The Ultimate Resource

[Virgil]

There has been many posts advocating what people think is a crises of over population. I've tried many times to explain why not only over population is not a problem but why increasing population is good thing. I admit I haven't been too articulate. Today I came across a piece by Walter Williams, someone I respect and often read. I may not alwyas agree with Mr. Williams, but I must say I usually find him fascinating. This piece really articulates why increasing population has shown to be beneficial to human prosperity and why increasing population is still a good thing. Herre's part of the article; you can click on the link for the rest of it.


The Ultimate Resource
by Walter E. Williams

Why is it that mankind enjoys cell phones, computers and airplanes today but not when King Louis XIV was alive? The necessary physical resources to make cell phones, computers and airplanes have always been around, even when caveman walked the Earth. There is only one answer to why we enjoy these goodies today and not yesteryear. It's the growth in human knowledge, ingenuity along with specialization and trade that led to the industrialization, coupled with personal liberty and private property rights.

For most of mankind's existence, he has been self-sufficient and spent most of his time simply eking out a living. In pre-industrial societies, and in some places today, the most optimistic scenario for the ordinary person was to be able to eke out enough to meet his physical needs for another day. With the rise of industrialization and development of markets, and the concomitant rise in human productivity that yielded seemingly ceaseless economic progress, it was no longer necessary for mankind to spend his entire day to meet his physical needs. People became able to satisfy these needs with less and less time. This made it possible for more people to have the time to read, become educated in the sciences and liberal arts, gain more knowledge and become more productive. The resulting wealth also enabled them the opportunity to develop spiritually and culturally through attending the arts and participate in other life activities that were formerly within the purview of the rich.

Contrary to the myths we hear about how overpopulation causes poverty, poor health, unemployment, malnutrition and overcrowding, human beings are the most valuable resource and the more of them the better. There is absolutely no relationship between high populations and economic despair...http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/the-ultimate-resource.html

What I see as the key is that the human brain continues to be the most flexible and ingenious element on the planet, and the more human brains acting in concert has led to greater prosperity and richness of life. Despite computers (which are human invention) the brain itself continues to generate innovation, and is really the ultimate human and earthly resource. For me, i have always noticed that every prosperous and rising culture across history has as far as I am aware been associated with a rising population.

I bet most here, captivated by this environmentalist apocalypsism (sp?), would disagree. Well what are your thoughts?

[AuntShecky]

I couldn't disagree more.

As to human progress, scientific, technological, and artistic advances are not a result of a larger gene pool, but a better one. Genius has always been an aspect of quality, not quantity -- among the billions of humans that have walked this planet, there has only been one Shakespeare, one Einstein, one Edison.

And speaking of quality, what about the quality of life?
Even in the relatively "developed" country in which I live,
and even though a economic depression is on the horizon,
forestalling building construction, the green spaces are shrinking and shrinking every day.

Everywhere else on the planet, our rain forests, which supply the earth's oxygen, are being destroyed. A bigger and bigger world population will consume more and more
energy, and exhaust more pollution, all of which will contribute to greenhouse gases and global warming. The polar ice caps are melting even while we speak, and without them, the vicious cycle of heating up the planet will continue.

And by the way, who's going to feed all these people?

[Dori]

I think I agree with you, Virgil, on some points.

I don't think Virgil was speaking of geniuses at all (we'll just forget about the billions of other people who don't apparently matter). As Bazarov, a character from Turgenev's Fathers and Sons said, "A decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet." I wouldn't go so far as to claim this, but I do think that our society progresses not only by the work of geniuses, but the work of average people.

I believe that the larger a population gets, the more room there is for specialization. Specialization, I believe, is the key to progress.

[Virgil]

I couldn't disagree more.

As to human progress, scientific, technological, and artistic advances are not a result of a larger gene pool, but a better one. Genius has always been an aspect of quality, not quantity -- among the billions of humans that have walked this planet, there has only been one Shakespeare, one Einstein, one Edison.

Well I'm not, nor is Prof. Williams, talking about gene pool. It's the power of numbers that spur inspiration. First of all lets take Shakespeare. Shakespeare didn't exist in a vacuum. I can think of at least five reasons why higher population helped Shakespeare:
a) Competition. Elizabethan dramatist were plentiful and many top notch. You should explore other Elizabethan dramatists. I had a course on college on Elizabethan dramatists other than Shakespeare.
b) Shakespeare probably collaborated more often than we know. Look at many of the later plays and you'll see someone who was not a lone artist. How much did the other actors gve advice, we'll never know.
c) In order for Shakespeare to thrive, he needed a large population of theatre goers. And not just to support him but all the other elizabethan dramatists. A large population creates the infrastructure for playwrights to thrive.
d)Infrastructure creates discussion and dialogue. How much did these playwrights and actors and afficianados kibitz after work and discuss what worked and what didn't. Today we have a University system where people document their criticism of what works. That's only possible with large populations.
e) Larger population generates wealth which allows people to spend their money on theater and allows them to have the free time to go to the theater. At one time people had to work 18 hours a day seven days a week in order to make crops and livestock to support themselves. Now we basically have a eight hour day, five days a week, if that much.

As to the science, the same reasons apply. Competition, collaboration, customer base, infrstructure, wealth. You have this romanticized notion of how science and engineering work. Very little is a solo inventor. I'm an engineer. The most powerful tool I've found in my work experience is an integrated product team, a team formed to collaborate on a project. I find the more brain power working together will find a solution. No one person winds up thinking of the entire solution but together the team works through the issues to maximine insight.


And speaking of quality, what about the quality of life?
Even in the relatively "developed" country in which I live,
and even though a economic depression is on the horizon,
forestalling building construction, the green spaces are shrinking and shrinking every day.
I don't know at what point is there a lack of green spaces, but as I travel across the country, there are still huge, huge areas of green spaces. [Side note: we are not headed for a depression; we are not currently, though it may change, even in a recession.]


Everywhere else on the planet, our rain forests, which supply the earth's oxygen, are being destroyed. A bigger and bigger world population will consume more and more
energy, and exhaust more pollution, all of which will contribute to greenhouse gases and global warming. The polar ice caps are melting even while we speak, and without them, the vicious cycle of heating up the planet will continue.
Nuclear energy is essentially infinite. You have doubts in human ingenuity? We can solve anything. ;) It's a matter of putting the ultimate resouce (human brains) to work. :) That's the point of the article. My guess, based on my engineering experience, is that the wheel was not invented by a single individual. One person to figure out the round part, one to figure out the hole in the center for an axle, and another on screwing the axle in place. Or probably there was a team for each one of those elements. [Side note: Only the north ploar ice cap is shrinking, the southern is growing. Also according to the very same people who are saying the earth has warmed one degree in the last hundred years, also admit that it has cooled in the last ten years, and that's with India and China exponentially releasing more green house gases. Look it up. It should put some doubt in this whole global warming thing.]


And by the way, who's going to feed all these people?
Oh my. We have no problem feeding the whole 6.7 billion people now. Where there is starvaton, it is a result of vicious governments. We throw away more than anyone can possibly realize. And in just about every developed country we have an obesity problem, not a starvation problem. The current problem is an issue of distribution, not lack of food.

My goodness Aunty, I didn't realize you were an apocalyptic believer. ;)

[Virgil]

I think I agree with you, Virgil, on some points.

I don't think Virgil was speaking of geniuses at all (we'll just forget about the billions of other people who don't apparently matter). As Bazarov, a character from Turgenev's Fathers and Sons said, "A decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet." I wouldn't go so far as to claim this, but I do think that our society progresses not only by the work of geniuses, but the work of average people.

I believe that the larger a population gets, the more room there is for specialization. Specialization, I believe, is the key to progress.

Great point Dori. I had not thought of specialization as another contributing factor. So we have now thought of six factors: Competition, collaboration, customer base, infrstructure, wealth, and specialization. See the power of two brains to figure this out. One brain only found a portion, but I also had help from Prof. Williams's brain, who probably had help from other brains who also had help from other brains. :D Have I demonstrated what Prof. Williams was talking about? :)

[AuntShecky]

[QUOTE=Virgil;592359][I]]

The power of numbers also spurs warfare, domestic violence, bigotry, religious fanaticism, all manner of societal ills.

About Shakespeare's "competition":
Aside from Christopher Marlowe, who? I don't think that the quality and the craft of those bloody Elizabethan tragedies come anywhere close to that of Shakepeare.
[B]c) In order for Shakespeare to thrive, he needed a large population of theatre goers. And not just to support him but all the other elizabethan dramatists. A large population creates the infrastructure for playwrights to thrive.
Doesn't insure quality, just revenue, perhaps.
Look at movie box office receipts today. Very often the movies which bring in the most money are really pieces of crap. Very often the "best" movies don't even generate a profit.

Today we have a University system where people document their criticism of what works. That's only possible with large populations.

But with larger populations, the learning curve also gets larger, and as a result, learning and teaching gets "dumbed down" as the mean approaches the lowest common denominator.

Larger population generates wealth

In a larger population, the larger the pie, the smaller the slices -- or as in the case of my country, 90% of the wealth
trickles UP to the top 10% of the population, as the vaunted "Middle Class" shrinks and shrinks.

As to the science, the same reasons apply. Competition, collaboration, customer base, infrstructure, wealth. You have this romanticized notion of how science and engineering work.

I think you may have a romanticized notion of capitalism.
Yep, research goes where the money goes. Pharmaceuticals companies would like us to think that all the $ think by generated by sales of Viagra could be funneled toward research for cures of less romantic but more life-and-death type diseases. Yet -- the fact remains that (a) the price of medicine keeps going up and up and
(b) very few pharmaceutical companies seem interested in
"curing" diseases. What they love doing is coming up with products to treat the symptoms, thus insuring "repeat" customers.

Find the more brain power working together will find a solution
But there's a step missing here. How exactly would a larger population bring about more "brain power"?


I don't know at what point is there a lack of green spaces, but as I travel across the country, there are still huge, huge areas of green spaces.

Not where I live: a former forest bulldozed and paved over by a jerry built apartment complex and an ever-burgeoning plot of condominiums. (Condominia?) There is nevertheless a lack of affordable and suitable housing in my county and state.

There are incidents every day of wildlife venturing into populated areas, as their habitats are being destroyed by
over-development and construction.

[Side note: we are not headed for a depression; we are not currently, though it may change, even in a recession.][
Tell that to the folks in central New York State, Flint, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.

Nuclear energy is essentially infinite.
And extremely dangerous, unless you have a couple of smart people -- not thousands of "average" people -- to develop and harness it. If you don't believe me I have three words for you: Three Mile Island.

You have doubts in human ingenuity? We can solve anything. ;)
We can't even teach our kids to read and write.
Side note: Only the north ploar ice cap is shrinking, the southern is growing. Also according to the very same people who are saying the earth has warmed one degree in the last hundred years, also admit that it has cooled in the last ten years, and that's with India and China exponentially releasing more green house gas

That's because the population of those two countries is
exploding. You must have heard how a few decades ago that China forbids a couple from having more than one child, in order to stem population growth. (As a result of this male newborns are prized more highly than female babies, resulting in abortions.)

The greenhouse traps heat in, and there is a diminishing of
radiational cooling. (But it can have reverse consequences, by keeping sunlight out-- as with the danger of a "nuclear winter." )


Look it up. It should put some doubt in this whole global warming thing.
The average yearly temperatures on this planet have never have been as high as they have been for the last ten years.


Oh my. We have no problem feeding the whole 6.7 billion people now.

Are you kidding me? Watch the evening news. What about Darfur and the other countries in central Africa and in South America and the Caribbean?
Where there is starvaton, it is a result of vicious governments.
Dictatorships rise more easily in overpopulated countries.

[B]The current problem is an issue of distribution,
This may be true. That's because poor countries can't add to corporation profits.
not lack of food.
Which is beginning to arise, now that arable land has been destroyed by flooding,caused at least in part by global warming. or with the oil crisis, the crops have been diverted toward biofuels rather than food supplies.

My goodness Aunty, I didn't realize you were an apocalyptic believer

No, not a believer in the Apocalypse as a religious belief, but we may bring it upon ourselves.

[Dori]

tags are really helpful; I suggest you make use of them. It's just as easy to surround a text with [B] tags as it is to do so with [QUOTE] tags. This is just a suggestion, mind you. :)


[QUOTE=AuntShecky;592545]The power of numbers also spurs warfare, domestic violence, bigotry, religious fanaticism, all manner of societal ills.

I'm having trouble with your mentioning of "warfare". Modern warfare doesn't result in nearly as many deaths as the warfare employed in the past (regardless of its potential). Modern technologies, developed as a result of specialization (which comes as a result of a large population), have made more efficient means of dealing with enemies. Heck, efforts are being made to develop non-lethal weapons (tazers! (http://www.tazers.com/)).


Doesn't insure quality, just revenue, perhaps.
Look at movie box office receipts today. Very often the movies which bring in the most money are really pieces of crap. Very often the "best" movies don't even generate a profit.

And what exactly are those "best" movies?


In a larger population, the larger the pie, the smaller the slices -- or as in the case of my country, 90% of the wealth
trickles UP to the top 10% of the population, as the vaunted "Middle Class" shrinks and shrinks.

This has been true throughout history despite population. I would even go as far to claim that wealth is more distributed today than it has been at times in the past.

I found this interesting, taken from Wikipedia:

The United States is one of the richest countries in the world, and in 2000, the mean wealth was $143,727 per person.[9] In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

In 2003, the most-earning 1% of the population in the United States, which has a system of progressive taxation, paid over 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the most-earning 10% bore 66% of the total tax load; the top 25% of income earners paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper half accounted for virtually the entire U.S. income tax revenue (nearly 97%).



But there's a step missing here. How exactly would a larger population bring about more "brain power"?

Probability dictates that the larger the population, the larger the brain power.


Tell that to the folks in central New York State, Flint, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.

I live in upstate New York.


And extremely dangerous, unless you have a couple of smart people -- not thousands of "average" people -- to develop and harness it. If you don't believe me I have three words for you: Three Mile Island.

Accidents happen.

Our large population has paved the way for innovation, resulting in varied sources of energy (wind, hydro, nuclear, etc., etc.).


We can't even teach our kids to read and write.

I have a feeling that literacy today is much more prevalent than it has been in the past.


The average yearly temperatures on this planet have never have been as high as they have been for the last ten years.

That doesn't mean that they won't go down in the near future.

http://troykelly.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/3750_piracy-global-warming.jpg


Are you kidding me? Watch the evening news. What about Darfur and the other countries in central Africa and in South America and the Caribbean?

What are we supposed to get from the evening news? We all know that the news is renowned for their accuracy

http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/propaganda.jpg


Dictatorships rise more easily in overpopulated countries.

Do they? Can you give us an example?


Which is beginning to arise, now that arable land has been destroyed by flooding,caused at least in part by global warming. or with the oil crisis, the crops have been diverted toward biofuels rather than food supplies.

