Overpopulation, serious political and economical problems

[brainstorm]

Mark Steyn, author of a book on immigration and the clash of civilizations, interview http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MjE5OTdmOTc2N2IzZWI0NmI1Y2FjZDVlNTEzYzJmYTU=" .
Some of the claims I found striking:

• Birthrate of ethnic Europeans: 1.3
• States like Germany, Japan have upside down family trees: four grandparents, two parents (children of grandparents), one child.
• Birthrate of Moslem immigrants to Europe (rough estimate): 3.5
• 40% of German female university graduates are childless.

How are Muslims not ethnic Europeans? Europe is a continent and Islam is a religion. Why wouldn't you compare Christian Europeans with Muslim Europeans, if you're making a comparison. Also, "net population growth" means immigration - emigration + birth rate. There are always people emigrating and immigrating in any region. That's why I prefer to talk about "migration" rather than "immigration" or "emigration," since those make reference to arbitrary regional boundaries instead of individuals who migrate in a variety of ways all the time.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Yeah, and Germany isn't exactly "immigrant heaven" either...

 

[mheslep]

How are Muslims not ethnic Europeans?

Immigrant Muslims are by definition not ethnic Europeans:
ethnic: pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.
There are some two millennia of culture caught up in the definition of ethnic European.

Europe is a continent and Islam is a religion. Why wouldn't you compare Christian Europeans with Muslim Europeans, if you're making a comparison.

Muslim <> Islam

Also, "net population growth" means immigration - emigration + birth rate. There are always people emigrating and immigrating in any region. That's why I prefer to talk about "migration" rather than "immigration" or "emigration," since those make reference to arbitrary regional boundaries instead of individuals who migrate in a variety of ways all the time.

Immigration rates and birth rates of the immigrants are not the same in any region. The point is within a couple of generations, if the current rates hold, there won't be much of an ethnic Europe left.

 

[mheslep]

Yeah, and Germany isn't exactly "immigrant heaven" either...

Meaning what? Germany doesn't have many, or German immigrants have a difficult time in the society, what?

 

[Frame Dragger]

Meaning what? Germany doesn't have many, or German immigrants have a difficult time in the society, what?

Meaning precisely what I said... I don't believe clarification will lead to anything, but a fight. A better question might be:

why does THIS:

The point is within a couple of generations, if the current rates hold, there won't be much of an ethnic Europe left.

matter? Am I to understand you have a particular vision of how European ethnicity should be defined/controled? What does ANY of this have to do with overpoplation?

Your equivocation of "muslim immigrants" with an actual RACIAL group, is silly. One is a religion, the other is not. You could be a muslim immigrant from the UK, or you could be from Iran... your statistics are not illuminating in that regard. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to see a point in your statements other than the kind of anti-islamic hysteria much of western europe (and the USA to be fair) is engaged in.

 

[brainstorm]

Immigrant Muslims are by definition not ethnic Europeans:
ethnic: pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.
There are some two millennia of culture caught up in the definition of ethnic European.

When it comes to discourse aimed at increasing the inertia of ethnic identity through historiography, etc., Europe is certainly full of it. I don't know why I bother to try to explain repeatedly how all these discourses of ethnic history, culture, identity, etc. all have a propaganda function of creating group solidarity and, ultimately war - because people who buy into it are constantly at war in their heads anyway.

Europe is just land. Anyone could go or leave that land in the absence of all the institutionalization and gatekeeping. Ethnicity is an individual cultural identity. Yes, people utilize their ethnic identity as a basis for bonding together with others for various reasons, but ultimately individuals think, feel, and act as individuals individually. Groupists hate that because they can't stand to take responsibility for their own choices and they're desperately afraid of being singled out from the collectivities they imagine themselves as part of all the time.

That said, Islam is no different than Christianity, Judaism, or secular nationalism in terms of cultures practiced in Europe. The difference with Islam is that it has been racialized the way Judaism was prior to WWII (and still is, actually). Christianity is under attack by secular nationalism/socialism as backward (and now pedophilic), but it is not racialized the way Muslims and Jews are. Ironically, I've read some current critique of Islam that it's not a religion because it's an entire way of life - this is ironic because it is how many people view national socialist culture. Let's just say that Europe has some problems with territorialism and conflict.

Muslim <> Islam

Immigration rates and birth rates of the immigrants are not the same in any region. The point is within a couple of generations, if the current rates hold, there won't be much of an ethnic Europe left.

Trying to stir up an ethnic war, are you? In a couple of generations, EU integration will hopefully be to the point where regional territorialism of ethnic nation-states is no longer an issue. People will hopefully be able to continue preserving ethnic and language diversity, but the will to cling to geographical territory will hopefully lesson.

As this happens, it should be easier for Muslims or any other religious/ethnic minority to integrate into the diversity. Hopefully EU social-economic politics will also find a way to be less fortress-like, which would make it easier to have better global social-economic integration that will allow people to migrate freely among all continents without fear of ethnic discrimination or culture/language loss. People tell me this is an unrealistic dream whenever I tell them about it, but in truth ethnic-nationalism and social-authoritarianism are unrealistic dreams in that they have proven unsustainable at so many levels, from individual-psychological to economics to ethnic conflicts.

There simply has to be evolution where people can preserve language, culture, and ethnic identity without separatism, economic exploitation, discrimination, war, etc.

Attempting to police reproduction on a per-ethnicity basis is only going to increase ethnic conflict and hatred and make multiethnic integration more painful.

 

[Frame Dragger]

When it comes to discourse aimed at increasing the inertia of ethnic identity through historiography, etc., Europe is certainly full of it. I don't know why I bother to try to explain repeatedly how all these discourses of ethnic history, culture, identity, etc. all have a propaganda function of creating group solidarity and, ultimately war - because people who buy into it are constantly at war in their heads anyway.

