negative characterization alone doesn't take us anywhere, it's simply an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion"

Britains population has increased by 10 million over 50 years, which doesn't sound too bad, but when you factor in job availability and population ageing you get a not so nice picture. (Plus the fact Britain is hardly a large country in the first place.)

Job availability is almost entirely due to social policy - another subject. One might take a population down from 60M to 60K and still have a job availability problem.

[...] In the same period, their population has gone from 180 million to 300 million. Do you no consider that nasty?

No? So? As it happens I credit those extra 120 m with a share of some extraordinarily accomplishments over that period, to the benefit of not just the US but all humankind.

Do you not consider that an explosion? It's nearly doubled in half a century.

Not unless the trend was for continued doubling in that time period. It no longer is in the US.

 

[mheslep]

World population mheslep, I never said ZPG was only for "some" countries.

Also, it's smart to keep your own country from becoming overpopulated.

Or under.

 

[Evo]

Or under.

That's so unlikely as not to be of concern. What was the population in the US when it was founded? Who's to say what underpopulated is? We can point to numbers when the population exceeds resources, but that's not for this thread.

Anyway, this has gotten way off topic. The population thread is in Social Sciences.

Back to technology or thread locked.

 

[JaredJames]

You keep going negative when I'm saying ZPG.

ZPG means that within a few decades we'd no longer have an ageing population.

I never said job availability was caused by the population. It is an issue with increasing population numbers though. The more people you have, the more jobs you need. Regardless of why the jobs aren't there, it increases the dependency on the state. Therefore you can't ignore that when discussing the topic of population.

 

[JaredJames]

Well ok, along the lines of the OP. At what point do we consider technology harmful to us? When do we start being affected mentally/physically by it and so it's doing more harm than good?

If anything, this would be the point at which we would need to start considering whether new technology - for the purpose of comfort - is truly required and whether it does more harm than good.

 

[CRGreathouse]

ZPG means that within a few decades we'd no longer have an ageing population.

ZPG would mean a much older population. If you're saying that ZPG would (eventually) mean that the population would stabilize at an age much older than the present average age, then I agree (subject to changes in technology and conditions). If you're saying that ZPG would lead to a younger population, then you're quite wrong.

In short: if your statement is that age'(t) = 0 in the long term under ZPG, I agree. If you're saying that age(t) under ZPG is less than age(t) under present conditions, you're wrong.

 

[Evo]

ZPG would mean a much older population. If you're saying that ZPG would (eventually) mean that the population would stabilize at an age much older than the present average age, then I agree (subject to changes in technology and conditions). If you're saying that ZPG would lead to a younger population, then you're quite wrong.

In short: if your statement is that age'(t) = 0 in the long term under ZPG, I agree. If you're saying that age(t) under ZPG is less than age(t) under present conditions, you're wrong.

Eventually it would stabilize. Possibly with a slightly larger younger population in the long run. As an older population might die off at a slightly higher rate than new births.

And this, as I said above, is off topic, discussions of population go in the population threads in Social sciences

 

[VonDoom]

1) Not every child will survive to adulthood.

2) Not every child will have children of their own. Some will choose not to. Some will be infertile. Some will be homosexual.

So, if there was a strict limit of 2, it's negative population growth because of 1) and 2). You can eliminate 2 by mandating an "average" of 2. Maybe people who have no kids can sell their "child license" to another couple so they can have more. That still doesn't eliminate 1) however, and you still get negative population growth.

So you're arguing on the grounds of an assumed technicality? I guess you would also say that ZPG is strictly impossible, because for it to exist, every newborn child from now to eternity would have to be born at the precise moment that another person died, and since events that appear to be simultaneous to one observer are not necessarily simultaneous to another, meaning that at at some point in time the population will increase or decrease by at least 1, meaning no ZPG. Would you also say that for ZPG to exist, that humanity must continue forever, outliving the sun, and indeed, the projected lifetime of the universe?

Or maybe just give us a break, and accept the idea for what it is ;)

 

[Jack21222]

So you're arguing on the grounds of an assumed technicality? I guess you would also say that ZPG is strictly impossible, because for it to exist, every newborn child from now to eternity would have to be born at the precise moment that another person died, and since events that appear to be simultaneous to one observer are not necessarily simultaneous to another, meaning that at at some point in time the population will increase or decrease by at least 1, meaning no ZPG. Would you also say that for ZPG to exist, that humanity must continue forever, outliving the sun, and indeed, the projected lifetime of the universe?