How many vegetables does the average American eat anyway?

[Lily Adams]

I wouldn't say that human beings are necessarily smarter than we were 300 years ago, or one thousand years ago. It just has to do with our curiosity levels and the passage of time. You can think of it the other way-man is just as hostile and mean as were were way back when. But time keeps giving us different faces, and that seems to confuse people. "In the beginning was the end."

You say that more humans equals more brains, and I can see that, but how long does it take to fully educate one human? 16 years? 18? 20? A lot. Because of the overpopulation, many people don't have access to that education. I don't think a starving kid with no access to school is going to grow up to be the next Einstein if he or she doesn't get access to school and learn how this world really works. School was one of the best things that ever happened to me.

People make people have more babies so they can have more money in their collection plates. It's just another story of dominance and gripping fear.

Of course there are many other points, but I am done here for today. Aunt Shecky has basically already said what I just typed, and has also said things that I didn't mention.

[Virgil]

Well Aunty we obviously disgree. I can repond to your comments but let it suffice you already know what my response would be (unless you really want me to). I don't want to be disagreeable with one of my friends here. Let me just comment on two things that were not mentioned in my previous posts.


The power of numbers also spurs warfare, domestic violence, bigotry, religious fanaticism, all manner of societal ills.

I fail to see how those things correlate to population (growing or shrinking) at all. I bet we can find every one of those issues in some remote African country. I'm afraid those things (certainly war) are part of the human condition and will always be with us, large ppulation or small.


No, not a believer in the Apocalypse as a religious belief, but we may bring it upon ourselves.
The tendency for apocalytic thinking is ingrained in all of us. Whether one derives the apocalypse from a religious book or from the daily newspapers, which to some are a religious book in themselves. ;)

[vheissu]

I'm amazed that this topic hasn't been discussed more!

Right, before I start my rant on this, I'd like to first state that I'm not at all familiar with the US (as I believe all the previous posters are, my mistake if not), so everything I write is related to Europe.

Now, I've always thought that what is generally considered as a crisis on overpopulation was directly related to poorer countries not being able to cope with providing enough food, shelter and basic needs (house, clothes, education) to a population which would continually grow.
I do think that there are a lot of us on this planet, which means that a good proportion of the population will have to struggle to survive, because they weren't born in, what are considered, the more developed countries.

I'll agree with AuntShecky, when she stated that human progress is not a result of more people on the planet, but people being able to better apply their knowledge (gained from a proper education) to a certain aera. Quality of life is indeed very important: most of us know we can obtain certain things in life and it's quite logical to think that most of us want to be able to have whatever we want.

Currently, we are going through a food crisis, which is more related to the fact that prices are soaring and people are beggining to think that it's not worth buying so much food. So it's more of an economic-food crisis.
I still think as a student, so I may be a bit biased, but I am shocked at the rate at which prices are going up.
Virgil, there definetely is an obesity problem nowadays (with the US and the UK being high up on the list) but there is also a problem with starvation which quite a few countries are going through (www.fao.org)


You have doubts in human ingenuity? We can solve anything

I have no doubt about human ingenuity, there's a reason why we've come so far. But no, we haven't solved everything. I'll give you a small example which I keep hearing on the news every day, now that I'm in London (can we discuss current, non-political affairs? hmm....should check that!): for the past few months a large number of young people have died by being stabbed in the streets. I'll say no more about it, but the rate of these killings has risen dramatically and there has to be a reason for it.
So no, we can't solve anything, because a problem like this, in what is considered to be one of the most popular cities in the world, should be solved fast. And it doesn't seem as if anyone (the authorities that is) has a relatively good plan.


As to the science, the same reasons apply. Competition, collaboration, customer base, infrstructure, wealth. You have this romanticized notion of how science and engineering work.

Well, without competition you wouldn't get that many pharmaceutical companies. Which has its pros and cons.
As to collaboration...it only happens between small labs of the same institute. In the field of research, knowledge is power, and the fewer people know about your work, the better.
Funding is tough to get. You need to be in the right place (whether a university or a company) at the right time (diseases have almost become a trend, today everybody is excited about cancer and wants to find a cure, tomorrow is HIV. I'm being a bit sarcastic here).
It's one of the reasons why I decided that a career in research is simply not for me. You can't be just a smart scientist, you have to be a businessman as well, and more importantly, care only for yourself.

[Virgil]

You say that more humans equals more brains, and I can see that, but how long does it take to fully educate one human? 16 years? 18? 20? A lot. Because of the overpopulation, many people don't have access to that education. I don't think a starving kid with no access to school is going to grow up to be the next Einstein if he or she doesn't get access to school and learn how this world really works. School was one of the best things that ever happened to me.

I'm not sure I understand Lily. The world is probably at its most educated level in the history of mankind. More people across the world go to school and have college educations. I don't understand your point. What does over population have to do with education? And like I said to Aunty, the starvation in the world today is way less than ever before. You assume that starvation is a recent problem. But no. Starvation has been around from the beginning of time, when the population was extremely small. Today we don't have a starvation problem in any developed country. We have an obesity problem, just the opposite.


People make people have more babies so they can have more money in their collection plates. It's just another story of dominance and gripping fear.
What collection plates? Fear? I have full confidence in the power of humanity to solve problems. That's not fear. Just the opposite.
It seems like the apocalyptic people are the ones in fear.


I'm amazed that this topic hasn't been discussed more!

Me too. Probably because most here have a very conventional mind. :p Everyone seems to conventionally think that population is a problem. But despite being one of the most conservative (I don't mean that politically but in approach to life) person here, I embrace truely original ideas, especially those that buck the conventional trend. ;)


Right, before I start my rant on this, I'd like to first state that I'm not at all familiar with the US (as I believe all the previous posters are, my mistake if not), so everything I write is related to Europe.
I don't think there is that much of a difference between western Europe and the US. Plus I think we're mostly talking globally.


Now, I've always thought that what is generally considered as a crisis on overpopulation was directly related to poorer countries not being able to cope with providing enough food, shelter and basic needs (house, clothes, education) to a population which would continually grow.
Well, despite growing populations in India and China, there lifestyles continue to improve.


I do think that there are a lot of us on this planet, which means that a good proportion of the population will have to struggle to survive, because they weren't born in, what are considered, the more developed countries.
Why do you say that? In the year 1000 AD, Europe had a population of 36M. In the year 1600, Europe had a population of 100M. In 1900, 450M. In 2000, 700M. Has Europe been having starvation problems? Has life inproved in Europe over that time? Why is a growing population a bad thing, I fail to understand? It seems to me that the burden of proof that population growth is a bad thing rests on the apocalyptic thinkers. The problem with starvation occurs in the less developed countries, and the solution it would seem to me would be to get them developed, not shrink the population of the countries with good standards of living.


I'll agree with AuntShecky, when she stated that human progress is not a result of more people on the planet, but people being able to better apply their knowledge (gained from a proper education) to a certain aera.
I just showed you the population trend of Europe for the last 1000 years. It seems to me that population correlates to education.


Quality of life is indeed very important: most of us know we can obtain certain things in life and it's quite logical to think that most of us want to be able to have whatever we want.
Quality of life is a subjective term. Who would think that the happiest people can be in high density populated cities? Who would think that there are happy people with great quality of life in sky rise buildings in New York City? But there are. Would you trade your quality of life now with that of a European in the year 1000? There were only 36M people then. Just think how much more free room you would have had. :D


Currently, we are going through a food crisis, which is more related to the fact that prices are soaring and people are beggining to think that it's not worth buying so much food. So it's more of an economic-food crisis.
I still think as a student, so I may be a bit biased, but I am shocked at the rate at which prices are going up.
You're talking about an economic trend of the last year or two. These things come and go. There may be (or not) a slight economic recession. But hardly anyting to worry about in the relative scheme of things.


Virgil, there definetely is an obesity problem nowadays (with the US and the UK being high up on the list) but there is also a problem with starvation which quite a few countries are going through (www.fao.org)
Like I said, we throw away more food than is imaginable. The world certainly has enough food to feed itself. Starvation problems in localized areas is due to distribution problems mostly because of vicious governments who care about their own power. Are you saying that there were no starvation problems in the past when there was a low population? Are you saying that in the year 1000, when Europe's population was 36M (I think that's like 20 times less) there were no starvation problems? If you're saying that then you need to read up on the history of life in the middle ages. There was rampant starvation.


I have no doubt about human ingenuity, there's a reason why we've come so far. But no, we haven't solved everything. I'll give you a small example which I keep hearing on the news every day, now that I'm in London (can we discuss current, non-political affairs? hmm....should check that!): for the past few months a large number of young people have died by being stabbed in the streets. I'll say no more about it, but the rate of these killings has risen dramatically and there has to be a reason for it.
I'm not sure what that has to do with large population. I bet there were lots of killings in the middle ages too. I bet there were more than now.


Well, without competition you wouldn't get that many pharmaceutical companies. Which has its pros and cons.
Do the pros outweigh the cons? What cons? People are living longer and better lives from all the drugs invented in the last century.


As to collaboration...it only happens between small labs of the same institute. In the field of research, knowledge is power, and the fewer people know about your work, the better.
Disagree with that last one. Perhaps in a short time frame, the incentive is to keep knowledge to oneself, but in the longer time frame, things get published and presented in peer reviews and knowledge gets distributed and built upon.


Funding is tough to get. You need to be in the right place (whether a university or a company) at the right time (diseases have almost become a trend, today everybody is excited about cancer and wants to find a cure, tomorrow is HIV. I'm being a bit sarcastic here).
It's one of the reasons why I decided that a career in research is simply not for me. You can't be just a smart scientist, you have to be a businessman as well, and more importantly, care only for yourself.
Funding is always tough to get. Don't slight the business part of it. The business part is what induces incentive and is the means of distribution. The problem in those undeveloped countries that lack enough food is mostly because business is unable to thrive.

[vheissu]

Me too. Probably because most here have a very conventional mind. :p Everyone seems to conventionally think that population is a problem. But despite being one of the most conservative (I don't mean that politically but in approach to life) person here, I embrace truely original ideas, especially those that buck the conventional trend. ;)


I don't think there is that much of a difference between western Europe and the US. Plus I think we're mostly talking globally.

Can't comment here, I'd delve into political oceans :p Suffice to say I don't completely agree with you.



Well, despite growing populations in India and China, there lifestyles continue to improve.

India and China are not the only less developed countries in the world. What happened to the majority of Africa? Just to mention one continent.
China has had an increase in economic growth. But there's still high rates of poverty.



Why do you say that? In the year 1000 AD, Europe had a population of 36M. In the year 1600, Europe had a population of 100M. In 1900, 450M. In 2000, 700M. Has Europe been having starvation problems? Has life inproved in Europe over that time? Why is a growing population a bad thing, I fail to understand? It seems to me that the burden of proof that population growth is a bad thing rests on the apocalyptic thinkers. The problem with starvation occurs in the less developed countries, and the solution it would seem to me would be to get them developed, not shrink the population of the countries with good standards of living.


But I didn't say Europe has a starvation problem. Sorry if I confused you, but I was referring to the less developed countries as the ones having under nourishment problems. Certainly not Europe.
Though, according to FAO, there were 50 million more hungry people in 2007:
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000866/index.html

And yes, as you say, the solution would be to aid such countries in advancing forward, rather than backward.


I just showed you the population trend of Europe for the last 1000 years. It seems to me that population correlates to education.

In developed countries, yes. Because, thankfully, education is seen as a priority and an obligation.



Quality of life is a subjective term. Who would think that the happiest people can be in high density populated cities? Who would think that there are happy people with great quality of life in sky rise buildings in New York City? But there are. Would you trade your quality of life now with that of a European in the year 1000? There were only 36M people then. Just think how much more free room you would have had. :D

I'm not one to compare between different centuries: history has taught us many valuable things, but I don't like to compare the now and then. Especially with such a huge gap of 1000 years ago. We're not there anymore, we're here, and at this time we are so different to the 11th century that I don't really see the point in putting the two on the same table.
I can't trade quality of life with what used to be, I'll never be there!



You're talking about an economic trend of the last year or two. These things come and go. There may be (or not) a slight economic recession. But hardly anyting to worry about in the relative scheme of things.
I'm getting worried :( Not overly worried, but enough to make me think that things around me are not as easy as I'd wish them to be.



Like I said, we throw away more food than is imaginable. The world certainly has enough food to feed itself. Starvation problems in localized areas is due to distribution problems mostly because of vicious governments who care about their own power. Are you saying that there were no starvation problems in the past when there was a low population? Are you saying that in the year 1000, when Europe's population was 36M (I think that's like 20 times less) there were no starvation problems? If you're saying that then you need to read up on the history of life in the middle ages. There was rampant starvation.

Distribution is one of the main problems of starvation. So that's a problem that has to be faced.
Again, you're comparing 21st and 11th century. They had other problems to deal with, one of them being food related. But as I said, I'd prefer to deal with the now.


I'm not sure what that has to do with large population. I bet there were lots of killings in the middle ages too. I bet there were more than now.

I mentioned the problems in London because you referred to human ingenuity and that we can solve everything. So why is this not being solved? It shouldn't be as hard as they make it seem. Instead, it portrays London as being a scary and unsafe place to live in at the moment



Do the pros outweigh the cons? What cons? People are living longer and better lives from all the drugs invented in the last century.

Pharmaceutical companies bring lots of other problems, which aren't really relevant to this topic. I prefer more companies, but smaller ones. So less monopolio.



Disagree with that last one. Perhaps in a short time frame, the incentive is to keep knowledge to oneself, but in the longer time frame, things get published and presented in peer reviews and knowledge gets distributed and built upon.

You publish your work so that you can get recognised (obviously, you've worked hard enough for it). But I was referring to intellectual property: it's your work and you might share the results, but it's still yours. If anyone else want to use your stuff, well, they have to pay for it.


Funding is always tough to get. Don't slight the business part of it. The business part is what induces incentive and is the means of distribution. The problem in those undeveloped countries that lack enough food is mostly because business is unable to thrive.

Now you're comparing funding for research in fancy institutions with businesses in under developed countries. Not exactly relevant, but yes, I guess if businesses could thrive in those countries, things could change.

[sofia82]

I agree that the more the people the more the minds and the more the improvement. And also I agree that the problem caused apparently by the overpolulation is not because of overpopulation but government systems. But growth of population is welcomed in developed countries not the rest. For example, in my country the number of people (especially the young) is so high that there are lots of problems: not enough jobs so most of the young people are jobless, now the consumation of resources are so high that there is a problem of supplying water, electricity, power resources ... imagine the last winter because of the extreme cold and not enough gas most of the cities encountered a lot of problem and even there were no gas for some days in the middle of winter. Imagine a country with the biggest supply of gas and oil encounter such a problem (of course the problem is the matter mal-governing). Now in the middle of summer which is so hot, there is black out, in some parts not enough water because of drought ...
And more important that this ... there is no enough resource for education, if there is it is not in good guality and even in quantity the majority of the people are poor or have average income and they live just an average life. Yes, it is because there is no qualified system to govern but during at least two decades the population became double in number ...
If it were one of European countries or American, there would not be such problem maybe. But now there is and overpopulation increases this.