Europe is just land. Anyone could go or leave that land in the absence of all the institutionalization and gatekeeping. Ethnicity is an individual cultural identity. Yes, people utilize their ethnic identity as a basis for bonding together with others for various reasons, but ultimately individuals think, feel, and act as individuals individually. Groupists hate that because they can't stand to take responsibility for their own choices and they're desperately afraid of being singled out from the collectivities they imagine themselves as part of all the time.

That said, Islam is no different than Christianity, Judaism, or secular nationalism in terms of cultures practiced in Europe. The difference with Islam is that it has been racialized the way Judaism was prior to WWII (and still is, actually). Christianity is under attack by secular nationalism/socialism as backward (and now pedophilic), but it is not racialized the way Muslims and Jews are. Ironically, I've read some current critique of Islam that it's not a religion because it's an entire way of life - this is ironic because it is how many people view national socialist culture. Let's just say that Europe has some problems with territorialism and conflict.



Trying to stir up an ethnic war, are you? In a couple of generations, EU integration will hopefully be to the point where regional territorialism of ethnic nation-states is no longer an issue. People will hopefully be able to continue preserving ethnic and language diversity, but the will to cling to geographical territory will hopefully lesson.

As this happens, it should be easier for Muslims or any other religious/ethnic minority to integrate into the diversity. Hopefully EU social-economic politics will also find a way to be less fortress-like, which would make it easier to have better global social-economic integration that will allow people to migrate freely among all continents without fear of ethnic discrimination or culture/language loss. People tell me this is an unrealistic dream whenever I tell them about it, but in truth ethnic-nationalism and social-authoritarianism are unrealistic dreams in that they have proven unsustainable at so many levels, from individual-psychological to economics to ethnic conflicts.

There simply has to be evolution where people can preserve language, culture, and ethnic identity without separatism, economic exploitation, discrimination, war, etc.

Attempting to police reproduction on a per-ethnicity basis is only going to increase ethnic conflict and hatred and make multiethnic integration more painful.

You try to explain because you genuinely care, and realize that it's good for you as well as those you try to teach. Others can read this and draw their own conclusions as well. I must say, the notion of an "ethnic europe" is a fantasy of particularly mad-men (Hitler springs to mind), and nationalists seeking to get votes. What is Europe if not a history of genetic, cultural, etc... drift?!

Hell, if you look at Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, they all follow similar historical patterns: Conquest, Legalism, Schism, Reform. That Christianity and Islam are on different points on that progress doesn't change history. Christianity is dealing with Reform in my view, and Islam is stuck between Legalism and Schism. When people (yes, I'm looking at you mheslep) being to single out cultures and religions, and speak of ethnicity as something to be LOST... red flags go up in my mind.

EDIT: It seems clear that the cultural heritage of many civilations outlast the civilations themselves. What is Cuneform if not a perfect example? What is it that people are so afraid of LOSING, rather than GAINING?! Genetically, and culturally drift and mix is critical to maintaining a healthy population, and as you say brainstorm, it has to be our evolution.

 

[brainstorm]

EDIT: It seems clear that the cultural heritage of many civilations outlast the civilations themselves. What is Cuneform if not a perfect example? What is it that people are so afraid of LOSING, rather than GAINING?! Genetically, and culturally drift and mix is critical to maintaining a healthy population, and as you say brainstorm, it has to be our evolution.

Don't underestimate the fear of cultural and language loss. The pope celebrated the US as the culture of the hyphen, saying that ethnic conflict was reduced by people simply hyphenating one or more ethnic identities with "American" after it. In practice, however, there is a strong culture of language-diversity resistance. Many people consider English the only language of the US, which they view as an ethnic nation despite the whole free republic idea. Not that such people are winning, it's just that they resist learning multiple languages and using them for everyday life. I think there was even a court case that established a precedent that employees can be terminated for failing to switch to English when their manager tells them to. I suppose it is rude if someone asks you to switch to a language they can understand and you refuse, but I just don't see linguistic innovation going on like entire workplaces having Spanish day or something like that where everyone communicates only in Spanish for one day a week. Obviously this would slow down communication a lot for people at first, but after practicing for a while, I bet it would become a good way to combine work with language practice.

So, you're right - people should be focussed on gaining instead of losing, but the gaining should be done in practice - which would promote the maintaining (instead of losing) for others who are concerned with loss.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Please keep this thread in a productive state, thank you.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Please keep this thread in a productive state, thank you.

Ok, granted your's is a serious post, but... in bold... is that a joke re: overpopulation, or just an incredibly funny coincidence?

 

[Kerrie]

Wow, a lot of good info here, but shouldn't this be a philosophical thread?

Has there been any research done on the correlation of immunizations and population growth? Not that we want to ever consider discontinuing them, but it seems that since we have advanced medically, population has increased tremendously. So, although I agree with Russ's statement of education, it almost seems like it has contributed to the problem. Perhaps further education of course could get the rate under control. Also, since we are living longer because of medical advances, population doesn't decline as quickly as it once did (obviously).

 

[brainstorm]

Wow, a lot of good info here, but shouldn't this be a philosophical thread?

Yes, it should actually because population politics contain philosophical and ethical assumptions embedded in the science, the main one being that it is human quantity that threatens ecology and natural resources instead of quality and way of life. The tenet left undiscussed is whether people can change the way they live to prevent resource and ecological depletion instead of simply reducing population (growth).

Has there been any research done on the correlation of immunizations and population growth? Not that we want to ever consider discontinuing them, but it seems that since we have advanced medically, population has increased tremendously. So, although I agree with Russ's statement of education, it almost seems like it has contributed to the problem. Perhaps further education of course could get the rate under control. Also, since we are living longer because of medical advances, population doesn't decline as quickly as it once did (obviously).

Yes, sociology textbooks describe a demographic transition that occurs when the majority of deaths occur from childhood diseases and malnutrition to old-age diseases, heart-disease, etc.

