Oh man, all these statistics are making me squeamish. :lol:
Statistically speaking, the average human being has one testicle and one ovary.
Printable View
Oh man, all these statistics are making me squeamish. :lol:
Statistically speaking, the average human being has one testicle and one ovary.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
Yes. :lol: Maybe everything has shifted forty years. :DQuote:
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?!!
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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'.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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'll always stick my hand up for arrogance - it is a failing of mine!Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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?).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, but it was followed by an immediate increase. Obviously, the plague deaths skew figures at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yep, we are on opposite sides of the same fence! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
No, that's completely wrong and easily refutable. Dawkins, Russell, Sagan, Einstein, Rutherford - rationalists to a man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I hope you're right, because AGW really does appear the bogey man for that argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Eloquent post, Fifth Element. One quibble:
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?Quote:
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Looks like they're trying hard to do just that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Well, then we have something in common. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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:
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.
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
What's 1962? Cuban missile crises?Quote:
The other was in 1962, also at a time of global population explosion (remember the baby-boom?).
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.Quote:
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.
Hmm, that is inteesting. I'm not sure how to think about that.Quote:
Yes, but it was followed by an immediate increase. Obviously, the plague deaths skew figures at the time.
I think we are. :DQuote:
Yep, we are on opposite sides of the same fence! :D
So if one claims to be a rationalist, does that mean you don't have waves of insight that leaps over logic.Quote:
No, that's completely wrong and easily refutable. Dawkins, Russell, Sagan, Einstein, Rutherford - rationalists to a man.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
And that is why Zombies will eventually take over the world!Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
*braaaaaaaainssssssssssssssssss*
Ha, sorry couldn't resist the urge. :D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
:lol: :lol: See even zombies know what they need to improve their lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by AimusSage
A larger population would mean a larger pool in which to conscript soldiers; aka "cannon fodder," and thus wouldQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.
heheheQuote:
Originally Posted by Dori
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 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.stmQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
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.
No, still the prior 1700.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
That's pretty close to the mark. What it does is make you examine the insight to see if it adds up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
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.Quote:
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.
But we also have more teachers.Quote:
With a large population, there are also ramifications for public education -- overcrowded classrooms, etc.
Well, that's true. Some day we'll hit the tipping point. We'll adjust. I just react to this anxiety and apocalyptic thinking.Quote:
Also, natural resources and sanitation reach a tipping point.
Water may someday become as precious as oil.
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.Quote:
The danger of epidemics and pandemics rise in areas with large populations as well.
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.Quote:
So, Virgil, I see your points, but I'm glad you're re-thinking
some of the negative aspects of an unchecked population growth.
Oh I apologize Fifth. It as buried. Yes you did bring it up. I'll address it in the next post here.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.
Well, I won't go too much into this because it would get way too political.Quote:
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 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.