[Virgil]

India and China are not the only less developed countries in the world. What happened to the majority of Africa? Just to mention one continent.
China has had an increase in economic growth. But there's still high rates of poverty.

Well, improvements don't happen over night. But China has finally realize that communism doesn't work and is ever growing economically. In fifty years China will be the economic power of the world. And they will thank their huge population for it.


But I didn't say Europe has a starvation problem. Sorry if I confused you, but I was referring to the less developed countries as the ones having under nourishment problems. Certainly not Europe.
Though, according to FAO, there were 50 million more hungry people in 2007:
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000866/index.html
and

I'm not one to compare between different centuries: history has taught us many valuable things, but I don't like to compare the now and then. Especially with such a huge gap of 1000 years ago. We're not there anymore, we're here, and at this time we are so different to the 11th century that I don't really see the point in putting the two on the same table.
I can't trade quality of life with what used to be, I'll never be there!
Oh I understood. I was trying to show you that despite despite huge population difference in a 1000 years, there is less starvation now than then. The comparison is relevant.


And yes, as you say, the solution would be to aid such countries in advancing forward, rather than backward.
Ah we agree on something. :)


I'm getting worried :( Not overly worried, but enough to make me think that things around me are not as easy as I'd wish them to be.
Oh don't worry. I've lived through economic ups and downs and this is nothing.


Distribution is one of the main problems of starvation. So that's a problem that has to be faced.
Ah you agree that it's not over population then!! :D All kidding aside, it's not over population. There is enough food for the world right now. We in the developed world throw out more than other people imagine. And we're all geting fat with over abundance. :D


Again, you're comparing 21st and 11th century. They had other problems to deal with, one of them being food related. But as I said, I'd prefer to deal with the now.
But it is relaevant. All your arguments predicate that population growth leads to starvation. I show you that Europe had more starvation when it had only 36M people than now with 700M people. Your argument doesn't meet the facts.


I mentioned the problems in London because you referred to human ingenuity and that we can solve everything. So why is this not being solved? It shouldn't be as hard as they make it seem. Instead, it portrays London as being a scary and unsafe place to live in at the moment
Oh I see. Well, there is no solution for human nature. In a place where abundance and wealth is everywhere (London, and I coud say New York too) you still have people who commit terrible acts.


You publish your work so that you can get recognised (obviously, you've worked hard enough for it). But I was referring to intellectual property: it's your work and you might share the results, but it's still yours. If anyone else want to use your stuff, well, they have to pay for it.
Well, even if there are patents, they do expire. But once someone thinks up a solution, usually someone can vary it without violating a patent right. And paying someone for their patent right is not usually prohibitive. Look at Microsoft. We're all using Microsoft technology and look at how widely distributed it is.


I agree that the more the people the more the minds and the more the improvement. And also I agree that the problem caused apparently by the overpolulation is not because of overpopulation but government systems. But growth of population is welcomed in developed countries not the rest. For example, in my country the number of people (especially the young) is so high that there are lots of problems: not enough jobs so most of the young people are jobless, now the consumation of resources are so high that there is a problem of supplying water, electricity, power resources ... imagine the last winter because of the extreme cold and not enough gas most of the cities encountered a lot of problem and even there were no gas for some days in the middle of winter. Imagine a country with the biggest supply of gas and oil encounter such a problem (of course the problem is the matter mal-governing). Now in the middle of summer which is so hot, there is black out, in some parts not enough water because of drought ...
And more important that this ... there is no enough resource for education, if there is it is not in good guality and even in quantity the majority of the people are poor or have average income and they live just an average life. Yes, it is because there is no qualified system to govern but during at least two decades the population became double in number ...
If it were one of European countries or American, there would not be such problem maybe. But now there is and overpopulation increases this.

Thanks Sofia. I don't want to get involved in the specifics of your government, but we understand that governments can have terrible effects on the lives and prosperty of its people.

[vheissu]

I've found an interesting article, which deals with the two sides of the cost of livestock, and the author who is against keeping meat as a primary source of food, Raj Patel, pointed out to the fact that although the world is not going to starve due to lack of food, we are investing more and more resources on feeding the animals that we then eat.

To quote a few facts presented in this article:


A University of Chicago study argued that the average meat eater in the US produces about 1.5 tonnes more of CO2 than a vegetarian per year. That's because animals are hungry and the grain they eat takes energy, usually fossil fuel energy to produce a single calorie of plant protein, according to Cornell University. And lots of that plant protein is required to make animal protein. For chicken, the ration of energy in to protein out is4:1. For pork it's 17:1. For lamb, 50:1. For beef 54:1

And on he goes about how expensive feeding farm animals is, and how much land we use for it. To which the second author, Joanna Blythman, reports that 35% of the world's land is suitable for growing crops, so going vegetarian is not an a suitable option either.
In fact she says:


A low meat and dairy diet? I have no problem with that. A no meat or dairy diet? Sorry, that sounds like ideology triumphing over common sense, time-honoured custom and appetite

It raises the question though as to whether the way in which we are managing agriculture and food nowadays is the right one.

So maybe, overpopulation is a problem due to the fact that it seems impossible to provide enough food to everyone, and that everyone, is a high number. There are many people out there who are not even remotely happy and are struggling to survive a day, let alone a whole life.


The article appeared on the Observer's last Food Monthly Magazine, which I wasn't able to find online, unfortunately.



Oh I understood. I was trying to show you that despite despite huge population difference in a 1000 years, there is less starvation now than then. The comparison is relevant.


But it is relaevant. All your arguments predicate that population growth leads to starvation. I show you that Europe had more starvation when it had only 36M people than now with 700M people. Your argument doesn't meet the facts.

I still can't compare 21st with 11th, I find them completely unrelated for the topic we are discussing. They didn't have the technology we have now for one. It was harder to grow food and mantain livestock than it is now.
And they had diseases to deal with, which we can now cure, and lower life expectancy.

I'd compare the 21st to the 20th and the 19th, but no more than that.

[tractatus]

It can be easily shown with some simple mathematical methods that World can feed more billions than now. I totally agree with this. Besides, I can see that, how little has been done when these theoretical explanations made.

I think this article is written about advantages of communism/without knowing what he say. Obvious that the main problem is distribution, so what's your solution? Play Robin Hood?

- It is a simple economic rule for today's world; If I have 1 million $ and you have 0 million $;
I win another 1 m.$ faster and easier than you. And thus it goes. How do you change this?
- If we add 1 more billion to population, see their future life : % 10 of them will be in wealth,
% 40 will be very poor/misery. How to change?
Change taxes, giving aids. etc is not not not enough. Clearly you have to behave totalitarian
in order to balance between rich and poor. Nothing else, for today's world.

[Virgil]

It can be easily shown with some simple mathematical methods that World can feed more billions than now. I totally agree with this. Besides, I can see that, how little has been done when these theoretical explanations made.

While I agree with you that we can feed billions more, I wonder what mathematical formula you are thnking of that can show that. What formula?


I think this article is written about advantages of communism/without knowing what he say. Obvious that the main problem is distribution, so what's your solution? Play Robin Hood?
If you thinnk this is about the advantages of communism, I'm sorry tractatus, you are definitely wrong. Prof. Williams is a libertarian, which means he believes in complete laissez-faire. That's pretty much the opposite of communism. In his last paragraph he says, "The greatest threat to mankind's prosperity is government." Communism is the enforcement of government into every aspect of our lives.



- It is a simple economic rule for today's world; If I have 1 million $ and you have 0 million $;
I win another 1 m.$ faster and easier than you. And thus it goes. How do you change this?
- If we add 1 more billion to population, see their future life : % 10 of them will be in wealth,
% 40 will be very poor/misery. How to change?
Change taxes, giving aids. etc is not not not enough. Clearly you have to behave totalitarian
in order to balance between rich and poor. Nothing else, for today's world.
I think Prof. Williams is saying just the opposite. Let people earn the living freely and there will be less poor. But perhaps that's off topic.


I've found an interesting article, which deals with the two sides of the cost of livestock, and the author who is against keeping meat as a primary source of food, Raj Patel, pointed out to the fact that although the world is not going to starve due to lack of food, we are investing more and more resources on feeding the animals that we then eat.

To quote a few facts presented in this article:

Quote:
A University of Chicago study argued that the average meat eater in the US produces about 1.5 tonnes more of CO2 than a vegetarian per year. That's because animals are hungry and the grain they eat takes energy, usually fossil fuel energy to produce a single calorie of plant protein, according to Cornell University. And lots of that plant protein is required to make animal protein. For chicken, the ration of energy in to protein out is4:1. For pork it's 17:1. For lamb, 50:1. For beef 54:1

I don't understand. If you're vegetarrian aren't you also eating grain or some other vegetables? And while a cow is 54:1, it also can feed many more people than a single chicken. But this is off topic. With a larger population we would probably have to make certain adjustments. I concede that. Though what they may be are inconcievable from our perspective right now.


It raises the question though as to whether the way in which we are managing agriculture and food nowadays is the right one.
Actually it's incredible the amount of productivity we have in farming today as compared to a hundred or even fifty years ago. I bet we could still do better. We haven't even begun to explore genetic engineering of vegetation.


So maybe, overpopulation is a problem due to the fact that it seems impossible to provide enough food to everyone, and that everyone, is a high number. There are many people out there who are not even remotely happy and are struggling to survive a day, let alone a whole life.
This is where we disagree. I bet in 1600 (ok if you don't want to go back to the 11th century) when Europe's population was 100M could anyone concieve how Europe would feed 700M in 2000? My argument (and Prof. William's argument of course) is that we continue to figure out solutions to a growing population and we will do so in the future. Where that ultimately ends who knows. But we have not reached the end yet.


I still can't compare 21st with 11th, I find them completely unrelated for the topic we are discussing. They didn't have the technology we have now for one. It was harder to grow food and mantain livestock than it is now.
And they had diseases to deal with, which we can now cure, and lower life expectancy.
But that's the point. We continue to solve these problems and the world's population continues to grow.


I'd compare the 21st to the 20th and the 19th, but no more than that.
ok. :)

[sofia82]

Thanks Sofia. I don't want to get involved in the specifics of your government, but we understand that governments can have terrible effects on the lives and prosperty of its people.

Thank you Virgil. I never bother myself to talk about such matters as it goes no where just mentioned as an example! Overpopulation is good just an ideal and developed countries else it is a disaster ;)

[kasie]

I can't help wondering if Mr Williams (and you, Virgil,) would hold the same opinions of the relationship between high populations and economic despair if he (or you) lived in Mumbai or Dafur or rural China - or even worked in a sweat shop or tried to work in a depressed rural community in USA or Europe. The human brain is indeed a wonderfully inventive organ - I'm not sure the human soul/conscience/heart is keeping up with it.

[Jozanny]

Billions more, on top of the 6 billion of our species already here, simply isn't sustainable. The human animal is a fairly large ape, mostly made up of water. We'll never reach 10 billion because of the limited amount of fresh water available to make a body.

Sorry Virgil. The math is against you and your professor, as is:

1. The rampant decline in bio-diversity and habitat. There have been unusual die-offs in less than exotic species: ash trees, bats, colony collapse disorder in pollinating bees. African lions, which had been holding steady for years at about 100,000, are now in a spiraling decline. And, more importantly perhaps, we have depleted fish, mere ocean fish, by 90%. I am sure you can Google any number of articles on the collapse of the industrial fishing industry worldwide.

We cannot survive as a species ourselves with just cockroaches, ants, termites, corn, poultry and cattle--and those cattle, by the way, aren't sustainable being force-fed in metal cages. Corn is killing them, killing the working class in the States, and rapidly killing off people in other countries where McDonald's has become established.

There are probably *too many* of us for climate change to eliminate us all, but I would bet you my last dollar that the world my sister's children inherit will be plagued by water, environmental, and energy crisises which will significantly reduce specie number and longevity.

[Virgil]

I can't help wondering if Mr Williams (and you, Virgil,) would hold the same opinions of the relationship between high populations and economic despair if he (or you) lived in Mumbai or Dafur or rural China - or even worked in a sweat shop or tried to work in a depressed rural community in USA or Europe. The human brain is indeed a wonderfully inventive organ - I'm not sure the human soul/conscience/heart is keeping up with it.
The human soul will be the same whether for a large or small global population. I've said such above. The very fact that Europe went from 36M in 1000 AD to 100M in 1600 to 450M in 1900 to 700M in 2000 shows that it can be done. Are you saying that if Munbai or Dafur had Euorpean style governments and industry that they would not be similar to Europe? Are you saying that those people are genetically incabable of modernizaton?


Billions more, on top of the 6 billion of our species already here, simply isn't sustainable.
How do you know what isn't sustainable? I bet you would have said you would have said the same when the earth's population was 3B. You or anyone doesn't have a clue. There is no mathematical formula that tells us.


The human animal is a fairly large ape, mostly made up of water. We'll never reach 10 billion because of the limited amount of fresh water available to make a body.
:lol: Have you ever heard of desalination? Can you not conceive of new technolgies that will sustain more people? Why do you think the population of the world has exploded over time? The ultimate resource (the human brain) continues to solve technological problems.


Sorry Virgil. The math is against you and your professor, as is:

1. The rampant decline in bio-diversity and habitat. There have been unusual die-offs in less than exotic species: ash trees, bats, colony collapse disorder in pollinating bees. African lions, which had been holding steady for years at about 100,000, are now in a spiraling decline. And, more importantly perhaps, we have depleted fish, mere ocean fish, by 90%. I am sure you can Google any number of articles on the collapse of the industrial fishing industry worldwide.

We may have to adjust our diet. Bio engineering hasn't fully developed as an industry. I see no reason why we lack food. In fact I've said we have an obesity problem not a starvation problem. We have more food than we know what to do with. As to the lions and such, we need to establish more parks for wild life. If every building that exists in the world now had just one extra floor of living space, do you realize how many more people would be housed without taking up a single square mm of land?


We cannot survive as a species ourselves with just cockroaches, ants, termites, corn, poultry and cattle--and those cattle, by the way, aren't sustainable being force-fed in metal cages. Corn is killing them, killing the working class in the States, and rapidly killing off people in other countries where McDonald's has become established.
Cattle are dying? Corn is killing people? What? I just had corn last night with my beef steak. What are you talking about?


There are probably *too many* of us for climate change to eliminate us all, but I would bet you my last dollar that the world my sister's children inherit will be plagued by water, environmental, and energy crisises which will significantly reduce specie number and longevity.
I'll bet you the global population at the time of your sister's children's old age will be greater than it is now. And they will be thriving and living excellent lives. And there still will be the apocalyptic crowd calling for doomsday. I bet you.

