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/walt...-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. Have I demonstrated what Prof. Williams was talking about?

[AuntShecky]

[QUOTE=Virgil;592359][I][B It's the power of numbers that spur inspiration. [/I[/B]]

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.
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]

[QUOTE] 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.

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!).

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.

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

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. 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.

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. 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 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/...866/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.

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/...866/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!! 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.

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.