The Ultimate Resource

[Virgil]

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

Well, then we have something in common.

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

Yes, but the argument is that the technological develpments were pressured from a large population. I believe your underlining assumption is that the technological developments were happenstance, luck. What I'm saying is that larger population enabled greater competition, collaboration, customer base, infrastructure, wealth, and specialization which enbled technological advances. Perhaps I haven't been clear, but that's a direct statement of my claim.

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

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

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

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

I don't know about the 400,000 number, but yes i agree that the 20th century had more war deaths in total. But your claim to what I was responding was that greater populations had more wars, with the undlerlying implication that greater population tended to create more wars. I don't bvelieve that we have had more wars in the 20th century as opposed to less populated centuries, and i see no evidence why greater population would start more wars.

You're talking about a major research project to refute it, and that's certainly not going to happen. I'm just looking at something objectively and seeing lots of reasons why the conclusion could be false without needing to test it.

Fair enough, I don't expect that. But the same goes from my end. But I am showing a huge population trend, I am supporting it with reasons why greater population leads to technological advances (from competition, collaboration, etc.). I am supporting the claim to some level. You just gave that post hoc fallacy argument. I understand why some might not agree. It is counter intuitive.

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

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

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

What's 1962? Cuban missile crises?

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

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

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

Hmm, that is inteesting. I'm not sure how to think about that.

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

I think we are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AimusSage]

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

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

*braaaaaaaainssssssssssssssssss*

Ha, sorry couldn't resist the urge.

[Virgil]

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

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

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

[Virgil]

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

*braaaaaaaainssssssssssssssssss*

Ha, sorry couldn't resist the urge.

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

[AuntShecky]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheFifthElement]

Oh man, all these statistics are making me squeamish.

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

hehehe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Jozanny. I hear what you're saying but I don't think it changes anything. If humanity wipes out species on which it relies then the human population will shrink accordingly, until it reaches a level which can be sustained with available resources. The likelihood is that this will result in a lesser quality of life for those who are left, but I don't think it would result in extinction. I'm not sure about the examples you mentioned, from what I understand the bat and bee issue appear to be disease related, not directly related to human population size, so I'm not sure what the correlation is here. Where I live birds and insects are not affected by skyscrapers or windows (cities are much smaller in UK) but rather more affected by the implementation of the EU common agricultural policy which encouraged farmers to intensively farm their land. This meant that hedgerows, ditches and the like, on which such wildlife depends, were cut back to make more arable land. The effects have been noted and now, in UK at least, farmers are being actively encouraged to manage their land with conservation in mind, hedgerows are being re-planted and the natural environment restored. It will take some time to undo the damage but the point is, as I think Virgil has mentioned, man is a thinking animal. We see the damage we do, consider the implications on the human population, and seek to undo it. It takes time for balance to be restored, you can't measure the effect over a year or two years, but more over 50-100 years. Which I think brings us to your point here:

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

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

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

[The Atheist]

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

No, still the prior 1700.

I see you buy into the apocalypse.

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

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

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

What's 1962? Cuban missile crises?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Virgil]

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

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

[TheFifthElement]

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

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

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

[The Atheist]

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

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

[Jozanny]

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

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

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

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

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

[Virgil]

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

[Virgil]

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

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

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

Well, actually that's proven to be wrong. Perhaps you are thinking of instantaneous population increase, and yes it would take time for the economy to absorb that. But that's not what happens. In 1900 the US had a population of 76M; in 1950, 151M; IN 1970, 203m; 2000, 281m; and 2007, 300M. That's a constant trend of doubling every 50 years. Even with all the outsourcing we consistently have very low unemployment numbers compared to most developed countries. Even in this year where the economy has slowed and teeters close to a recession, we have almost full emploment.

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

But we also have more teachers.

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

Well, that's true. Some day we'll hit the tipping point. We'll adjust. I just react to this anxiety and apocalyptic thinking.

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

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

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

Well, I do maintain that population growth has been a good thing for humanity and will continue to be so. Where it will level off I don't know.

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

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

[Lily Adams]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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