Sorry Jozy, your math isn't based on anything. ;)

[Jozanny]

View the documentary King Corn. Cattle are grass eaters. In the US we torture them, force feeding them corn in penned cages. If we didn't slaughter them first, the frutcose diet alone would do it, just not as quickly.

I respect your intelligence Virgil, but on demographics we simply disagree. The CIA has NIE's which suggest future military conflicts will be fought over water. We cannot simply drain the oceans and take the salt out. Our bodies process about 5 liters a day. Add in what has to go to sustain agriculture. Add the fresh water necessary for healthy aquatic populations. Water is a recycled planetary resource, but it is not an unlimited one, and we cannot restore ground water supply, which takes years to become a resource in itself.

The casuality numbers from the tsunami disaster in 05 and the recent cyclone disaster in Burma may not be statistically significant, but such figures will be as storms become larger and more powerful with climate disruption.

And a minor point. Both Britain and the US were the most powerful empires of the 19th and 20th centuries, with small populations when compared to the Third World. It is technological distribution, not the number of people, which has made the modern quality of life.

And no, in general I am not species optimistic: We are a remarkable animal, one that got lucky and evolved in intelligence fairly rapidly, but we are too driven by self-interest to act as a collective whole to modify our excesses. Nuclear proliferation is a great example of this. Neither the US, Russia, nor China are going to scour the world to destroy the knowledge necessary to keep creating nuclear powers, and the more powers there are with nuclear capacity, the higher the risk of a new disaster.

[kasie]

The human soul will be the same whether for a large or small global population. I've said such above. The very fact that Europe went from 36M in 1000 AD to 100M in 1600 to 450M in 1900 to 700M in 2000 shows that it can be done. Are you saying that if Munbai or Dafur had Euorpean style governments and industry that they would not be similar to Europe? Are you saying that those people are genetically incabable of modernizaton?......

I'm not at all sure how to answer you, Virgil - I'd like to think that your clever responses are ironic, that you are being merely provocative and arguing for the sake of arguing, that you are deliberately misinterpreting the replies to your apparently blinkered posts but I fear you are all too serious and truly believe over-population is a 'good thing'.

You are of course quite right that the human soul will be the same regardless of population size: people always have been and probably always will be selfish, avaricious and power-hungry. They never have and probably never will ensure that the goodies are fairly divided. They don't often look to the future and ask themselves if the fish will always be in the sea, the soil there to grow the crops, the grass be sufficient to pasture the herds, the buffalo (or the woolly mammoths) roaming the plains to be hunted, the oil there to be drilled. The 'modernisation' that you regard so highly might have come about through the application of brain power but those clever people didn't look very far ahead to consider the sustainability of the life-style they were changing. The question should be not 'Can it be done?' but 'Should it be done?'

Yes, of course homo sapiens will think his way out of problems - it's just a pity that he created many of them in the first place.

And no, I didn't say the people in Mumbai etc were genetically incapable of 'modernising' themselves - you know very well I didn't! But it may surprise you to know that no one can 'think' themselves out of the poverty trap: it takes determination, application, concentration, and a lot of other '-tions' as well as health and strength, which surprisingly are enhanced by physical well-being, brought about by food, security, cleanliness, somewhere safe to sleep and raise your children. Education is quite high up the pyramid of basic needs, Culture (the sort with the capital C) is even higher. The poor didn't ask to be poor, they would haul themselves out of it if only they could - what we in the so-called 'civilised' West need to ask ourselves is why are they still poor and what can we do to help them.

I do hope you are being provocative. If you are, would you please ask yourself if your 'stirring' is on an appropriate subject? If you are not but are seriously suggesting that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, will you at least consider the possibility that you may be being a tad selective in your appraisal of the world situation? Am I saddened by this thread? Yes, I am, more than a little. Am I angered by its assumptions and its sophistry? You bet your life I am!

[Virgil]

View the documentary King Corn. Cattle are grass eaters. In the US we torture them, force feeding them corn in penned cages. If we didn't slaughter them first, the frutcose diet alone would do it, just not as quickly.

It is ashame the poor lives they lead, but all farm animals lead miserable lives. That has been going on in one way or another from the beginning of animal domestication. Veal (baby calfs) goes back to ancient Rome at least, and I assume you know the poor lives they are forced to have. Of course if people are really disturbed by this a larger global world may need to have more vegetarian dishes in their diet.


I respect your intelligence Virgil, but on demographics we simply disagree.
I assume you mean we disgree on the what future demographics mean. Ok we disgree. I don't mean to be frustrating people discussing this with me.


The CIA has NIE's which suggest future military conflicts will be fought over water.
As if the CIA has never been wrong. :lol: Have you heard of weapons of mass destruction?


We cannot simply drain the oceans and take the salt out. Our bodies process about 5 liters a day. Add in what has to go to sustain agriculture. Add the fresh water necessary for healthy aquatic populations. Water is a recycled planetary resource, but it is not an unlimited one, and we cannot restore ground water supply, which takes years to become a resource in itself.
Well, we do disagree. We will have to find a solution, unless you intend euthanaisa. The population of the earth is growing and will continue to grow. Perhaps the question I should ask is if you think it is apocalyptic if the earth's population continues to grow, what do you advocate to reverse it?


The casuality numbers from the tsunami disaster in 05 and the recent cyclone disaster in Burma may not be statistically significant, but such figures will be as storms become larger and more powerful with climate disruption.
Can someone please show me where climate has gotten any worse historically? What evidence is there that storms have gotten any worse? With the information age we now know of every storm and its aftermath when in the past it went unnoticed by people thausands of miles away. Are you saying that this tsunami was the worst in history?


And a minor point. Both Britain and the US were the most powerful empires of the 19th and 20th centuries, with small populations when compared to the Third World. It is technological distribution, not the number of people, which has made the modern quality of life.
First, the US has never been an empire. Second it wasn't just the US and Britain but most European nations. Probably true on the population ratio. But European & US populations continued to grow for the past several centuries. I'm not sure about third world populations but I bet they didn't grow. At least not in recent years.


And no, in general I am not species optimistic: We are a remarkable animal, one that got lucky and evolved in intelligence fairly rapidly, but we are too driven by self-interest to act as a collective whole to modify our excesses. Nuclear proliferation is a great example of this. Neither the US, Russia, nor China are going to scour the world to destroy the knowledge necessary to keep creating nuclear powers, and the more powers there are with nuclear capacity, the higher the risk of a new disaster.
Well, I would catagorize myself as optimistic on human progress and standards of living, but neutral on man's capacity to degenerate against his fellow man. I wouldn't say I'm pessimistic, but certainly realistic. Look I don't know how old you are, but we've just come through a cold war where for decades nations had hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at each other. And nothing happened. Today a few more nations have nuclear weapons, but they probably have a few total not hundreds. Now even one can cause a lot of destruction and death, but the situation is far less severe than when the cold war was in full bloom. And wouldn't it be better if the world had a large population in the event a nuclear bomb was launched? More people would improve man's survival.

Well, we can keep discussing, but obviously we disagree. :) That's alright. ;)


I'm not at all sure how to answer you, Virgil - I'd like to think that your clever responses are ironic, that you are being merely provocative and arguing for the sake of arguing, that you are deliberately misinterpreting the replies to your apparently blinkered posts but I fear you are all too serious and truly believe over-population is a 'good thing'.

Well, I'm being serious and provocative. Now I know how Socrates felt. :D And yes I do truely believe that a larger population is a good thing.


You are of course quite right that the human soul will be the same regardless of population size: people always have been and probably always will be selfish, avaricious and power-hungry. They never have and probably never will ensure that the goodies are fairly divided. They don't often look to the future and ask themselves if the fish will always be in the sea, the soil there to grow the crops, the grass be sufficient to pasture the herds, the buffalo (or the woolly mammoths) roaming the plains to be hunted, the oil there to be drilled. The 'modernisation' that you regard so highly might have come about through the application of brain power but those clever people didn't look very far ahead to consider the sustainability of the life-style they were changing.
But so far we have sustained it. I just looked it up. In 1750 the world had about 1B people. In 1900, 2B. Today 6.7B We have sustained it. Set aside the countries that don't have good food distribution (because that's a distribution problem not a lack of food problem) and you have greater and greater obesity problems. There is too much food.


The question should be not 'Can it be done?' but 'Should it be done?'
Well there we agree. I don't know whether it should be done. I certainly don't believe in euthanasia, or abortion for the sake of abortion. Are you going to advocate birth control laws like communist China? So how does one stop the population growth? I just fundementally disagree with all the people who think it's a problem.


Yes, of course homo sapiens will think his way out of problems - it's just a pity that he created many of them in the first place.
Well, you could choose not to live, if you think life is so bad. After studying what life was like for the average person in the middle ages I believe that life has essentially gotten better, and not just by a little, but by a lot. Sure there will always be problems. But let's keep them in perspective and see how much better life is now.


And no, I didn't say the people in Mumbai etc were genetically incapable of 'modernising' themselves - you know very well I didn't! But it may surprise you to know that no one can 'think' themselves out of the poverty trap: it takes determination, application, concentration, and a lot of other '-tions' as well as health and strength, which surprisingly are enhanced by physical well-being, brought about by food, security, cleanliness, somewhere safe to sleep and raise your children. Education is quite high up the pyramid of basic needs, Culture (the sort with the capital C) is even higher. The poor didn't ask to be poor, they would haul themselves out of it if only they could - what we in the so-called 'civilised' West need to ask ourselves is why are they still poor and what can we do to help them.
You may consider this another side note, but I don't. I believe that there is far less pverty today than at any time in human history. And yes, I attribute part of that to a larger population.


I do hope you are being provocative. If you are, would you please ask yourself if your 'stirring' is on an appropriate subject? If you are not but are seriously suggesting that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, will you at least consider the possibility that you may be being a tad selective in your appraisal of the world situation? Am I saddened by this thread? Yes, I am, more than a little. Am I angered by its assumptions and its sophistry? You bet your life I am!
Like I said, I'm a little tongue in cheek, but I do believe and stand by the positions I've put forward. I guess what irks me is that this new generaton has never been so pessimistic and apocalyptic than I've ever seen. I guess I'm fundementally a renaissance humanist, believing in the power of humanity. This generation seems to be more conscerned about the population of polar bears than of humans.

Peace Kasie. I don't mean to frustrate you. :)

[Jozanny]

As if the CIA has never been wrong. :lol: Have you heard of weapons of mass destruction?

Intelligence gathering and extrapolation is imperfect, but that does not mean intelligence is always wrong. At this moment, while we are typing, the lower 48 are gearing up to litigate water usage among themselves, and these are just the states of the union, which presumably aren't going to disintegrate into civil war anytime soon. CA already has a water emergency, and this is within the most powerful country on earth, which just cracked 300 million not too long ago. It is not too far a stretch to look at our situation and see a very real humanitarian crisis splintering Sudan, Chad, the weaker African states. Post-colonial borders in such regions (including the Middle East) already don't mean much, and they will mean less when access to drinking water becomes too precious. China is already in crisis because its water lanes are so polluted that party officials are the ones saying their economic growth isn't sustainable.



Well, we do disagree. We will have to find a solution, unless you intend euthanaisa. The population of the earth is growing and will continue to grow. Perhaps the question I should ask is if you think it is apocalyptic if the earth's population continues to grow, what do you advocate to reverse it?

6 billion people cannot reverse it in any humane reasonable way. We'll end up killing each other like we always do.:sick: China's one child policy doesn't work. The preference for male children over female has lead to a modern unintended consequence. Too many single aggressive men busy playing war games because they do not have wives. We could, perhaps, treat the elderly less aggressively and allow nature to take its course, but why debate slippery slopes endlessly?





First, the US has never been an empire.

That is debatable. *If it walks like a duck--*:p

[tractatus]

While I agree with you that we can feed billions more, I wonder what mathematical formula you are thnking of that can show that. What formula?


I am not talking about a definite formula, In the article he shows some calculations and says, in 4th paragraph. And surely there has been more, of these kind of calculations.



If you thinnk this is about the advantages of communism, I'm sorry tractatus, you are definitely wrong. Prof. Williams is a libertarian, which means he believes in complete laissez-faire.
I think Prof. Williams is saying just the opposite. Let people earn the living freely and there will be less poor. But perhaps that's off topic.


This is very clear, he is not talking about communism directly.

So, what he says;
- increase population,
- let liberal economy rules freely,
- let competition. (as a natural outcome of liberal economy)

So competition needs competitors. Competitors that wants prize. And usually, prizes are, for a very little people.
Very a few competitors win, and quite a big mass loses. This is a model of today's world. We always compete for somethings, few win, plenty of us lose.
Genius solves nothing, Not only Einstein genious but also Ted Bundy, not only Shakespeare is genious but also Nobel. Liberal economy is not a religion, not guides the people to the humanism. Every winner need losers, for every Switzerland* there is a Sudan, for every Usa there is an Indonesia, for every Shakespeare there is a Hitler/Ted Bundy .. etc.


* Countries just selected for economic comparison, then for nothing.

[Taliesin]

As an believer of an end-of-the-world coming right away, I shall give my two cents here.
First, we are running out of oil. We have been finding less new oil reserves as we are going on - and the oil consummation is rising- yes, we have used up about half the oil we have but the oil is much more difficult, expensive and energy-needing to get than the oil we have been getting.
The trouble with nuclear power is that it is not exactly infinite - we need certain special radioactive isotopes for that and they are running out too at some moment. Security isn't actually such an issue - the reactors nowadays are very secure, if I am not mistaken.
The trouble with renewable energies is that they actually need energy to get them going - sun panels and wind turbines need quite a lot energy to produce.
Secondly, food - the reason why we can harvest so much cheap food is simple - we have a lot of cheap energy. If the energy becomes more expensive, then good-bye, lots of cheap food. Then there will be a very serious food shortage.

(and we are actually running out of everything, google "peak everything" for such interesting theories)

Am not exactly saying we on the verge of a Malthusian catastrophe but it is quite a touch-and-go situation.

Apocalyptically yours,
your Panic-Monger and Eshatologer
Taliesin

[Jozanny]

Nice points about energy Talie.

Virgil asked me what I was talking about when I said corn was basically killing everyone.

I learned from King Corn about the pervasiveness of corn fructose, and quite simply, the stuff is bad for the human body, and it is not only bad for you, but the industrialization of crop and livestock which leads to junkfood and diabetes, this is also not sustainable in the long term.

It is not simply that farm animals are miserable; it is that we are hurting ourselves through the forcefeeding caged pen out put of poulty and domesticated livestock.

Here is a snippet:


FORT WORTH, Texas — High-fructose corn syrup isn't completely responsible for the nation's 6 million overweight children — but Dr. George Bray says it's a big part of the problem.

Nurture trumps nature in the current childhood-obesity epidemic, says Bray. It's the environment we're creating for our kids that's the problem, and that environment includes increasing numbers of products high in high-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002658491_healthsyrup04.html

Google has plenty more.