Or maybe just give us a break, and accept the idea for what it is ;)

No, I'm arguing that a strictly imposed limit of "maximum two kids per couple" leads to negative population growth. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[xxChrisxx]

No, I'm arguing that a strictly imposed limit of "maximum two kids per couple" leads to negative population growth. Don't put words in my mouth.

Surely that works if you are only considering one generation to the next. The premise of two children replaing two adults. If not everyone gets replaces there will be negative growth. Which I'm assuming is your line of thinking.

 

[russ_watters]

I never said job availability was caused by the population. It is an issue with increasing population numbers though. The more people you have, the more jobs you need. Regardless of why the jobs aren't there, it increases the dependency on the state. Therefore you can't ignore that when discussing the topic of population.

That's really bad logic. Yes, you need more jobs if you have more people, but having more people also creates more jobs, so you can't assume that with a population increase comes a job problem - in fact, the two are essentially unconnected. Looking at it another way, the US has seen vast increases in population (even immigrant population!) and yet until the current recession was still only running 5 or 6% unemployment.

We already have an ageing population. We need to maintain ZPG in order to remove the problem of an ageing population.

This is also bad logic. The "aging problem" exists because:

1. People are living longer.
2. Population growth is decreasing.

Wait, did I just say that lower population growth creates the "aging problem"? I did. It should be obvious: in order to keep the base of the pyramid wide, you need to have more kids. This is, of course, exactly the problem the West is having with their retirement programs: not enough younger workers to pay for the retirement of the retired workers because the retired are living longer and there are fewer of the younger workers.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Wait, did I just say that lower population growth creates the "aging problem"? I did. It should be obvious: in order to keep the base of the pyramid wide, you need to have more kids. This is, of course, exactly the problem the West is having with their retirement programs: not enough younger workers to pay for the retirement of the retired workers because the retired are living longer and there are fewer of the younger workers.

You then have the problem that it's completely unsustainable to have an ever increasingly large pyramid with a growth rate of only 1% per year the population will double in 1 persons lifetime. The only solution is to call in the Sandmen.

 

[JaredJames]

That's really bad logic. Yes, you need more jobs if you have more people, but having more people also creates more jobs, so you can't assume that with a population increase comes a job problem - in fact, the two are essentially unconnected. Looking at it another way, the US has seen vast increases in population (even immigrant population!) and yet until the current recession was still only running 5 or 6% unemployment.

It's not bad logic. People having kids doesn't magically create jobs. However, people generally have more kids when there is a strong economy (look at China now and the UK during the industrial revolution).
However, if you don't have jobs in the country and people keep having kids you end up with more people dependent on the state for support and not enough people paying for them.

This is also bad logic. The "aging problem" exists because:

1. People are living longer.
2. Population growth is decreasing.

Wait, did I just say that lower population growth creates the "aging problem"? I did. It should be obvious: in order to keep the base of the pyramid wide, you need to have more kids. This is, of course, exactly the problem the West is having with their retirement programs: not enough younger workers to pay for the retirement of the retired workers because the retired are living longer and there are fewer of the younger workers.

Again, I've never said what causes an ageing population. So I'm not sure why you're using that as a defence. I know exactly what caused our current situation. Thanks to my choice as geography as one of my subjects, I've spent six months studying demographics (not my favourite subjects, but done none the less).

As chris said, you can't have an ever increasing number of children for obvious reasons. So, the solution is to have ZPG. That way, once enough time passes you end up with the ageing population problem reduced and eventually removed. By only 'replacing' people you get more within the 16-65 age group able to work and paying into the state. I'm not saying it's an instant fix and it's obviously not a solution if the expected life expectancy continues to grow.
NPG doesn't work. It would create the ageing population problem. Which is why I didn't suggest it.

 

[xxChrisxx]

As chris said, you can't have an ever increasing number of children for obvious reasons. So, the solution is to have ZPG. That way, once enough time passes you end up with the ageing population problem reduced and eventually removed. By only 'replacing' people you get more within the 16-65 age group able to work and paying into the state. I'm not saying it's an instant fix and it's obviously not a solution if the expected life expectancy continues to grow.

Where do you stop this though? It's also fairly obvious that there will be zero growth at some point, when the resources reach a critical point. (assuming we don't all kill each other over what's left or discover how to get more resources from somewhere). Following on from that it's obvious that quality of life for everyone will be affected negatively as we each get a lesser slice of the resources available.

So is forced sero growth to preserve the quality of life better than allowing people the freedom to make their own choice which would lead to a natural zero growth anyway.