The big problem with any kind of social engineering is preferences for some social identities over others. When population growth is problematized, it is usually blamed on certain ethnicities over others. I have also read of female foetuses being aborted where people are concerned with limiting their family size. This kind of preference causes a kind of war mentality, I think, where targeted ethnicities feel under threat and resolve to reproduce more to avert extinction as a result of pressure to reduce their numbers. Likewise there is the problem that some ethnicities have a majority or otherwise privileged position which population control would help them maintain.

It's easy for majority populations to say it is fair for everyone to limit their family size to 2 children to avert overal population growth, but doing so ensures that minorities remain minorities. So you can't really get around population control having political effects, even when your concern is only resource and ecological sustainment.

 

[John Galaor]

I can see a problem in encouraging development in poor countries that are growing very fast. The scarcity of resources. Then main resources to develop in a modern sense are the fossil fuels. Those who have fossil fuels have some possibility of developing but not the others
To develop in the modern sense is to consume a lot of energy. This energy is needed to produce more food and to transport to the places where are lying most of the population that had fled from the countryside. Then, the rate of breeding in poor countries is instinctive. In the past there were some ways of controlling excess population one was social limitations, forbidding some social categories to breed as happened in Europe. Slaves, servants, religious people and soldiers, were not allowed to breed. Then, there were frequent wars among neighbor populations, or nations, that trimmed farther the excess population.
Then, on a strict Malthusian criterion, we would not need to worry of any excess population because once the population would exceed some mark, it would pay the consequences. Then this cynical approach seems a little harsh and unkind. Mostly because such a big global turbulence could burst with such a might that can even reach us. And we will be paying the consequences of these troubles.

But even if developed countries can look as they have not population growth, they are increasing their consumption of energy. Then this is a form of growth that can have undesired consequences. I am not mentioning the global warming, for this would not be our more demanding challenge in the future.

These links with graphics you posted, do not look alarming at all.

Compared with the population curve of the Chineses, the rest look as insignificant trifles. But they are not. These curves look flat, compared with China. But if you put the most populated nations out of the graphic, you can see a lot of small countries that had been growing too fast.
The reasons to be alarmed are a few. While the planet population since year 1 CE to the year 1,800 multiplied by 4.23, the population has multiplied by seven in the last two hundred and ten years. And the population growth of the planet population was an average of 0.08 % during 1,800 years. While in the past 210 years the average growth has been 0.9%
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

Population research is always painful because it carries with it the implication of population controls. It's no wonder that one post has already mentioned "extermination." No one likes being targeted for "population control" in the supposed interest of everyone else.

That said, there are resource problems and social problems that emerge from infrastructure and land use patterns. It's important to distinguish between population as a cause directly, though, and culture as a mitigating factor between individuals and resources.

Whenever anyone complains about overpopulation, the first thing I ask them is if they drive. Driving creates traffic and stresses infrastructure by allowing relatively few individuals to travel per unit-width road. Also, the large cargo-capacity of many vehicles encourages people to consume more, which stimulates waste and resource depletion and waste over a wider supply-chain range.

I don't know how many more people could live sustainably if everyone or at least most people would give up their cars and bike or walk for transportation, but I imagine it would be manyfold. When the conflict is between a luxury like traffic-reduction and a human right like having children, it seems clear to me that one person's human rights shouldn't be constrained for another person to drive everywhere all the time.

There are plenty of ways to maintain luxuries like driving while reducing their everyday usage levels. Rental cars can be used and insurance companies could make it easier for people to share cars. Businesses and residences can move closer to each other. That's not an easy task, but I think it will be a slowly evolving social-geographical pattern that creates more freedom for population growth far into the future.

This is the peaceful alternative to doomsday scenarios of war and famine typical of traditional Malthusian population forecasting.

Even if we are consuming a lot of energy, the western people and western ooffshoots, the ideal of most people in the world is to achieve western people standards. This is clearly not the a possibility. For that we are too many people.

But even the problem of growth has several dimensions. It is clear that as an animal species in a limited planet, growth cannot be not forever. There would be a moment that too many people in the planet would be an absurd hypothesis.

Lets figure the following argument.
Some people had told me, 0.9% of growth a year is not that much growth. This is the growth average of planet population in the last 200 years.
Then we can do some maths to found out if this is a real problem or not.
1) It is estimated that the population of the planet in the year 1 CE was 230 million people. Now we are 7 billion. That is a multiplication by 30.43
What is the average rate between both dates?
Well, lest calculate: Log 30.43/2010=7.38(10^-4)
Then, 10^7.064(10^-4)= 1.0017 then the rate of growth was 0.17% a year

2) What would mean, that the "normal" growth of 0.9% was substained since the year 1?
Let's calculate 230 millions * 1.009^2010 = 230 millions * 66.26 millions,
that is 1.5 (10^16) persons. That is 100 persons/per sq. meter, on the solid surface of the earth, including all hot deserts, frozen deserts and mountain ranges.
--------
Then, in the long range, a growth of 0.9% a year, cannot be considered a normal growth. Then Malthus was right.
Let's asume how many people would be if a growth of 0.17% a year would be possible sustained in the long range.
Let's imaging 7 thousand years from now on at 0.17% a year
7 billion (7*10^9) * 1.0017^7000= 1.02 (10^15) We would be 6.8 persons per sq. meter. Then, even this modest growth of 0.17% a year is too much.

Lets figure, that the growth is just 0.1% a year.
7 billion *1.001^7000= 7.65 (10^12) or more than thousand times the present population.

Then, the question is not the right of individuals, the right of the whole human species. Any arbitrary family can have as many as ten children, if the other people not not have as many. Is an statistical question. The rational aim is to achieve zero growth, or even sometime into the future, a negative growth for some centuries, until is achieved the correct density of population in this planet that must be quite different. It is not the same thing the density of population in Antarctic, the Sahara, Siberia, Nepal than in Maryland, or California. To my opinion, in the near future, most developed nations are already overpopulated, even if you reduce the consumption of energy to a 10 or 5% of the present.

