3 of 3
3
On Population Control
Posted: 05 April 2007 03:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

deleted by the author

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 04:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

Well George if you just want to make up history based on your own current assumptions, we really have nothing to discuss.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 05:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

deleted by the author

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 05:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

[quote author=“cgallaga”]
And run the machines, and farm the land, and make the next generation and on and on and on.

Except the need for this is in proportion to the population #1, and #2 diminishes every day with automation and machines. If there are less people, you need less workers, so there is no issue no matter what, and when you throw in robots, computers, factories, etc., it’s even less of an issue.

Did you know that most bricks in America are made today without ever being touched by a human being? People drive the machines that mine the clay, then they dump the clay in a location at the factory, and from there the clay is processed, made into bricks, packaged, and loaded onto trucks 100% by machine, run by a computer control room that 1 person operates.

Things that used to require hundreds of people to do can now be done with 1 person. In 50-100 years most jobs will be done by computer and robot.

Please now responsibility is also a genetic trait?...no evidence of course just wild speculation and “belief.”

Not exclusively. Like all things it is a mix of both genetics and environment. Things like attention span, however certainly have strong genetic components. Things like tendency to follow leaders or be independent thinkers, etc., has genetic components. It’s all a mix of course, but again, families are going to have both a genetic and environmental effect. People learn the habits and practices of their parents.

Not always, of course. Due to a huge range of factors sometimes people turn out much different than their parents. Usually, however, they don’t.

People have been claiming we are at the ends of our means, that the resources are running out forever, and yet we keep finding more and better ways, and we keep on growing in prosperity. How is that so? That is so because the only “natural” resource is human ingenuity.

Tell that to people in Africa and India, and even parts of China. Yes, advances in farming technology have been able to make more food available, and this may be able to advance even more. I suspect that we will be able to advance technology in ways to make it technically possible to double the population of the planet. Engineered foods, and materials are advancing and this will certainly make it possible to feed more people, but food isn’t the only issue.

Land is an issue. There is only so much habitable space. Things like terra-forming and a total weather control and nonsense like this is going to probably be technically possible within 200 years, but extremely costly and destructive to natural habitats. Do other animals have any right to exist?

We may be able transform things like the Amazon rain forest into habitable space for humans by totally destroying it, but is this a good idea?

You mean Hong Kong with one of the highest standards of living in the world? Hong Kong one of the greenest places in the world with nearly 80% of its land reserved for country parks? You mean Hong with one of the highest population densities in the world? You mean Hong Kong who’s only resource is its wonderful people? Yeah we are too cool, and proof (along with almost any other major metropolitan area) to the pudding that the hysteria of overpopulation is just that.

As someone who likes to live in the country, I’d certainly never want to live there.

Also, most of the wealth of Hong Kong comes from mainland China. If you weren’t simply a hub through which resources produced in other places was funneled your standard of living wouldn’t be high at all. Hong Kong is not self-sustainable, it relies on other areas to supply its wealth and needs.

The entire planet can’t be turned into Hong Kongs and New Yorks, it doesn’t work that way.

So then you agree? Birth rates are declining, on their own, without central planning? :? :? :?

They are declining among certain demographics, but not all. I never said that they weren’t, no one here did. Birth rates are declining most among well educated, responsible, intelligent people, and staying the same or going up among non-educated, less intelligent, less irresponsible, poor people.

First reality does not bear out your second statement but…What you just said it is going to get better and worse at the same time! Consistency please.

I’m saying that with increases in automation, declining growth rates, even in the face of caring for the retirement of boomers, is less and less of a problem. The Japanese are proving this with their advanced development of robots. The only real potential problem with population growth rate declines at this moment is one of relative numbers of retirees to workers.

This is only because there was a huge spike after WWII and because life spans are increasing. Automation and mechanization, which increases productivity, can of course make-up for this problem, because fewer workers can produce more, thus you don’t need as many workers per retiree anyway.

At the same time, as automation and mechanization advances, there will be increasingly less need for workers overall, especially low skilled workers, which is the segment of the population that is growing the fastest.

Yes indeed, some men have been crying about this particular sky falling since we stopped being hunter gatherers. And yet we work longer hours now that we ever did as hunter gatherers.

There is an ebb and flow of course. We have never been on the verge of creating computers more intelligent than humans before. We are on that verge now.

Hmmm and you add science fiction Bogey men as well? Plus the quality of life on this planet for most in this planet is better than ever before, we have better nutrition, better health care, better technology to fight off brutal inhumane nature, longer lives and healthier babies. That is why our population has grown.