[AimusSage]

There is such a thing as a point of diminishing returns. :) If you keep it up, you'll get to a saturation point, where more people actually have a detrimental affect on the total population. Technology can alleviate this to a point, but even so, the earth has a limited capacity, what that capacity is I do not know, it might be 6 billion, it might be 20, but the fact is, expansion of humans require other resources, and they will run out eventually...that is, unless technology finds a solution eg. expansion to other planets. Technology is driven by people, so more people move technology forward faster.

It's not an ethical issues we are debating. We don't look at people, we look at humans in total, as a species. the standard of living can increase, but the value of a life decreases, these are two different things.

For example, lets say it takes the lives of 100 people to improve the standard of living for a 1000 people by a factor of 1.11. That means that, taking into account the 100 people that died, the overall standard of living is still improved by about 0.01 percent. It would probably considered unethical by most, but that is not the issue, the fact is, the standard of living is improved.

And so on... Blabla.

[Virgil]

Nice points about energy Talie.

Virgil asked me what I was talking about when I said corn was basically killing everyone.

I learned from King Corn about the pervasiveness of corn fructose, and quite simply, the stuff is bad for the human body, and it is not only bad for you, but the industrialization of crop and livestock which leads to junkfood and diabetes, this is also not sustainable in the long term.

It is not simply that farm animals are miserable; it is that we are hurting ourselves through the forcefeeding caged pen out put of poulty and domesticated livestock.

Here is a snippet:



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002658491_healthsyrup04.html

Google has plenty more.

Oh I didn't realize you were talking about high fructose corn syrup. That's a sugar. And while I don't think it's killing people (that's a bit of an exaggeration), it is contributing to obesity. I agree that's not good for you.

[Virgil]

There is such a thing as a point of diminishing returns. :) If you keep it up, you'll get to a saturation point, where more people actually have a detrimental affect on the total population. Technology can alleviate this to a point, but even so, the earth has a limited capacity, what that capacity is I do not know, it might be 6 billion, it might be 20, but the fact is, expansion of humans require other resources, and they will run out eventually...that is, unless technology finds a solution eg. expansion to other planets. Technology is driven by people, so more people move technology forward faster.


Exactly! We don't know where the saturation point is. And Prof. Williams's point is that technology continues to push that saturation point. Don't forget higher yield farming techniques and bio genetic engineering to increase crop and livestock yields. And don't forget recycling technologies and improved energy efficiency technologies. These all have pushed and continue to push the saturation point.


It's not an ethical issues we are debating. We don't look at people, we look at humans in total, as a species. the standard of living can increase, but the value of a life decreases, these are two different things.
Exactly again. Perhaps that's why several people got angry with me. They must think I'm a monster. :D Maybe I am nonetheless. :p

[The Atheist]

Today I came across a piece by Walter Williams, someone I respect and often read. I may not alwyas agree with Mr. Williams, but I must say I usually find him fascinating. This piece really articulates why increasing population has shown to be beneficial to human prosperity and why increasing population is still a good thing.

Sorry to join in so late, but the article does not show that increasing population is beneficial. It does, however, show some that better times have coincided with increased population. Classically put, it is just a great example of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Unchecked population increase is disastrous. We've just been lucky that the earth is big enough to [barely] support the population we have. Aunt Shecky and others are pointing you in the right direction. The lessons available from 200 million years of life so far tends to support the idea that unchecked population increase ends up in extinction.

[Nightshade]

Exactly! We don't know where the saturation point is. And Prof. Williams's point is that technology continues to push that saturation point. Don't forget higher yield farming techniques and bio genetic engineering to increase crop and livestock yields. And don't forget recycling technologies and improved energy efficiency technologies. These all have pushed and continue to push the saturation point.




There is such a thing as a point of diminishing returns. :) If you keep it up, you'll get to a saturation point, where more people actually have a detrimental affect on the total population. Technology can alleviate this to a point, but even so, the earth has a limited capacity, what that capacity is I do not know, it might be 6 billion, it might be 20, but the fact is, expansion of humans require other resources, and they will run out eventually...that is, unless technology finds a solution eg. expansion to other planets. Technology is driven by people, so more people move technology forward faster.
.

Um Virgil I think you are missing part of what I think is Aimus's point and that is yes Actor network theory (ANT) applies but it is not open ended there is a definite saturation point, and this is me here , the critical thing is we dont actually know when that is so unchecked population growth - and the important part here is to note we are talking in the light of our current habit namely this planet - then continuously shoving more people into an increasingly full box is only going to lead to the box breaking. But if ANT holds true, we might be able to develop ways to colonise other solar systems (Hawkins has been saying this over the last few years -ie we need to move to new world to sustain our growth) and then who knows the skies no longer the limit and a massive population would probably be very beneficial.
:D

[Virgil]

Sorry to join in so late, but the article does not show that increasing population is beneficial. It does, however, show some that better times have coincided with increased population. Classically put, it is just a great example of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Beneficial is a value judgement. It does show that there is a correlation to increasing population (and in my opinion, a very strong correlation) between rising population and rising standards of living. As to your post hoc fallacy, a number of things. First of all anyone who's quick to label fallacies is looking to end debate. There is a nebulous region between warrants of justification and fallacy in argument. One person's warrant is another's fallacy and unless one addresses the argument directly, that in itself is a fallacy, fallacy of declaration, i believe. Second, post hoc address implies a logical deduction from a given paradigm. Well that works only if the paradigm holds. For instance Thomas Aquinas has a logical deduction of the exisatence of God. Obviously he's working within a paradigm that, you, Mr Atheist, would not accept. In my experience (I'm an R&D engineer) paradigm shifts of thinking happen very frequently in science, and though I don't have personal experience in social science I would imagine there too. So a deductive argument as you are implying is a tenuous one. Third, you are correct to say there are several possible reasons for increasing population; there is no single cause and effect, especially in social science, but in my experience, also in regular science. If it were pure cause and effect it would be easy to identify; surely there is compounding effect of several factors going on, and I would even venture to say a symbiotic effect as well. But when data so strongly correlates, it behooves the person lookintg at the data to establish a mechanism or model to fit a theory to the data. You may call that post hoc, but that's exactly how climatologists arrive at conclusions of supposed global warming. If you wish to attack (in a debating context) the model feel free to do so with data or a model of your own, but don't give me this post hoc crap. In fact your refusal to address the correlation seems to be another fallacy, fallacy of ignoring data. (Let me know what the latin terms for all these fallacies are that I'm pointing out. You appear to be an expert on it. ;) )


Unchecked population increase is disastrous.
Ah, well that's a value judgement. I look at the data of earth's rising population, (and let me repeated here: 1B in 1750, 2B in 1900, and 6.7B in 2000) and see rising levels of standards of living across the world (yes there are pockets where this hasn't reached yet, but I bet even there the standard of living has improved.) Does it surprise you that the growth in population parallels man's technological advances? I see people leading healthier and longer lives. Life expectancy keeps getting pushed higher. What disaster???? Actually your argument here has yet another fallacy, fallacy of predetermined thinking. You already come to the argument with a position and fail to look at the actual data because in conflicts with your predetermined thinking.


We've just been lucky that the earth is big enough to [barely] support the population we have. Aunt Shecky and others are pointing you in the right direction. The lessons available from 200 million years of life so far tends to support the idea that unchecked population increase ends up in extinction.
Lucky? Centuries of population growth is not in my opinion luck. The human brain continues to solve problems and the more brains working in conjunction seems to exponentially increase standards of living and therefore population. Like I've identified earlier, there are at least six reasons why a larger population leads to higher standards of living: Competition, collaboration, customer base, infrastructure, wealth, and specialization. Now you can play your fallacy game but you are not addressing my claims.

Extinction? Where is that from? Last time i checked man has never been extinct.

[AimusSage]

Extinction? Where is that from? Last time i checked man has never been extinct.
Well, I'm pretty sure it will only happen that one time in the future. :)

I imagine he refers to the populations of other species and their unchecked growth that caused their extinction, although I don't really have any examples that I can give you. Unless you count the galactic puffyflufs, but that's a myth.

[Virgil]

Well, I'm pretty sure it will only happen that one time in the future. :)


:lol: Well, who knows what the far future brings. Would anyone in 1750 be able to conceptualize life and the world today?

[TheFifthElement]

This is a really interesting debate Virgil, it mirrors a similar discussion I had with my husband quite recently. I think it is a very difficult subject to discuss unemotionally, which is the stand point I get the impression you're coming from. My husband is convinced that we will have a massive war soon (does this place him in the apocalyptic camp?) and I have the feeling he's on to something.

A number of people posting here have made reference to population growth, and particularly population growth which is unchecked. However, no one so far has indicated a method by which you can stop the growth of the population which is not 'inhumane'. It has been acknowledged that population control measures used in China, for example, have implications which result in 'inhumane' activity, and the other possible measures: enforced contraception/sterilisation/abortion are considered unpalatable. What other options are available to control population growth? It's also not at all clear where population growth is occurring (regionally in the world I mean) - it appears, from what I can gather, that the majority of the growth is occurring in the developing world - how would you 'intervene' to stop that?

But I think it is a mistake to think in terms of populations being 'unchecked'. If the world population is not sustainable then it will become sustainable either because vast numbers of people will die of starvation, disease or some other form of deprivation; or, as my husband believes, the human race will resort to war in order to claim ownership of those resources needed in order to sustain a 'regional' population. The likelihood is that the more technologically advanced regions will win such a war, although that is by no means certain. It is interesting that with the current oil crisis there has been an announcement that production is set to increase in Iraq, and that Iraq is considered a largely untapped resource in terms of oil production. Perhaps the process has started already?

Another thing to consider is the implication of improvements in medical science. This has affected both sides of the age scale. Taking the UK as an example, in 1900 the infant mortality rate was 140 per 1000 births, as at 1999 this had reduced to something in the region of 10 per 1000 births. (interestingly, the child mortality rate in UK in 1900 was still more that the current infant mortality rate in, say, Ethiopia where the infant mortality rate is 90 in 1000 births). At the beginning of the 19th century and even up to the period shortly after WW2 many families had more children because the probability of a child dying before the age of 5 was quite high. Now the probability of child death is slim, and the majority of families do not exceed 2 children, if they have children at all. This bears out with my own experience: when I was a child it was no uncommon for families to be 2 adults, 4 children, now this is a rarity. In the UK population growth has slowed - at the beginning of 19th Century population growth was approximately 1%, now it is 0.2% and, following countries like Italy and Japan, given the better standard of living available to all the probability is that we will see a slip into negative growth over a period time. When I was born it was extremely unusual for a woman to have a child so 'old' (my Mum was 36) but now it is increasingly common for women to wait until they are in their 30's to have their one, or two children.

At the other end of the scale life spans have increased, again due to improvements in medical care and standard of living. Again, taking the UK as an example, in 1900 the life expectancy for men was 45 years, for womens 49 years, now this is more like 78 for men, and 83 for women. Virgil perhaps this puts your 'generation who never wants to grow up' comments into a different context?!!

When there are these improvements in standard of living and medical care it takes some time for the population to rebalance. Natural events control population growth and, whilst we may see some periods of relative hardship whilist this rebalancing occurs, the likelihood of the human race being able to grow to a level which is unsustainable is slim to non-existent. The likelihood is that if an 'apocalyptic' event occurs which results in the extinction of the human race, that this will result from outside sources for example asteroidal impact, or as a result of human ingenuity in killing each other off.

Perhaps an option for correcting population growth would be to cut off aid to developing countries? Another unpalatable option but if you were serious about it this would be the only option, taking (again) Ethiopia as an example, their population is just over 78m, and growing at a rate of 2.23% compared to the UK population of 60m growing at a rate of 0.276%, being unemotional about it it doesn't seem very logical to support a growing population which is unable to feed itself, and has little to no technological/medical capabilities. If we diverted the resources currently going into aid to the UK population this could increase the standard of living for many, albeit not by a great deal, and the population of Ethiopia will naturally reduce to a 'sustainable' level. Is that what the people who support population control are advocating? I suspect probably not, and emotionally/morally it doesn't really feel 'right'.

Whether increased in population results in an increase in technological advancement I'm not so sure about. I can see that, on the surface, there appears to be an argument for it, but I also find it difficult to put myself into a different time context and judge how much 'advancement' we have currently compared to an earlier, less populous period in time, as opposed to how much 'refinement' we have of existing technology. Take for example the lunar landings. There are many who would judge this the pinnacle of human achievement, however compared to the likes of Colombus who were venturing out across the seas not knowing what was on the other side, or whether they might fall off the edge of the Earth, perhaps it is not such an achievement after all? It does seem to me that, at the moment, we are all children of advertising, and we seem to have a lot of things we don't need. Perhaps we are advancing technologically, but emotionally/spiritually I'm not so sure.

I agree with you, Virgil, that technological advancement will allow us, in many areas, to deal with the problems we have at the moment - the lack of renewable energy sources being one of them. I do believe that the likelihood is that we will solve these issues via technology, perhaps through a blend of the things that we use becoming more energy efficient, and improvement in renewable energy technology. Whilst none of these are 'free' we could certainly capture energy in more effective ways and use it in more effective ways. With the current apparent pressure we're under in this respect the likelihood is that suffient resources will now be moved into the appropriate areas of science and engineering to allow the minds needed to work on, and resolve those problems instead of, perhaps, working on the latest model of mobile phone.

Is population growth a good thing? I'm not so sure you can answer that either way. It is a thing, it is happening and if it's a problem you can be sure that 'nature' will intervene. It creates problems, but then trying to slow population growth also creates other problems. Intervention makes monsters, non-intervention makes disasters. People die either way, there's no stopping that.

There's no good or bad about it, I don't think.

[Virgil]

Excellent post Fifth! I agree with much if not all of what you say. I don't have the time right now to comment on details, but I will tonight when I'm home. Thanks for a well formulated and specific comment. :)

[The Atheist]

Beneficial is a value judgement. It does show that there is a correlation to increasing population (and in my opinion, a very strong correlation) between rising population and rising standards of living.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable here, but that is just wrong. No correlation has been shown at all. There are some coincidental results which are being described as a correlation, but there is a difference - a correlation is provable beyond the confines of the raw data.


But when data so strongly correlates, it behooves the person lookintg at the data to establish a mechanism or model to fit a theory to the data. You may call that post hoc, but that's exactly how climatologists arrive at conclusions of supposed global warming.

Now you're getting there! Why do you think there is so much dissent on AGW? Plus, in the 25 years since AGW was mooted, the physical results have matched the models, so it's moving from post hoc rationale to a current problem.

Using the same population growth data, I could posit that increasing population leads to increased warfare between humans. I think the hypothesis would fit just as neatly as the benefit theory, but it would be equally irrelevant.