For the concept overpopulation can not be a single number. It must be a varied one, depending on the reserves of energy, and other resources, like rainfall, temperature, etc.
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

I wasn't saying that there is or isn't a correlation between global warming and global population growth. I was pointing out that when people think in macro-theories like these, their attention tends to shift away from their behavior and power as individuals in everyday life. Furthermore, they forget that in order for population control to be attempted, some individuals have to make an attempt to exercise power/control over other individuals, which brings rights into question, and is a form of repressive violence. I wonder if people realize they are arguing in the direction of repressive violence in this thread. It's easy to forget when you frame it as a macro-scale issue where the lives of individuals become little more than pixels making up a bigger picture.

The main problem is the "traditional doctrine" that the nations that have more young people to sacrifice in a war has the most probabilities of success. Some nations actually are preparing themselves for this sacrifice, and their growth is not impeded.
Now I remember the times of British Empire, it was against the law promoting birth control, of abortion. Even an alternative to heterosexual sex, like homosexuality was also punished with severe penalties.
Then, contemplating these concepts, still in vigor in many countries, mostly Islamics, we can predict that the solution to this problem would be Malthusian. It is by means of war, mostly than famine. This would push us into a global thermonuclear war, that is the most sure way for the western nation to achieve a survival ration of 25%

Them, with some degree of liberalism, liberalism on sexual customs, only a small fraction of couples would be breeding. And we would have to protect economically with money to make it workable. In all the nations that have liberal laws and women working, the growth is not a problem. The Swedish government has to introduced protections for women with children, and the he population growth rose significantly.

Then, liberal societies would not have a problem with growth. It is the nations in which the women are slaves of their husbands, that have high rates of growth.

And these traditional customs would not change unless occurs a dramatic upheaval in this planet. Then the future is gloomy.
John Galaor

 

[brainstorm]

Then, contemplating these concepts, still in vigor in many countries, mostly Islamics, we can predict that the solution to this problem would be Malthusian. It is by means of war, mostly than famine. This would push us into a global thermonuclear war, that is the most sure way for the western nation to achieve a survival ration of 25%

I believe that this is the implicit forecast of the "Noah's Arc" approach taken to immigration by national governments in which proportional representation in immigration quotas are established to promote maximum global diversity among the residents of any given region. Probably, if at some point those who control nuclear arsenals come to the conclusion that global population growth is unsustainable with regard to the economic cultures of resource-utilization, they will elect to reset global population with an agreed upon topography of elimination. It would be very sad if they chose to do this, because I think there are ample opportunities to transform resource-utilization in a way that makes it possible for vast increases in population to live sustainably, if nothing else through muiti-generational interstellar transit.

Still, if overpopulation discourse continues to the point where those who control nuclear arsenals get sufficiently spooked, there is indeed a good chance that they will elect to eliminate a large proportion of Earth's inhabitants. I would love to convince them that there are less harsh methods to employ that restrict resource consumption in order to allow more personal choice in family-size, but probably some failed eugenics policy of fertility-repression will be attempted before it is discovered that people have found loopholes to allow large families to escape detection. I wondered, actually, during the time when mountains were being bombed under the assumption that Bin Ladin could have built livable cave-systems inside them how many people globally could successfully live in underground dwellings. Many cities have incredibly deep underground networks for transit, etc. but who is to say that similar underground networks haven't been established as urban metropolises in various remote places unconnected with any superterrainian city? If that were the case, these cities would be insulated against nuclear attack, so how would you then use nuclear bombing to reduce world population?

This is all such unpleasant, macabre theorizing. Wouldn't it be nicer to strategize ways for MORE population to be sustained through better more efficient use of resources?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Lets figure the following argument.
Some people had told me, 0.9% of growth a year is not that much growth. This is the growth average of planet population in the last 200 years.
Then we can do some maths to found out if this is a real problem or not.

Hey, kids! Can you find the omitted variable bias in the above?

 

[John Galaor]

Reply to message #86 of Brainstorm

Some complex problems we are contemplating. I cannot answer them.

It is evident a first sight that growth, with a little of math insight, that we can not go indefinitely this way for it would cause many problems.
I had pointed some math arguments in my exposition on message # 84

On the other hand, excess population has been traditionally the mother lode of most wars, and most famine crisis. It is just a speculation of my own.

To me, a nation that keeps his population growing on high ratios during several decades is planning some war, or fearing some war. Or their leaders do not care of the future of their nations.

Then, to me, it seems very unlikely that the ratio of growth between year 1 and year 1,800 were as regular as the average value results, 0.08% a year. Average value only means an average, not the ordinary condition of growth on most nations. What I am trying to say is that, nations all over the world had been growing at rates of 0.9% a year or higher, for some time, till a new war of a famine, explodes in their faces. Then, the case of the famines is special, for it breastfeed anarchy and many small armies raise up looking for food, and assaulting farmers and agriculturist centers who have food stored.
The result of these troubles are wars that produce more famine and deaths that the famine itself. It is enough a drop as small as 20 % in food production to have a sort of civil war.

So far we had not witnessed this so far, making of Malthus a stupid prophet, because we had been consuming growing amounts of fossil fuels in the past 150 years. But even then, Most of the wars in 19 and 20 centuries I presume that were due to some form of overpopulation. I have not solid data to prove this point. It is an intuition. If we look carefully we can found the data that I am suggesting.
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

To dear GRGreathouse

I will be glad if you pointed yourself.
Year 1,800 estimated population of the planet 1 billion.
Year 2010 July, estimated population of the planet 7 billions.
We can calculate the estimated growth in the period by doing some calculations

RG (rate of Growth) in % per year must be...