Of course, but you do realize that the earth is finite right, and that at some point, there simply isn’t any more room or resources right? How many people can the earth hold? 12 billion? 20 billion? 50 billion? 100 billion?

In what capacity? We each live in 10X10 apartments and eat soy wafers? No forests left, no animals, just people, asphalt and bioengineering labs? At some point there is a limit to how many people this place can hold. As people live longer, that just makes the population problem worse.

Hyperbole and not one shred of fact or evidence to support your hypothesis.

I present generations of trailer park trash as my evidence wink

None of what you say explains the reality of what we see. And if it were true then in history all people were religious. What explains the 10% in America or nearly half of the UK being non?

All people in history were never religious. Indeed major organized religion is a relatively recent phenomenon, arising only within the past 4,000 - 3,000 years, and only in a few places. It has then been spread from those few places to everywhere else, and there has been resistance from the very beginning.

There have been times of more and less religiosity in various cultures, and in Europe now we see waining religiosity, while in America it is sustaining generally, or only perhaps very slightly waning.

Nevertheless, its obvious that growing up in a religious family increases the chance that you will be religious vs. growing up in a non-religious one.

It is awesome (in the scary me **itless sense) that with cobble together pseudo factoids and beliefs, one can generate such a brutal and totalitarian ideal of governance. But then Stalin, Hitler, Mao, many many Churches, all did the same, I shouldn’t be surprised.

More hyperbole and nonsense.

Population density has a direct effect on freedom and the need for other forms of social regulation. As population density goes up, the need for regulation every other aspect of society increases.

Take drinking and driving, or any traffic issue, for example. In the 1950s in America drinking and driving was hardly an issue, and in rural places it still isn’t a huge deal. If you get drunk and drive out in the farmland the biggest risk is that you will hurt yourself. In a city though you will almost certainly kill innocent people.

As population density goes up, risks go up and the need to regulate behavior goes up.

I think that a large part of the quality of life in America comes from the relatively low population density. We can still relatively easily own land here, own large homes, go out into places where there are no cops and do whatever you want, etc.

Look at England now, plastered with video surveillance, fees for driving into the city, etc.

There are definite compromises that come with population density.

Some population data:

550px-Population_curve.svg.png

Relative population per country:

anamorphosepopworld195020251xf.jpg

Population growth projections:

587px-World_population_evolution.png

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 06:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

Various population related links:

http://www.populationmedia.org/issues/issues.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_pyramid

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6219922.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4585920.stm

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 07:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7593
Joined  2007-03-02

So you are suggesting that all poor people are not responsible, uneducated, baby-making machines and should be spayed or neutered after having a child or two?  Sounds like what they did to exterminate the N.A.  They’d have one child then they gutted them so they couldn’t have more kids.  rolleyes  THEN they took their children away and placed them in Carlisle school, which were an abusive nightmere.

I disagree with this thought though.  Not every poor person is unintelligent and they do find ways to practice birth control.  The problem is, the Religious Reich is trying to insure that ONLY abstinance is being taught in the public schools.  That’s all fine and dandy, but we are human and we do have natural urges in the right situations, so condom use and birth control should be taught in sex education classes, not just abstinance. There lies the problem- or part of it.

The other part is, we have not figured out how to terraform other planets or moons to that we can move some of the people.  Theoretically, it is possible to terraform the moon and maybe even Mars, BUT there is the extreme cost and feesibility of humans living there.  For a long time we would have to transport food and alike to people who live in these places, so the living expenses would be costly and no one would want to move there, unless they were Bill Gates. That’s not mentioning the other life stuggles they would encounter that would cost a lot of money to deal with immediately.  The moon is a very dusty place and filters aren’t cheap nor are suits to go outside whatever shelter they would have.  Irrigation would be an issues too, given there is no known source of water on the moon.  Mars MIGHT be a little easier, in that regard.

Even so, along with fixing Global Warming here on Earth, I think a better option would be to figure out how to terraform the moon and maybe even Mars.  Until we do that, our best bet is to educate people- both rich and poor- concerning their options about birth control.  We have to get the Religious Reich out of the public (Secular) schools first.  We also need to make birth control available and affordable to everyone.  If someone is making $1200/mo (minimum wage approx) and the cost of the pill, say, is $50+/mo. while rent is say $500 and food to feed their two kids cost them $200+/mo. not to mention utilities, there’s a problem, because the single mother (who maybe divorced and not irresponsible) will feed Johnie and Suzie first, if she cares about them.  Of course, she could just give up dating anyone, which is a very good option since she is preoccupied with two kids, school and/or work.  However, not everyone can do that, which is sad.  Some people don’t want to do that either.  Celebacy is not for everyone, but they should take responsibilty for themselves (and their family) regardless.