If you wish to attack (in a debating context) the model feel free to do so with data or a model of your own, but don't give me this post hoc crap. In fact your refusal to address the correlation seems to be another fallacy, fallacy of ignoring data. (Let me know what the latin terms for all these fallacies are that I'm pointing out. You appear to be an expert on it. ;) )

I have to say that's all fairly trite. Just because I can see a conclusion is wrong bears no responsibility for me to come up with another explanation for data which appears meaningful to someone else.

I will cover a couple of minor points, though, to show what I mean.

Population increased from ~231M (http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=7) in 1AD to 1B in 1700AD, yet the standard of living increased barely at all. With a percentage increase of almost 500%, one could expect vast improvements to have been shown.

The flip side is that a reduction in population would show an equivalent decrease in standard of living, yet the Plagues did exactly the opposite - because people learned about disease and communicability.

The data used to form the population conclusion is entirely inadequate and I certainly don't have a couple of years to complete an alternative study, so I'll just stick with my first analysis that the conclusions are flawed.


Does it surprise you that the growth in population parallels man's technological advances? I see people leading healthier and longer lives. Life expectancy keeps getting pushed higher.

See, this is far more important in the scheme of things. We can draw precise parallels to technological advances creating opportunity for population growth. Agriculture - once humans understood agriculture, societies were able to form and support each other, creating the opportunity for growth. As medical science has advanced, conditions have enabled further growth. It seems to me that this is a far more likely conclusion - that advances in science have allowed human population to increase far beyond a sensible level.


What disaster???? Actually your argument here has yet another fallacy, fallacy of predetermined thinking. You already come to the argument with a position and fail to look at the actual data because in conflicts with your predetermined thinking.

Only comment I have here is that I never use any kind of predetermined thinking. Ever. I'm a rationalist - I use facts to form an opinion, not confirm the one I already have.


Like I've identified earlier, there are at least six reasons why a larger population leads to higher standards of living: Competition, collaboration, customer base, infrastructure, wealth, and specialization. Now you can play your fallacy game but you are not addressing my claims.

Hopefully I have now. Plus, it again seems to be logical that the population increase results from those things rather than the other way around.


Extinction? Where is that from? Last time i checked man has never been extinct.

As someone already noted, I am using other animals rather than humans.

[Virgil]

I'm not trying to be disagreeable here, but that is just wrong.
Sorry if I was a little brusque in my response earlier, but when someone just off handed labels something a fallacy without any serious engagement of the issue at hand is a)rather supercilious and arrogant and b) not serious.


No correlation has been shown at all. There are some coincidental results which are being described as a correlation, but there is a difference - a correlation is provable beyond the confines of the raw data.
You keep declaring that but you fail to explain why the population has parabolically grown over the last several centuries. This is a major phenomena. I don't know how one shows a statistical test to definitively prove a correlation, but if you're such a statistical expert show me the statistical test (and statistical relationships can be proven to show correlations and non-correlations alike) that proves it does not correlate. I put forth again, the earth's population was 1B in 1750, 2B in 1900, and 6.7B in 2000. And stanards of living across the world have gone up with each level of population growth.


Now you're getting there! Why do you think there is so much dissent on AGW? Plus, in the 25 years since AGW was mooted, the physical results have matched the models, so it's moving from post hoc rationale to a current problem.
Oh so now you have reversed course and you agree that fitting data to a model is the norm in scientific circles. Glad you agree. [Side note, the last ten years have actually had a cooling of global temperature, of which was not predicted in the modeling. But that's a side note, and I don't want to get distracted with a different issue.]


Using the same population growth data, I could posit that increasing population leads to increased warfare between humans. I think the hypothesis would fit just as neatly as the benefit theory, but it would be equally irrelevant.
On what evidence? Is there an increasing warfare in the last centruy with tripling of population? No I don't think so, but if you show me the data I may be persuaded. But I can count hundred wars, religious wars, crusades, Napoleonic wars, Roman conquest wars, Greek city state wars, Persian imperilalism wars, Germanic wars, etc, etc prior to the 20th century tripling of population. Where is your proof?


I have to say that's all fairly trite. Just because I can see a conclusion is wrong bears no responsibility for me to come up with another explanation for data which appears meaningful to someone else.
Sure you do. Otherwise your argument has no weight. But at least you have to disprove I'm wrong. Where is your proof? All your doing is declaring it's wrong. Show me.


Population increased from ~231M (http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=7) in 1AD to 1B in 1700AD, yet the standard of living increased barely at all. With a percentage increase of almost 500%, one could expect vast improvements to have been shown.
Well, I'm not sure I agree that's its only barely better in 1700. In 1AD so much of the middle class and up owned slaves, and so propped up their standard of living. If you averaged in the standard of living of slaves (which made up about a third of the population), the standard of living overall would come out very poor. Plus in 1700, enough of a standard of living existed to support a musician class, an artist class, and other luxery items which were supported by a growing middle class. Plus you gloss over the population decline in the third centtury and continued roughly to the high middle ages. A real drop in standard of living occurred then, which again supports my argument.


The flip side is that a reduction in population would show an equivalent decrease in standard of living, yet the Plagues did exactly the opposite - because people learned about disease and communicability.
And are you saying that the plagues did not result in a reduction of standard of living? Certainly the plagues during the 3rd and 4th centuries left the Roman world in a reduced state. The black death plagues of the 14th century left people with more land since it there was less people per square foot but it affected commerce and the guilds dramatically and certainly life expectancy. So yes, there was a drop in standard of living when population dropped.


The data used to form the population conclusion is entirely inadequate and I certainly don't have a couple of years to complete an alternative study, so I'll just stick with my first analysis that the conclusions are flawed.
Fallacy of declaration. ;)


See, this is far more important in the scheme of things. We can draw precise parallels to technological advances creating opportunity for population growth. Agriculture - once humans understood agriculture, societies were able to form and support each other, creating the opportunity for growth. As medical science has advanced, conditions have enabled further growth. It seems to me that this is a far more likely conclusion - that advances in science have allowed human population to increase far beyond a sensible level.
I'm putting forth that population growth led to those technological advances, or at least was a significant component. Yes there are many factors, I said this wasn't clearly cause and effect. But i do believe there is a correlation.


Only comment I have here is that I never use any kind of predetermined thinking. Ever. I'm a rationalist - I use facts to form an opinion, not confirm the one I already have.
Ok so where's your facts? And just because one claims to be a rationalist doesn't mean that one is thinking as a rationalist. And who says rationalist thinking finds all solutions? I've already said you are thinking within a formulated paradigm. Rationalists thinking will never let you think out of the box.


Hopefully I have now. Plus, it again seems to be logical that the population increase results from those things rather than the other way around.
I believe there is a symbiotic relationship. That's why it's a parabolic trend. Otherwise it would be only a linear trend. There is a compounding effect of several factors, of which I also think capitalism is one. But capitalism wouldn't exist without at least a critical mass of population. Growing population puts pressure (from competition, collaboration, customer base, infrastructure, wealth, and specialization) toward technological advances.


As someone already noted, I am using other animals rather than humans.
Well, that holds like a sieive holds water.

[Dori]

Oh man, all these statistics are making me squeamish. :lol:

Statistically speaking, the average human being has one testicle and one ovary.

[Virgil]

This is a really interesting debate Virgil, it mirrors a similar discussion I had with my husband quite recently. I think it is a very difficult subject to discuss unemotionally, which is the stand point I get the impression you're coming from. My husband is convinced that we will have a massive war soon (does this place him in the apocalyptic camp?) and I have the feeling he's on to something.

Haha, yes your husband is another apocalyptic one. ;) Yes there is turmoil in the world today, but the major countries of the world have never been so interlincked and supportive of one another. Can you envision a major war in Eruope today? Even the terrorism issue is no where as potentially dangerous as the cold war. Like I said above during the cold war world powers had thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at each other. Today there are a handful of rogue nations who have no such power. Yes they may have one or get a nuclear weapon, and that can cause a lot of heartache and destruction, but nothing apocalyptic as we had from 1948 to 1989. So your husband is just being a worry wart. :p Frankly this is my other pet beef, that jounalism today reaches for the worst nightmares to present and given the round the clock news of cable this apocalyptic thinking has permeated the culture.


A number of people posting here have made reference to population growth, and particularly population growth which is unchecked. However, no one so far has indicated a method by which you can stop the growth of the population which is not 'inhumane'. It has been acknowledged that population control measures used in China, for example, have implications which result in 'inhumane' activity, and the other possible measures: enforced contraception/sterilisation/abortion are considered unpalatable. What other options are available to control population growth? It's also not at all clear where population growth is occurring (regionally in the world I mean) - it appears, from what I can gather, that the majority of the growth is occurring in the developing world - how would you 'intervene' to stop that?
I believe that people should be free to choose how many children they want. I believe that is a fundemental freedom. Any forced population control would be immoral as you say, but, even more appalling to me, would be fascist.


But I think it is a mistake to think in terms of populations being 'unchecked'. If the world population is not sustainable then it will become sustainable either because vast numbers of people will die of starvation, disease or some other form of deprivation; or, as my husband believes, the human race will resort to war in order to claim ownership of those resources needed in order to sustain a 'regional' population. The likelihood is that the more technologically advanced regions will win such a war, although that is by no means certain. It is interesting that with the current oil crisis there has been an announcement that production is set to increase in Iraq, and that Iraq is considered a largely untapped resource in terms of oil production. Perhaps the process has started already?
Excellent!! I absolutely agree. The word's population will adjust when saturation hits. There is no evidence that saturation has hit. The world's population continues to grow.


Another thing to consider is the implication of improvements in medical science. This has affected both sides of the age scale. Taking the UK as an example, in 1900 the infant mortality rate was 140 per 1000 births, as at 1999 this had reduced to something in the region of 10 per 1000 births. (interestingly, the child mortality rate in UK in 1900 was still more that the current infant mortality rate in, say, Ethiopia where the infant mortality rate is 90 in 1000 births). At the beginning of the 19th century and even up to the period shortly after WW2 many families had more children because the probability of a child dying before the age of 5 was quite high. Now the probability of child death is slim, and the majority of families do not exceed 2 children, if they have children at all. This bears out with my own experience: when I was a child it was no uncommon for families to be 2 adults, 4 children, now this is a rarity. In the UK population growth has slowed - at the beginning of 19th Century population growth was approximately 1%, now it is 0.2% and, following countries like Italy and Japan, given the better standard of living available to all the probability is that we will see a slip into negative growth over a period time. When I was born it was extremely unusual for a woman to have a child so 'old' (my Mum was 36) but now it is increasingly common for women to wait until they are in their 30's to have their one, or two children.
Again we are on the same wavelength here Fifth. (A refreshing change I must say. I feel guilty sometimes disagreeing with you so often. :) ) Infrastructure such as hospitals are possible with large populations. I tried looking up the number of hospitals in New York City and I couldn't find the exact number but it's several hundred. And that's not including the ones in the suburbs. And because so many hospitals exist, many specialists come here and over all have made the New York area possibly one of the top health care areas in the country. A lot of medical innovations occur here. Compare that to some rural areas where the nearest hospital is miles and even hours away and very few doctors are in the vicinity. Large popultions support many things which lead to advances.


At the other end of the scale life spans have increased, again due to improvements in medical care and standard of living. Again, taking the UK as an example, in 1900 the life expectancy for men was 45 years, for womens 49 years, now this is more like 78 for men, and 83 for women. Virgil perhaps this puts your 'generation who never wants to grow up' comments into a different context?!!
Yes. :lol: Maybe everything has shifted forty years. :D


When there are these improvements in standard of living and medical care it takes some time for the population to rebalance. Natural events control population growth and, whilst we may see some periods of relative hardship whilist this rebalancing occurs, the likelihood of the human race being able to grow to a level which is unsustainable is slim to non-existent. The likelihood is that if an 'apocalyptic' event occurs which results in the extinction of the human race, that this will result from outside sources for example asteroidal impact, or as a result of human ingenuity in killing each other off.
Again I agree. Such balancing will always occur. So there are steps forward and back but the aggregate trend seems forward. But we also have developed to a point where I hope we could detect such an asteroid and intercept it with a missile.


Perhaps an option for correcting population growth would be to cut off aid to developing countries? Another unpalatable option but if you were serious about it this would be the only option, taking (again) Ethiopia as an example, their population is just over 78m, and growing at a rate of 2.23% compared to the UK population of 60m growing at a rate of 0.276%, being unemotional about it it doesn't seem very logical to support a growing population which is unable to feed itself, and has little to no technological/medical capabilities. If we diverted the resources currently going into aid to the UK population this could increase the standard of living for many, albeit not by a great deal, and the population of Ethiopia will naturally reduce to a 'sustainable' level. Is that what the people who support population control are advocating? I suspect probably not, and emotionally/morally it doesn't really feel 'right'.
Well, I couldn't advocate cutting off third world countries. A better solution would be to absorb their population into the developed world. Unfortunately it can't be done instantaneously; it requires assimilation. So I advocate slow absorbtion while trying to educate and modernize their countries. It's just those damn dictators which really put up road blocks.


Whether increased in population results in an increase in technological advancement I'm not so sure about. I can see that, on the surface, there appears to be an argument for it, but I also find it difficult to put myself into a different time context and judge how much 'advancement' we have currently compared to an earlier, less populous period in time, as opposed to how much 'refinement' we have of existing technology. Take for example the lunar landings. There are many who would judge this the pinnacle of human achievement, however compared to the likes of Colombus who were venturing out across the seas not knowing what was on the other side, or whether they might fall off the edge of the Earth, perhaps it is not such an achievement after all? It does seem to me that, at the moment, we are all children of advertising, and we seem to have a lot of things we don't need. Perhaps we are advancing technologically, but emotionally/spiritually I'm not so sure.
We do have things we don't need, but we also have more free time for self fulfillment and live healthier and longer lives, travel faster and to countires in the world our grandparents never imagined. Improved standard of living is a measurable thing.


I agree with you, Virgil, that technological advancement will allow us, in many areas, to deal with the problems we have at the moment - the lack of renewable energy sources being one of them. I do believe that the likelihood is that we will solve these issues via technology, perhaps through a blend of the things that we use becoming more energy efficient, and improvement in renewable energy technology. Whilst none of these are 'free' we could certainly capture energy in more effective ways and use it in more effective ways. With the current apparent pressure we're under in this respect the likelihood is that suffient resources will now be moved into the appropriate areas of science and engineering to allow the minds needed to work on, and resolve those problems instead of, perhaps, working on the latest model of mobile phone.
Yes I agree. You know I am not convinced of man-made global warming or how detrimental it might be, but if it were truely a problem I have every confidence we can solve it.


Is population growth a good thing? I'm not so sure you can answer that either way. It is a thing, it is happening and if it's a problem you can be sure that 'nature' will intervene. It creates problems, but then trying to slow population growth also creates other problems. Intervention makes monsters, non-intervention makes disasters. People die either way, there's no stopping that.
I continue to think it's a good thing. But nonetheless it is a real and on going thing. Wait until China drops the fascist one child rule. And it eventulally will. Then what will the population of the world climb to? I beleive China will be thee world power and not just militarily. It will have a huge population without these environmentalists to slow them down. It will be a cultural and intellectual power. They will be the engine that drives the world.