(10^(log7/210)-1)*100 = 0.0093*100= 0.93

I don't think there is here any bias. What is your comment?
John Galaor

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't think there is here any bias.

Really? You can't think of a MAJOR explanatory variable over that period?

 

[John Galaor]

You mean for the average rate of growth in 210 years?
Is this too short a period to measure an average growth ratio for the planet?

What is the bias you are contemplating? I cannot guess it. You must enlighten me. I am eager to learn.
John Galaor

 

[heusdens]

Digging up some info on my social-geography school lessons, we should consider the issue of demography as follows:

1. In primite societies both birth rates and death rates are high, the population is somewhat stable, does not grow a lot.

2. If a society progresses economically and scientifically, we can drop down death rates (like infant mortality, and longer aging), but birth rates are initially still high.

3. After suffcient progression, death rates still drop, but also birth rates will drop, and ultimately will stabilize around the same numbers. If you have sufficient access to healthcare and have sufficient economic means, you don't need or want many children, and population grow stabilizes, sometimes will even cause a tendency of a aging population (this seems to trouble now a lot of developed nations - there aren't enough youngsters to provide for the health and services needed by the aging population).

Our current problem is - in short - that while developing nations become developed, they will have temporarily an overshoot of population, since the death rates will drop, but the birth rates will not drop immediately, only sometime later.

This causes the excess population, developing nations have a young population, but are still poor.

I believe around 2075 or so, the population grow will come to a halt, but then we will likely have around 9 billion people. But food sources and other resources will become short.

In fact - and what I think is what is right and best policy - we should do the most to develop the underdeveloped world so that they can reach the same level of economy and prosperity and social services as the developed world is already used to, since as longer it takes to reach that level, the longer the population overshoot will take.

As advanced industrial nations, we should take responsibility, and transform our economies as quickly as possible towards renewable resources, and facilitate the developing countries in having a fair share of remaining resources and aid them in access to new technology which uses resources more efficiently and economically.

If we fail to do so, if the developing nations stay too far behind and can never catch up, we will be sitting on a time bom, since the population will grow too large, and we will meet resource scarcities.

This will lead to broad scale warfare globally over scarce resources (water, energy, minerals, etc.), mass hunger and starvation, etc.

The leading countries of the developing world, primarily the USA, is not acting responsibly in my opinion, since their keep themselves dependend on scarce resources like oil, and acted unjustfully by invading countries like Iraq and Afghanistan (which as we know now, has plenty of valid resources beneath the ground, of course that was already known, since the russians had already figured that out, but we have been lead to believe that the only reason for invading Afghanistan were the establishing of democracy - this strategy will ultimately fail, and citizins of Afghanistan will be the victim of this).

USA and other developed countries have enough scientific and technological capacities to become energy independend, using renewables only, within 20-30 years. That is, if they really want to. Warfare is much more expensive, and does not provide any real solution, in fact it's an anti-solution.

We need more land area to grow food for a growing population. But circa 1/3 of the world's usable ground is devestated by desertification. Both in China, Northern Africa, Middle east, Australia and other regions are millions of acres of potentially usuable land, but which is now devestated or threatened to become a desert.
We would need a global plan to make any possible effort to restore those areas, for instance with the implementation of large scale solar power plants that use the land for producing electricity (around 2020 this can be as cost effective as currently using oil) and potentially also for desalinating salt water (Concentrated Solar Power plants are the right kind of solar plants that can do that in a cost-effetive way) and creating drinking water, that can be used for irrigation (but would need to be some form of drip-irrigation, since the water price will be high of course and water would be needed to be used as economically as possible) and forming dester like areas into agricultural land.
Other benefits of this are that sand storms, as for instance in China, are already devastating and costs billions of dollars, so there is much money that can be restored by beating deserts and forming them into agricultural land.
The costs for doing that on a global scale might be enormous, but:
- The benefits are also enormous: a renewable energy source and transformation of deserts into farm land
- Military solutions are more expensive, and don't solve the problems, they are a problem inthemselves, they are an anti-solution.
- Investing in such large scale global projects might be very helpfull for the economy, both that of western countries and that of developing countries. It provides work for decades for millions of workers.

Just some suggestions...

 

[John Galaor]

You book is rather simple and optimistic. Let's see other things differently.

I want to answer something about primitive societies.
your point 1)
"1. In primitive societies both birth rates and death rates are high, the population is somewhat stable, does not grow a lot."

If by primitive societies you mean "hunter gatherers" I have read something different. Primitive societies do not grow fast, because to get pregnant women had to accumulate a body fat weight of 20 or 30% This fat is like a guarantee of a pregnancy to become successful. The amount of calories of 10 or 15 kg. of fat is the equivalent weight needed to feed the baby in the womb to term.
Then , about half of this fat would would be needed to breastfeed the baby.

Then, on average, a young woman of 13 would need like ten years to accumulate that much fat and get pregnant. Then, after a year or more of breast feeding a baby, the woman needs another then years to accumulate fat again.

About mortality of hunter gatherers is not very high, except for accidents with predators. Epidemics are rare among them, because they live in a low human density environment.Then to the second point, the farmer and herding economies, food is aplenty and
the fertility jumps to the sky.
Then this point 2)
"2. If a society progresses economically and scientifically, we can drop down death rates (like infant mortality, and longer aging), but birth rates are initially still high."
Initially, technical progress is very slow, and the main troubles are caused by excessive population in the same place. As the land for agriculture is limited they soon get trap with an excess of people, forcing some of them to emigrate, or they quarrel for the land in use among them (Civil wars).
In the case of herding people, the lands to graze are also limited, and the potential for the fertility to reach critical limits is also obvious. As it is obvious, the flocks cannot keep growing in numbers for a long time. There are not enough grazing
lands. Then this excess population give way to the first local wars, either between herders and farmers, like in Cain and Abel story, or in general wars with neighbors.
Between the year 1 CE and the year 1,800 the average growth per year has been a modest 0.08% That is less of 1 per a thousand people. As most of the countries were developed into farmers and herders, the availability of food was not a serious limitation for fertility. Most women, except the most destitute, would not have problems to accumulate 10 to 15 kilos of fat in 5 or 6 years. Hunter gatherers can do as well the times of abundant rains.
Then, to low rate of grown can only be explained in a Malthusian way, with wars and epidemics. In this period of time from year 1 to 1,800 the village were rather close and there were a lot cities. Then, war were determinant to lower the population when it was excessive. And the concept excessive is a relative one. In good times population is growing, them come bad times, and harvest began to fail more or less, never 100% If there is too little rain even herders suffer a punishment. If there is too much cold farming have problems and also sheep and goats and cows in winter.
Then, this problems gave rise to marauding of small bands of armed men and just common civil wars.