You just can’t tell people they can not have children either, just to control population of the species.  Like I said, there are far better options than what you seem to be proposing.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 09:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

So you are suggesting that all poor people are not responsible, uneducated, baby-making machines and should be spayed or neutered after having a child or two?

Thanks for the misrepresentation. From the very beginning I said that I thought an across the board limit of three children per person, no matter who you are, it a good idea for many reasons, both environmental and social.

Not every poor person is unintelligent and they do find ways to practice birth control.

For some reason, some people find is difficult to talk about trends, statistics, norms, etc.

As I have had to emphasize throughout, there are always exceptions to the rule.

I don’t see why creating a level playing field is looked as in such a strange way.

Until we do that, our best bet is to educate people- both rich and poor- concerning their options about birth control.

Of course. Unfortunately, many religions promote large families and say that birth control is a sin.

We have to get the Religious Reich out of the public (Secular) schools first.

Which is hard to do in a democracy where religion people have more kids than non-religious ones.

You just can’t tell people they can not have children either, just to control population of the species. Like I said, there are far better options than what you seem to be proposing.

Such as?

Some things to think about:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm

Futurist John Gary stated in 1997 that Islam is the fastest-growing of the major world religions. This is driven by the higher birth rates in the third world.

This is proven out. Islam is growing at a faster rate because Islamic people are pumping out more babies.

Basically Muslims and Catholics have the most babies.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 09:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7593
Joined  2007-03-02

[quote author=“rationalrevolution”]

You just can’t tell people they can not have children either, just to control population of the species. Like I said, there are far better options than what you seem to be proposing.

Such as?

If you had read carefully, I named some options.  They of course will take time and of course, in some cases, new technology.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 11:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

What’s everyone worrying about?  Between global warming, fascinating biological warfare research going on, and the truculent, benighted belief systems of the world’s major religions, we shouldn’t have to worry about controlling the population much longer. smile  :cry:

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2007 01:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2007-05-10

Dr. Albert Bartlett has addressed this topic in some length and in my opinion put forth a fairly compelling case that we are facing a very real problem.  I think some of his numbers may be a bit inflated, but even with more conservative estimates only delay the serious problems slightly.

He admits that in the end the problem is assured to solve itself, in so far as there is a limit to what we can sustain.  The problem is that the if we do nothing the solution comes by way of misery. 

It’s interesting in his reference to the Scientific American estimate of roughly 9 billion by 2037.  Most of the conservative estimates I’ve seen put the 2050 population around 8.5 billion.  Notably the U.S Census Bureau put the 2050 population at 9.4 billion.  The UN says 9.1 billion by 2050.

That’s over 50% increase in in about 40 years!  That’s serious stuff.  Per capita consumption of energy, still largely non-renewable, is continuing to outpace scientific progress.  Now tack on another 3 billion people.  I’m not sure I’d like to see 2050…well, maybe out of morbid curiosity.  My prediction = War, Famine, & Disease.  I honestly don’t think people will sufficiently address this until a huge price has been paid. 

“Almost all of the increase will take place in the less developed countries, whose populations is expected to reach 7.8 billion in 2050 from 5.3 billion now, while the population of the more developed countries will remain around 1.2 billion, it says.” - UN

Religion is of course only one, arguably small, contributor to the culture of those who want large families.  As I see it, more of a contributor is the fact that in many cultures/classes, particularly the poor, offspring are a means of welfare for the aging generation.  Often, the sole source of welfare they will have access to.  Not to metion, the romanticized notion of large families in and of itself. 

I tend to agree with Dr. Bartlett, and others, who remain very skeptical that scientific progress will be able to keep pace with the exponentially growing challenges presented by population growth.  As resources grow scarce and land is sought we are going to face gravely serious problems.  It will become increasingly difficult to tell some guy trying to feed and put shoes on his child that he can’t cut down that forest to grow crops, can’t fish, etc. 


There used to be a high quality copy of Dr. Bartlett’s DVD called “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” on google but it has been removed.  The following contains some of it.  I set it to jump to 14:20, the heart of the argument:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5051121482067161853&it=860

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3