[The Atheist]

Sorry if I was a little brusque in my response earlier, but when someone just off handed labels something a fallacy without any serious engagement of the issue at hand is a)rather supercilious and arrogant and b) not serious.

I'll always stick my hand up for arrogance - it is a failing of mine!


You keep declaring that but you fail to explain why the population has parabolically grown over the last several centuries. This is a major phenomena.

Lower death rates. That's it. People gradually became aware that hygiene and care brought about better chances of survival. The serious increases in population have all tended to come after technological advances, best evinced by population increases since the Industrial Revolution. It seems obvious to me that technology spurs growth in population rather than the opposite.


I put forth again, the earth's population was 1B in 1750, 2B in 1900, and 6.7B in 2000. And stanards of living across the world have gone up with each level of population growth.

But have they? Or is it the precise opposite? We know for sure that population exploded when agriculture became common; we know it did again recently as above.


On what evidence? Is there an increasing warfare in the last centruy with tripling of population? No I don't think so, but if you show me the data I may be persuaded. But I can count hundred wars, religious wars, crusades, Napoleonic wars, Roman conquest wars, Greek city state wars, Persian imperilalism wars, Germanic wars, etc, etc prior to the 20th century tripling of population. Where is your proof?

Even taking the most liberal view of what constitutes "war" deaths, the past 100 years have contained far more and far more proportionate death from wars than ever before. Not to get too close to politics, but Iraq is already up to (or over) 400,000 deaths from the war there. War has demonstrably been far more effective in the past 100 years than the previous 10,000.

Historically, I'd suggest that many wars have started to gain additional resources for increasing populations. As you say, this is all a red herring, but it does show how easy it is to make a case out of very little.


Sure you do. Otherwise your argument has no weight. But at least you have to disprove I'm wrong. Where is your proof? All your doing is declaring it's wrong. Show me.

You're talking about a major research project to refute it, and that's certainly not going to happen. I'm just looking at something objectively and seeing lots of reasons why the conclusion could be false without needing to test it. I have no agenda here, but I'm very experienced at seeing holes like tunnels in academic arguments. Almost always, when those holes are left, the premise is flawed. In this case, logic and the evidence points to a flaw and I'll stick with it until the idea gains some weight with other scientists, historians and sociologists.

Hey, in the end, it might all be right, but one simple test is AGW, which seems to always be timely at the moment. Along with the vast bulk of the scientific cimmunity, I think the premise of AGW is correct - that man-made gases are overheating the planet. That alone must refute the argument; our current population is far greater than at any other time and this is only the second serious and global threat the world has ever seen.

The other was in 1962, also at a time of global population explosion (remember the baby-boom?).


Well, I'm not sure I agree that's its only barely better in 1700. In 1AD so much of the middle class and up owned slaves, and so propped up their standard of living. If you averaged in the standard of living of slaves (which made up about a third of the population), the standard of living overall would come out very poor. Plus in 1700, enough of a standard of living existed to support a musician class, an artist class, and other luxery items which were supported by a growing middle class. Plus you gloss over the population decline in the third centtury and continued roughly to the high middle ages. A real drop in standard of living occurred then, which again supports my argument.

When did Britain renounce slavery? When did USA? The entire wealth of southern USA was built on the backs of an enormous slave force. I don't accept that those slaves in 1750 in Louisiana were better treated than those in 2000BC in Egypt. Interestingly, the things you describe - arts, music, middle class, luxury items, were all well and truly alive during the great days of Rome around 1AD, so I'm not sure that supports your hypothesis at all.


The black death plagues of the 14th century left people with more land since it there was less people per square foot but it affected commerce and the guilds dramatically and certainly life expectancy. So yes, there was a drop in standard of living when population dropped.

Yes, but it was followed by an immediate increase. Obviously, the plague deaths skew figures at the time.


I'm putting forth that population growth led to those technological advances, or at least was a significant component. Yes there are many factors, I said this wasn't clearly cause and effect. But i do believe there is a correlation.

Yep, we are on opposite sides of the same fence! :D


Rationalists thinking will never let you think out of the box.

No, that's completely wrong and easily refutable. Dawkins, Russell, Sagan, Einstein, Rutherford - rationalists to a man.


I believe there is a symbiotic relationship.

I hope you're right, because AGW really does appear the bogey man for that argument.


That's why it's a parabolic trend. Otherwise it would be only a linear trend.

Nope. The parabolic increase is exactly typical of what populations of plants and animals go through before they consume their environment. Take a typical yeast culture - the explosion of yeast cells would nicely match human population growth. Once all the food is consumed, they die out. Be a pity of that's what we're doing.


Well, that holds like a sieive holds water.

Maybe so, but when we're comparing population growth, there are no other models to look at. We are animals and [in my opinion] all human behaviour can be traced to evolutionary traits, so it doesn't seem too far fetched to compare us to other animalian population explosions.

[Jozanny]

Eloquent post, Fifth Element. One quibble:


But I think it is a mistake to think in terms of populations being 'unchecked'. If the world population is not sustainable then it will become sustainable either because vast numbers of people will die of starvation, disease or some other form of deprivation; or, as my husband believes, the human race will resort to war in order to claim ownership of those resources needed in order to sustain a 'regional' population. The likelihood is that the more technologically advanced regions will win such a war, although that is by no means certain. It is interesting that with the current oil crisis there has been an announcement that production is set to increase in Iraq, and that Iraq is considered a largely untapped resource in terms of oil production. Perhaps the process has started already?

I think, even if population adjusts to a continued sustainable track, we have pretty much been undermined by our own success if we further the extermination of too many other species and make ecosystems uninhabitable. We need pollinators for agriculture. We are currently losing them for unknown reasons. I mentioned bees and colony collapse disorder. Die-off not understood. I mentioned bats. Their disease is white nose, also not understood. Birds are in serious decline because of skyscrapers and glass panes?

Before the human animal, there were surely species competition which lead to winners and losers, and one cannot fault early humans for killing off other large mammals like mammoths and some large carnivores in Australia whose names I can't remember. The planet can handle those, but I do not think it can handle too many more extinctions before we sink ourselves. An oceanic depletion of 90% is incredible and frankly scares me, and I do not know that we can undo this damage at this point, especially not if other nation states want to emulate the success of the US and level the playing field through rapid economic development and increased energy usage.

[The Atheist]

Birds are in serious decline because of skyscrapers and glass panes?

Nope. The big problem for birds, like almost every other species is habitat depletion. The only birds windows get are the ones we can afford to lose anyway - starlings & sparrows, etc.


... especially not if other nation states want to emulate the success of the US and level the playing field through rapid economic development and increased energy usage.

Looks like they're trying hard to do just that!

[Virgil]

I'll always stick my hand up for arrogance - it is a failing of mine!

Well, then we have something in common. ;)


Lower death rates. That's it. People gradually became aware that hygiene and care brought about better chances of survival. The serious increases in population have all tended to come after technological advances, best evinced by population increases since the Industrial Revolution. It seems obvious to me that technology spurs growth in population rather than the opposite.
Yes, but the argument is that the technological develpments were pressured from a large population. I believe your underlining assumption is that the technological developments were happenstance, luck. What I'm saying is that larger population enabled greater competition, collaboration, customer base, infrastructure, wealth, and specialization which enbled technological advances. Perhaps I haven't been clear, but that's a direct statement of my claim.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I put forth again, the earth's population was 1B in 1750, 2B in 1900, and 6.7B in 2000. And stanards of living across the world have gone up with each level of population growth.
But have they? Or is it the precise opposite? We know for sure that population exploded when agriculture became common; we know it did again recently as above.
Are you saying the standards of living have not gone up in the last two hundred years? I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.


Even taking the most liberal view of what constitutes "war" deaths, the past 100 years have contained far more and far more proportionate death from wars than ever before. Not to get too close to politics, but Iraq is already up to (or over) 400,000 deaths from the war there. War has demonstrably been far more effective in the past 100 years than the previous 10,000.
I don't know about the 400,000 number, but yes i agree that the 20th century had more war deaths in total. But your claim to what I was responding was that greater populations had more wars, with the undlerlying implication that greater population tended to create more wars. I don't bvelieve that we have had more wars in the 20th century as opposed to less populated centuries, and i see no evidence why greater population would start more wars.


You're talking about a major research project to refute it, and that's certainly not going to happen. I'm just looking at something objectively and seeing lots of reasons why the conclusion could be false without needing to test it.
Fair enough, I don't expect that. But the same goes from my end. But I am showing a huge population trend, I am supporting it with reasons why greater population leads to technological advances (from competition, collaboration, etc.). I am supporting the claim to some level. You just gave that post hoc fallacy argument. ;) I understand why some might not agree. It is counter intuitive.


Hey, in the end, it might all be right, but one simple test is AGW, which seems to always be timely at the moment. Along with the vast bulk of the scientific cimmunity, I think the premise of AGW is correct - that man-made gases are overheating the planet. That alone must refute the argument; our current population is far greater than at any other time and this is only the second serious and global threat the world has ever seen.
I see you buy into the apocalypse. Even if AGW is correct, which I dispute and that could be a different argument for somewhere else, wouldn't the answer be to get away from greenhouse gases? While there may be a transitionary point where we have a drop in standard of living (i.e. gas prices) I hardly see this as a serious threat.


The other was in 1962, also at a time of global population explosion (remember the baby-boom?).
What's 1962? Cuban missile crises?


When did Britain renounce slavery? When did USA? The entire wealth of southern USA was built on the backs of an enormous slave force. I don't accept that those slaves in 1750 in Louisiana were better treated than those in 2000BC in Egypt. Interestingly, the things you describe - arts, music, middle class, luxury items, were all well and truly alive during the great days of Rome around 1AD, so I'm not sure that supports your hypothesis at all.
Yeah, but in the Roman world there was 1 slave for every 2 freemen. That's a huge ratio. I don't think in 1700 they had that kind of a ratio. But you may be right, the standard of living distinction beteen 1Ad and 1700 may not be great. But you picked 1AD which happened to be very good period in the Roman world. If you had picked 300BC or 300AD and compared it with 1700 I think 1700 would come out favorable. Also I limited my thinking to the Roman world of 1AD. If we looked at the world globally for those years, 1700 might still come out favorable.


Yes, but it was followed by an immediate increase. Obviously, the plague deaths skew figures at the time.
Hmm, that is inteesting. I'm not sure how to think about that.


Yep, we are on opposite sides of the same fence! :D
I think we are. :D


No, that's completely wrong and easily refutable. Dawkins, Russell, Sagan, Einstein, Rutherford - rationalists to a man.
So if one claims to be a rationalist, does that mean you don't have waves of insight that leaps over logic.


Nope. The parabolic increase is exactly typical of what populations of plants and animals go through before they consume their environment. Take a typical yeast culture - the explosion of yeast cells would nicely match human population growth. Once all the food is consumed, they die out. Be a pity of that's what we're doing.
Well, that's an anology that is a stretch. Yeast cultures don't have brains, and like the title of the article The Ultimate Source is the human brain.


Maybe so, but when we're comparing population growth, there are no other models to look at. We are animals and [in my opinion] all human behaviour can be traced to evolutionary traits, so it doesn't seem too far fetched to compare us to other animalian population explosions.
We are animals. But we are animals with human brains, and with that there is no ananolgy. Even your fondness for rationalism shows that humans are exceptional. Hey we may blow ourselves up for good, I think that is a greater fear than population growth or global warming. Like Fifth points out, when a saturation point occurs, the population will adjust, either level off or shrink.

[AimusSage]

Well, that's an anology that is a stretch. Yeast cultures don't have brains, and like the title of the article The Ultimate Source is the human brain.
And that is why Zombies will eventually take over the world!

*braaaaaaaainssssssssssssssssss*

Ha, sorry couldn't resist the urge. :D

[Virgil]

Even taking the most liberal view of what constitutes "war" deaths, the past 100 years have contained far more and far more proportionate death from wars than ever before. Not to get too close to politics, but Iraq is already up to (or over) 400,000 deaths from the war there. War has demonstrably been far more effective in the past 100 years than the previous 10,000.

Historically, I'd suggest that many wars have started to gain additional resources for increasing populations. As you say, this is all a red herring, but it does show how easy it is to make a case out of very little.

I've come back to this after thinking about it over breakfest and coffee. ;) You do raise a good point about larger populations and the destructiveness of war. (I still stand by the number of wars being irrelevant with population.) It would seem as a corrolary to my hypothesis that if larger populations lead to technological advances (through competition, collaboration, etc.) then certain technological advances could be and obviously are more destructive and could lead to a wipeout of humanity and the earth as we know it. That is a possiblity and probably our greatest threat. Yes it depends on how technological advances are put to use.

[Virgil]

And that is why Zombies will eventually take over the world!

*braaaaaaaainssssssssssssssssss*

Ha, sorry couldn't resist the urge. :D

:lol: :lol: See even zombies know what they need to improve their lives.

[AuntShecky]

. . . a . . . point about larger populations and the destructiveness of war. (I still stand by the number of wars being irrelevant with population.) It would seem as a corrolary to my hypothesis that if larger populations lead to technological advances (through competition, collaboration, etc.) then certain technological advances could be and obviously are more destructive and could lead to a wipeout of humanity and the earth as we know it. That is a possiblity and probably our greatest threat. Yes it depends on how technological advances are put to use.

A larger population would mean a larger pool in which to conscript soldiers; aka "cannon fodder," and thus would
impel ambitious governments to wage war.

I also think that a large population would naturally lead to large unemployment, and some corporations love it that way, knowing there is a potential CHEAP labor resource available when needed. I often wondered why when unemployment figures go up, so does the stock market, even though "consumer confidence" goes down at the same time.

With a large population, there are also ramifications for public education -- overcrowded classrooms, etc.

Also, natural resources and sanitation reach a tipping point.
Water may someday become as precious as oil.

The danger of epidemics and pandemics rise in areas with large populations as well.

So, Virgil, I see your points, but I'm glad you're re-thinking
some of the negative aspects of an unchecked population growth.

[TheFifthElement]

Oh man, all these statistics are making me squeamish. :lol:

Statistically speaking, the average human being has one testicle and one ovary.

hehehe



Again we are on the same wavelength here Fifth. (A refreshing change I must say. I feel guilty sometimes disagreeing with you so often. :) )

hehehe, yes this is a rarity! Don't feel guilty Virge, I welcome debate even if sometimes it's a bit painful! You can't find out all sides of the subject without discussing and, probably, disagreeing a little :D


Well, I couldn't advocate cutting off third world countries. A better solution would be to absorb their population into the developed world. Unfortunately it can't be done instantaneously; it requires assimilation. So I advocate slow absorbtion while trying to educate and modernize their countries. It's just those damn dictators which really put up road blocks.