About your third point.
"3. After suffcient progression, death rates still drop, but also birth rates will drop, and ultimately will stabilize around the same numbers. If you have sufficient access to healthcare and have sufficient economic means, you don't need or want many children, and population grow stabilizes, sometimes will even cause a tendency of a aging population (this seems to trouble now a lot of developed nations - there aren't enough youngsters to provide for the health and services needed by the aging population).

Even the present situation, I mean the XX century social situation, is quite different just to a point. We would have been able to feed a population that had multiplied by seven in just 210 years. This had been possible, not only because we had had very lethal wars, but because we had been burning fossil fuels at a much higher rate than the population was growing.
While the rate of growth in the most developed nations was close to 1% a year, our growth of fuel consumptions was on average 2.5%

While some poor nations, had been growing both, the population and the consumption of fuel, about the same rate. Quite often, the population was growing faster than the consumption of energy. Then, it is in those nations that the most pressure for wars would occur.
Then, the explanation of medical care of children and vaccination is not the main variable for the growth in underdeveloped countries.

About the western nations, tanks to democracy the women wanted to enter into the work force to feel independent of their fathers or husbands. Then to have many children was against this ideal of independence. That is my explanation of the western nations to have less growth. Then the most we work to have a home and a car, and some conspicuous consumption, the lest time we haver to invest in children.

About the problem of an aging population, we have the option of start to care less of them. Then main problem with aging population is conventional wars. We would not have enough people to make a conventional war. We will be forced to use massive means of destruction to save our asses.

As for an economy of frugality with energy, we are doomed to fail. It is very difficult to reverse our means of live, unless dramatic circumstances would force us. Then, when this would happen it will be to late to react and solve the problem.
Then, there is only a few opportunities we have to solve this crisis, of exhaustion of fossil fuels. The fusion of hydrogen and more or less conventional atomic energy. Advanced atomic power plants that would not produce to much radioactive wastes can be possible.

And just for a crisis, we can do something with alternative solar and wind energies. But the main problem is that anything technological it is being done with a lot energy. Anything is done with energy, watering, fertilizing, fighting plagues, building new dams; etc. The food we have in our table is there thanks to a lot of energy spent to put it there. Our clothes, our shoes, our machines, cars, refrigerators, cans of beer, etc. All is made with a lot of artificial energy.

Take out all this energy of the equation and we all are doomed to extermination.
John Galaor
.

 

[brainstorm]

To me, a nation that keeps his population growing on high ratios during several decades is planning some war, or fearing some war. Or their leaders do not care of the future of their nations.

What if the nation was a republic that required the power and choice of how much to reproduce was an inalienable right of the people at the individual level? In that case, people might just be having kids to make big happy families without planning war or fearing it. They might just have faith that things will work out, either because of belief in God or just general faith in technological and economic progress to sustain more people.

 

[heusdens]

What if the nation was a republic that required the power and choice of how much to reproduce was an inalienable right of the people at the individual level? In that case, people might just be having kids to make big happy families without planning war or fearing it. They might just have faith that things will work out, either because of belief in God or just general faith in technological and economic progress to sustain more people.

Big families were not as much a blessing but more of a necessity, since the infant mortality rate was high, and having many children was a way of securing your old day, when there were no pension plans.

Countries which have low infant mortaility and provide pension plans, do not have high birth rates. They are in fact tending towards the opposite, a too aging population.

But then, as the situation in developing countries is reversed, we could be better off importing more young immigrants from those countries. Which would be beneficial for both.

 

[heusdens]

You book is rather simple and optimistic. Let's see other things differently.

I want to answer something about primitive societies.
your point 1)
"1. In primitive societies both birth rates and death rates are high, the population is somewhat stable, does not grow a lot."

If by primitive societies you mean "hunter gatherers" I have read something different. Primitive societies do not grow fast, because to get pregnant women had to accumulate a body fat weight of 20 or 30% This fat is like a guarantee of a pregnancy to become successful. The amount of calories of 10 or 15 kg. of fat is the equivalent weight needed to feed the baby in the womb to term.
Then , about half of this fat would would be needed to breastfeed the baby.

Then, on average, a young woman of 13 would need like ten years to accumulate that much fat and get pregnant. Then, after a year or more of breast feeding a baby, the woman needs another then years to accumulate fat again.

About mortality of hunter gatherers is not very high, except for accidents with predators. Epidemics are rare among them, because they live in a low human density environment.

You are right on this, the birth rates were not high, neither the death rates, although both were volative but on average the population was not much growing. Only after agricultural techniques were used, and there were surplus food, could the population grow.

 

[John Galaor]

In older farming and herding societies, the patriarch of big families had many children to work in the same way as you got slaves, to work on the land, or to tend the flocks. Even children were needed to fight against neighbors who cross borders with flocks to graze into your own lands. Then, all their daughters and daughters in law were enough to take care of him in old age. These societies were stable just to a point, for the marriage rights were restricted to the older son, who inherited all the power. Then sometimes, a second son could also marry as a special privilege but the wealth was all kept under the chief of the family and under the future ruler, the older brother.

