The Ultimate Resource

[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. Maybe I am nonetheless.

[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.

[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.

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 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 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.

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. 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. Maybe everything has shifted forty years.

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!

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!