I agree. You know when I was reading up about population growth I came across a BBC article which said over the past 15 years Africa has received $300bn in aid, and over the same period has spent the equivalent amount on wars. So, the government spend the money on guns and let the rest of the world feed their people (so they can be macheted to death with food in their stomachs - nice). Details here, if you're interested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7038348.stm


We do have things we don't need, but we also have more free time for self fulfillment and live healthier and longer lives, travel faster and to countires in the world our grandparents never imagined. Improved standard of living is a measurable thing.

Oh I agree (again, what's going on?!) that the overall standard of living is vastly improved, but there are other deficits much of which arise as a result of the media/advertising driven culture we live in. Not related to population size, I don't think, but perhaps a symptom of a different problem. I could go on, ad infinitum, on that subject but I'll spare you!


Even the terrorism issue is no where as potentially dangerous as the cold war.

you know it's interesting, and again this probably comes back to the media issue, how terrorism has become such a big deal. Recently measures were introduced in the UK which allow the police to hold a potential terrorism suspect for up to 42 days without charge. This is on the back of one terrorist attack, being the 7/7 attack on the London underground, the perpetrators of which are all dead or in prison. Yet these measures were never necessary during the preceding 30 years when the UK was under direct terrorist threat from the IRA including shootings of citizens (mainly Northern Ireland based), attacks on the military and mainland bombings. What changed? Media creation of a climate of fear, in which the general public are so scared that they give their civil liberties away. There are so many issues like this, perhaps it warrants a seperate thread (before I get carried away!).


I think, even if population adjusts to a continued sustainable track, we have pretty much been undermined by our own success if we further the extermination of too many other species and make ecosystems uninhabitable. We need pollinators for agriculture. We are currently losing them for unknown reasons. I mentioned bees and colony collapse disorder. Die-off not understood. I mentioned bats. Their disease is white nose, also not understood. Birds are in serious decline because of skyscrapers and glass panes?
Hi Jozanny. I hear what you're saying but I don't think it changes anything. If humanity wipes out species on which it relies then the human population will shrink accordingly, until it reaches a level which can be sustained with available resources. The likelihood is that this will result in a lesser quality of life for those who are left, but I don't think it would result in extinction. I'm not sure about the examples you mentioned, from what I understand the bat and bee issue appear to be disease related, not directly related to human population size, so I'm not sure what the correlation is here. Where I live birds and insects are not affected by skyscrapers or windows (cities are much smaller in UK) but rather more affected by the implementation of the EU common agricultural policy which encouraged farmers to intensively farm their land. This meant that hedgerows, ditches and the like, on which such wildlife depends, were cut back to make more arable land. The effects have been noted and now, in UK at least, farmers are being actively encouraged to manage their land with conservation in mind, hedgerows are being re-planted and the natural environment restored. It will take some time to undo the damage but the point is, as I think Virgil has mentioned, man is a thinking animal. We see the damage we do, consider the implications on the human population, and seek to undo it. It takes time for balance to be restored, you can't measure the effect over a year or two years, but more over 50-100 years. Which I think brings us to your point here:


I do not know that we can undo this damage at this point, especially not if other nation states want to emulate the success of the US and level the playing field through rapid economic development and increased energy usage.

yes, I understand, but if the damage has happened over a period of time then it takes a period of time to correct, and it might be corrected in a way we don't expect. It's like getting overweight. People take years putting on weight and expect to be able to lose it in a couple of weeks. It doesn't work that way.

I don't think that everyone holds the US up as an example for the rest of the world to follow, the difference for the US is that it has vast resources at its disposal, turn it into an island nation like UK or Japan and it's a different story entirely. You have to innovate (or steal!) to get the resources you need. Just look at fuel prices in UK compared to US as an example, and you'll see the difference. In UK we're getting to a point where we will either be at the 'mercy' of other nations, or we'll have to figure out a better way of resourcing our energy and other needs. Pressure creates innovation, or destruction. Either way will achieve balance.

[The Atheist]

Are you saying the standards of living have not gone up in the last two hundred years? I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.

No, still the prior 1700.


I see you buy into the apocalypse.

Not at all, but as with everything else, I feel it's necessary to fully explore the possibilities and global catastrophe is one potential outcome.


Even if AGW is correct, which I dispute and that could be a different argument for somewhere else, wouldn't the answer be to get away from greenhouse gases? While there may be a transitionary point where we have a drop in standard of living (i.e. gas prices) I hardly see this as a serious threat.

I agree this might be a good subject at some stage as the issue is a lot more complex than that. Some scientists feel that global economic downturn might do more harm than good at this stage by lessening thr damper effects of solid pollutants.


What's 1962? Cuban missile crises?

Yes indeed. As far as I can ascertain, it's the only other time that there was a genuine & verifiable threat [however small] of global destruction.


Yeah, but in the Roman world there was 1 slave for every 2 freemen. That's a huge ratio. I don't think in 1700 they had that kind of a ratio. But you may be right, the standard of living distinction beteen 1Ad and 1700 may not be great. But you picked 1AD which happened to be very good period in the Roman world. If you had picked 300BC or 300AD and compared it with 1700 I think 1700 would come out favorable. Also I limited my thinking to the Roman world of 1AD. If we looked at the world globally for those years, 1700 might still come out favorable.

That's kind of the point - the details are so subjective all along that arbitrary dates can influence the outcome considerably. Picking various times prior to 1AD works the same way. The great days of Egypt, the Chinese dynasties, Rome, Greece - there are lots of periods of great wealth which don't coincide with anything.


So if one claims to be a rationalist, does that mean you don't have waves of insight that leaps over logic.

That's pretty close to the mark. What it does is make you examine the insight to see if it adds up.


Well, that's an anology that is a stretch. Yeast cultures don't have brains, and like the title of the article The Ultimate Source is the human brain.

We are animals. But we are animals with human brains, and with that there is no ananolgy. Even your fondness for rationalism shows that humans are exceptional. Hey we may blow ourselves up for good, I think that is a greater fear than population growth or global warming. Like Fifth points out, when a saturation point occurs, the population will adjust, either level off or shrink.

I'm not sure the brains argument holds up. Brains are exactly the same as other living tissue - an arrangement of cells which interact. That they interact with a good deal more complexity than single-celled life might not be relevant at all and given our prediliction for behaving with simple animalistic responses, we might just be treading the same path as thousands of species so far.

One thing which is important to consider is the incredibly short period of time that it's taken humans to conquer the environment with totality. We have changed the entire infrastructure of the planet and continue to do so. As I said, I'm not an apocalyptist, but the fact remains that we just don't know what permanent damage we might have already caused to the atmosphere. We know that the pace of extinctions over the past 200 years is equal to that at the time of the dinosaur extinction. We believe that the post-Cambrian extinction was due to oxygen depletion. Maybe there's a tipping point at which change accelerates and becomes irreversible.

This must all be speculative in a science which is extremely young, which is why I find it dangerous to think that population growth is good per se. We just don't have enough data - and what we do have has a rather nasty shade to it.

[Virgil]

This must all be speculative in a science which is extremely young, which is why I find it dangerous to think that population growth is good per se. We just don't have enough data - and what we do have has a rather nasty shade to it.
Hehe, well I was being somewhat provacative. It's hard to say whether it's absolutely a good thing or not. I tend to think it's a good thing, but perhpas we have already reached a saturation point. It's possible. I'm also surprised no one used the argument against me (and I did want to eventually mention this) that the population growth in most of the developed world, but especially in European nations, has regressed. Except for immigration those nations are actually on a demographic down slide. And this is with out any forced methods to keep it down. Actually as I understand it some countries are trying to create incentives for having children. There's a phenomena here that I don't think we understand. it's definitely culturally driven. Perhaps once cultures have reached a satisfactory standard of living, something else clicks in. I don't know.

[TheFifthElement]

I'm also surprised no one used the argument against me (and I did want to eventually mention this) that the population growth in most of the developed world, but especially in European nations, has regressed. Except for immigration those nations are actually on a demographic down slide. And this is with out any forced methods to keep it down. Actually as I understand it some countries are trying to create incentives for having children.

I mentioned this but perhaps it was hidden amongst my stats. Japan and Italy have negative population growth, (-0.1%) UK and US have a small population growth (0.2%), developing nations like Ethiopia and Bangladesh, for example, have positive population growth (2%). I think a lot of this is to do with improved medical care and standards of living, resulting in a reduction in child mortality rate, so if you have one child in UK that child, on balance of probabilities, will survive. Not so in Ethiopia.

Of course we shouldn't forget that the availability of decent contraceptives has only been prevalent, really, since the 1960's when the contraceptive pill became widely available. It'd be interesting to see if the population slide in 'developed' nations started with that, and that perhaps population growth prior to that was more a lack of self will as opposed to a genuine desire to procreate! It is also possible that the widespread usage of contraceptive pills has an ongoing affect on fertility rates, both because women are choosing to wait until they are older and less fertile to attempt to have children (and so struggle more to conceive) as well as a possible affect on sperm count in men, due to increased levels of oestrogen and oestrogen 'mimicking' chemicals in the water supply.

[The Atheist]

Perhaps once cultures have reached a satisfactory standard of living, something else clicks in. I don't know.

This is an interesting question. The correlation seems to be between increasing education + reducing theistic beliefs, which in combination, tend to override our biological imperatives. No doubt avarice comes into play as well - it's easier to have more money when you aren't feeding a tribe of baby earthlings! On a cultural basis, there's good evidence for that as well. In developing nations, the idea still exists that kids will care for parents in late life. Doesn't happen in the western world so much.

[Jozanny]

This is an interesting question. The correlation seems to be between increasing education + reducing theistic beliefs, which in combination, tend to override our biological imperatives.

Mmm. I am cynical. I do not think it would take all that much for self-interest to rear its head over and above altruism. Can I type Katrina without getting slapped? It was a bit cheeky for me to see dead corpses in wheelchairs being fed into my television. I mention it not to get too close to politics but to get close to something else. The disabled and the chronically ill would be the first to meet their maker (not that I believe in one) in the stingy resources game, and in my state this is already happening. I live it, daily. In the 80's, if my chair broke I picked up the phone and it was fixed. I was transported from point A to point B on vans with hydraulic lifts.

In 08? The entitlement purse strings are very very stingy, and I have had to become something of an amateur legal expert to get special transportation to go visit my family in the burbs, to get vendors to cover medical equipment. Tis not fun.

I also heard on NPR, but did not catch the full segment, that doctors are having second thoughts about aggressive treatments for the elderly. Perhaps population growth is value neutral, as Fifth Element suggests, but I have an inkling that powerful people know we have a pressure gage problem. Guess we'll see.

To return to my orginal argument though, I still think water limitations will not allow the human animal to get past 10 billion. If I wanted I could go chase down the equation I vaguely remember from 11th grade science, but I don't need to win my argument that badly.:p

[Virgil]

I'm sorry I'm tied up tonight and can't spend a lot of time on the forum. I do have some thoughts on this recent issue that I would like to express, and I think I may owe a response or two. I'll try to get to them tomorrow. Hope you don't mind.

[Virgil]

A larger population would mean a larger pool in which to conscript soldiers; aka "cannon fodder," and thus would
impel ambitious governments to wage war.

But there would also be more people to defend any country that the ambitious gov't would think about taking over and that might disuade them. Like I said before I don't see any difference in the number of wars with population growth. There were lots of wars before the population exploded and lots after. Perhaps someone can do a detailed study and prove me wrong, but war is linked to human nature and human nature is what it is.



I also think that a large population would naturally lead to large unemployment, and some corporations love it that way, knowing there is a potential CHEAP labor resource available when needed. I often wondered why when unemployment figures go up, so does the stock market, even though "consumer confidence" goes down at the same time.
Well, actually that's proven to be wrong. Perhaps you are thinking of instantaneous population increase, and yes it would take time for the economy to absorb that. But that's not what happens. In 1900 the US had a population of 76M; in 1950, 151M; IN 1970, 203m; 2000, 281m; and 2007, 300M. That's a constant trend of doubling every 50 years. Even with all the outsourcing we consistently have very low unemployment numbers compared to most developed countries. Even in this year where the economy has slowed and teeters close to a recession, we have almost full emploment.


With a large population, there are also ramifications for public education -- overcrowded classrooms, etc.
But we also have more teachers.


Also, natural resources and sanitation reach a tipping point.
Water may someday become as precious as oil.
Well, that's true. Some day we'll hit the tipping point. We'll adjust. I just react to this anxiety and apocalyptic thinking.


The danger of epidemics and pandemics rise in areas with large populations as well.
I assume that may be true. Just this morning I heard that the population of New York City hit 8.25M. We haven't had such an event but we'll have to keep open the possiblity of it. I do think this is a legitamate threat, but I hope our science (which I maintain has progressed partly because of our population growth) has kept up with the threat.


So, Virgil, I see your points, but I'm glad you're re-thinking
some of the negative aspects of an unchecked population growth.
Well, I do maintain that population growth has been a good thing for humanity and will continue to be so. Where it will level off I don't know.



I mentioned this but perhaps it was hidden amongst my stats. Japan and Italy have negative population growth, (-0.1%) UK and US have a small population growth (0.2%), developing nations like Ethiopia and Bangladesh, for example, have positive population growth (2%). I think a lot of this is to do with improved medical care and standards of living, resulting in a reduction in child mortality rate, so if you have one child in UK that child, on balance of probabilities, will survive. Not so in Ethiopia.

Oh I apologize Fifth. It as buried. Yes you did bring it up. I'll address it in the next post here.

[Lily Adams]

I'm not sure I understand Lily. The world is probably at its most educated level in the history of mankind. More people across the world go to school and have college educations. I don't understand your point. What does over population have to do with education? And like I said to Aunty, the starvation in the world today is way less than ever before. You assume that starvation is a recent problem. But no. Starvation has been around from the beginning of time, when the population was extremely small. Today we don't have a starvation problem in any developed country. We have an obesity problem, just the opposite.

I know, but not all. Look at what ignorance has done to this world. People aren't born with knowledge, they acquire it. Humans are born with curiosity, which allows them to seek that knowledge. Many (most?) people don't have the means or motivation to use that curiosity for some good.

I know it isn't a recent problem, but do you really think having more babies is going to fix the problem? It will just add to the fact that there have always been droughts and famine and tyranny over land by other people. There is only so much land on this Earth to grow food and house people!

The obesity problem is because we are spoiled, and the fact that people can be brainwashed easily.


What collection plates? Fear? I have full confidence in the power of humanity to solve problems. That's not fear. Just the opposite.
It seems like the apocalyptic people are the ones in fear.

Well, I won't go too much into this because it would get way too political.

I have confidence, too. I try to be an optimistic person, but you just can't hide from the Plain Truth. Stating the facts.

Also, "it's better to be safe than sorry". Especially since we can't afford to screw this up because we have one planet. Only one.