But "indefinite growth of human population" looks to me absurd and proper of people that do not understand maths, nor the very limits of technology. Techology is not magic, even if we do not understand it.
John Galaor
.

 

[John Galaor]

The main problem is the "traditional doctrine" that the nations that have more young people to sacrifice in a war has the most probabilities of success. Some nations actually are preparing themselves for this sacrifice, and their growth is not impeded.
Now I remember the times of British Empire, it was against the law promoting birth control, or abortion. Even an alternative to heterosexual sex, like homosexuality was also punished with severe penalties.
Then, contemplating these concepts, still in vigor in many countries, mostly Islamics, we can predict that the solution to this problem would be involuntary, that is Malthusian. It will be solved by means of war and and famine. The present excess of population would push us into a global thermonuclear war.

Them, with some degree of liberalism, liberalism on sexual customs, only a small fraction of couples would do the breeding. And we would have to protect them economically with money to make it workable.
In all the nations that have liberal laws and women working, the growth is not a problem. But even, the Swedish government in some moment was worried by a negative growth, then it introduced protections for women with children and cheap day-care centers, then the Swedish population grew significantly again.

Then, liberal societies would not have a problem with population growth. It is the nations in which the women are slaves of their husbands, that have the most higher rates of growth.

And these traditional customs would not change unless occurs a dramatic upheaval in this planet. Then the future is gloomy.
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

To huesdens
<<You are right on this, the birth rates were not high, neither the death rates, although both were volative but on average the population was not much growing. Only after agricultural techniques were used, and there were surplus food, could the population grow. >>

The main question is that with enough food stored, humans can grow much faster than the capacity of the land to sustain the increased in people. Any change for the worse in weather partners, or even the freedom of the new excess of people to breed more people is the perfect recipe for a serious problem.
For we are talking here of an "exponential growth". Then, since many thousand years ago, society had built dams against excessive breeding by barring marriage and sexual freedom to certain social categories like slaves, servants, soldiers, monks, nuns, and poor people in general. This held the growth rates much lower than there were not compulsory limits.

I think that many of the wars in the past, even those of 19 and 20 centuries, were caused by excessive population.

Other troubles, like cyclical economic crisis, are also caused by excessive growth of financial money. Economy cannot have an "exponential growth" for many years. This provokes a partial collapse of the economy.
So far, industrialization has been possible, because we had been consuming increasing amounts of fossil fuels by the year. But then, fossil fuels have announced their own near exhaustion.

All the problems of existence are related to limits.
It seems to me infantile to dream of an uninterrupted prosperity of this planet, perpetually growing, or even aiming to send billions of people to populate distant planets in the Galaxy.
Thirty years ago I was talking about this matter of overpopulation, when a moron told me: "I do not see any problem of excessive population! We still got the Moon and the planets to colonize!" This guy was a genius in Maths. He deserved an A in a Maths exam.
John Galaor
.

 

[ThomasEdison]

I don't buy into the assumption that war, famine or disease have anything but a very minor effect on human population growth. I certainly do not see any of these factors being at all significant towards the future. A World War lasting several years might decimate millions; but the worlds population increase will remain in the millions per month even during wartime.



I agree with some of the posters in this thread that outer space is a terrible idea for quelling Earth's population and completely unfeasable. To be clear: space is not an option, at all.


I also disagree with people who think that the choice to not procreate is any factor as well. It's too complex an issue. Nothing short of draconian measures will change people's choice and that is last century's way of business.
Hoping people will make the correct choice because they are benign or civilized(urban) is simply wishful thinking.

There is also an assumption that as the world becomes more industrialized families will have less children. To a point this may be true however human lifespans are long and the lag time between cultures becoming metropolitan could take several generations and by then we will be swimming in people at a cost to the greater environment (that can not recover in time.)

What I do expect is a future much more crowded, and a continuation of mass extinctions of animal and plant and sealife species. I expect more urbanization but without any cultural shift towards less children. Internationally there will be land grabs and minor turf disputes over fresh water and energy but no significant wars (no death toll numbers in the billions I mean.)


My prediction is that "we made our bed and we have to lie in it now." There will be no catastrophic change to the paradigm of a crowded Earth (like a huge war or plague) and there will be no proactive solution either. The worst cost will be to species diversity, then a long time after that, a cost to the human lifestyle (less space, less choice in food, less energy usage, less material objects, less of everything except childbirth.)

I think that overpopulation is a problem without a solution.
Some problems are unsolvable.
I can't think of a single factor that could ever interfere with a couple's decision to have more children than they (or society) could support.

 

[John Galaor]

Ok, dear ThomasEdison.

As for the part of the past. How can you explain that the population growth estimated for the past, by statisticians, was so low? Less than 0.08% as average in 1800 years?
I can speculate with the idea that only 1/5 of population had the right to marry and breed. But the comparison of growth of las 200 years and the previous growth was about 0.9/0.08= 11.25 then, even if the families had the same average number of children than in the last 200 years, we have to do some calculations. Let's figure the ratio of women that breed today in the planet. It must be about 80% It is is not much different. It must be like (1/5)/(4/5)=1/4
In he the period of 1,800 years, they have to have 1/4 of the present ratio in growth. We are still missing something. 11,25/4= 2.81 That means, that the people of the period of 1,800 years, had to have been growing 2.81 times faster that our accounting says.
Some people, try to defuse my criticism of population growth explaining the alarming present rates of some nations, (2% to 3%), as the result of modern medical care. This looked unbelievable to me. For this growth is occurring in the most poorer countries.
One have to put a question, how many children were dying in the past times, to different illnesses? 1/2.8 = 0.357 or 35.7% It does not happen even in Haiti (7,5%) , or Ethiopia (10.2%), one of the poorest countries in Africa suffering of more hunger.

Look at this link for Haiti, http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ha-haiti/People
It gaves Haiti a growth rate of 2.49% a year.
Then have a look at infant mortality rates.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_inf_mor_rat-health-infant-mortality-rate
It counts the dead infants of less than a year per 1000 babies born a year.
In general, it goes from 192 for Angola, to 74 for Haiti this is in the rank 29. Then infant mortality rate of the first ten nations is 192 for Angola to 102 that is Bhutan. But Angola is in the rank 55 for growth with 2.13%
And Bhutan is in the rank 110 with a growth of 2.13%
I mean, we can have some prospections of this statistics.

Then for the period of 1,800 since year 1 CE to 1,800, we can assume an average mortality rate of 15% a year for all the period. That is 150 per thousand children born. Greater than Angola today. Then going back to my accounting. When I said
One have to put a question, how many children were dying in the past times, to different illnesses? 1/2.8 = 0.357 or 35.7%
I was missing a 35.7% of people, then you subtract 15% dying of babies less than a year old, it gives us 35.7-15=20.7 I am missing a 20.7 % of people. This is the sort of people that died in wars and famines.
But if I have reasons to believe that families in the past had more babies, like in poor under-developing countries of today... then I missed quite a lot more people that had died in wars, famines and epidemics.
I am counting that so near as 19 centuries, families in US and Europe had as many as 6 children as average. Today they have barely 2.2 babies. That is, they were growing nearly three times faster. Then, the need to look for the missing population is more intense.
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

As a continuation of my previous message.
It seems is more difficult to convince people in most countries of the world to have less children than build a manned spaceship and land in planet Mars.
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

Sorry, Thomas:
Reply to post #100
You said,
<<I don't buy into the assumption that war, famine or disease have anything but a very minor effect on human population growth.>>

I meant you were referring to Malthus's theory and my former reply was in relation to this idea. Now, I think you were contemplating mostly the XIX and XX Centuries. If you look at the former 200 years Malthus seemed to be in error. The population in this recent period has grown rather high at and average of 0.9% for the whole planet. This outstanding phenomenon has been possible thanks to increasing amounts of fossil fuels consumption. Never, in any previous period in history the men has burned so huge quantities of fuels. And this is quite evident, even for someone not an expert in history like me.

But even, if you were not obfuscated by whole perspective of the planet population, you can check if some revolutionary wars had any thing to do, with a previous exaggerated growth of the population. I am thinking in the Revolution of Mexico in the 20's of the XX century. Also, have a look at wars in countries like Nicaragua, and el Salvador. Look at the statistics of population.
Even in 18 Century, the French Revolution has to have some relation with a famine some previous years earlier. The Napoleonic wars can be explained as a trouble of excess population not solved with a single revolution. Even some of the wars in Europa in the last quarter of 19 century can be explained as the result of a problem with hunger. Even, the growth in population present some troubles when too many people in his twenties found problems to get a job.

If you look at the depression of 1929, you can see that even the I WW was unable to solve the problem of excessive population. That is ten years later, the previous problem of lack of employment was not yet solved. All the surviving soldiers were back at home and most of them had troubles to find a job. This can be a rational explanation for IIWW.
The trouble is a little disguised as an economic crisis. Then the analysis can get a little blurred and the eyes have problems to see clear.

Some crisis can be considered as a problem of excessive financial capital. It has grown so fast and so big, that it cannot find a proper place to win more profits. For the crucial idea behind financial capital is the vocation is has to earn more profits. Then, investing a little part of it in the same country, with the same population, do not give up any yield. This is the main reason for a crisis. Then, a wrong solution before any crisis is to lend money to some people to buy things overvalued. Then, when the crisis blows up, a lot of people is enslaved to the banks to pay back their debt. Then, with the news of the crisis, those that have some earnings have fear to spend most of this money. Then, the commerce has shrunk to a third of the previous level, before the crisis.

All this has the same root, exponential growth. This growth, either of human beings, sheep or even profits, can not last very long. For it can cause serious problems.
John Galaor
.

 

[ikos9lives]

Be careful what you wish for. After decades of struggling to contain the global population explosion that emerged from the healthcare revolution of the 20th century, the world confronts an unfamiliar crisis: rapidly decreasing birthrates and declining life spans that might set back the progress of human development.

Edit: Religious link deleted by mentor

 

[John Galaor]

I do not share this concept of yours. I had paid a close attention to your site in Catholic Education, etc.
Well, you had touch a raw never here. I had commented often about the rate of growth, average growth of the last 200 years. And it is 0.9% a year. Someone had replied to me, this is a "normal growth". It is not.

The population of the planet, between year Zero and the present, had multiplied by 30.43 That means an average growth of 0,17% year. Then 0,9% is not normal.
If it were normal, for such a long period of time, how much would have multiplied the population of the planet?
Let me see, 1.009^2010=66 millions. It would had multiplied by 66 millions, not by 30. And this is quite a huge multiplication.
If that growth during more than two thousand years would had occurred, the present population would had been,
66 millions*230 millions= 1,5 (10^16)
This number can be read 15,180 trillion people. (more than 15 thousand trillion people)
That is more or less the amount squared meters in the solid surface of the planet. it includes all deserts, Siberia, Greenland, and the Antarctic.
It means, we would have 100 people per square meter, or 10 people per square feet. This planet would be pretty crowded.

Then the Holy Spirit of the Catholic Church, it seems that did not studied Maths at school. I advice the Holly Spirit to take a course in Maths.

A totally different question is that due to the scarcity or energy resources, the leaders of the planet would get rather nervous. And perhaps, a global thermonuclear war would erase off the planet all this mess of overpopulation.
Someone had said that the average life-span of an industrial civilization is not more than 200 years. Perhaps this Duncan was too pessimistic, and the life span of a civilization would be as long as 250 years.
Yours,
John Galaor.