# Overpopulation



## Sean K (25 October 2011)

Surely this is the most significant bubble that we have to deal with in order to save ourselves and the planet.  

Do we somehow develop technology to solve the eventual problems.

Or, do we control the population some way.

If we do nothing, we're toast. 

Thoughts?


----------



## tothemax6 (25 October 2011)

I've found that peoples understanding of overpopulation never seems to be particularly accurate. The way they see it is normally along the lines of "people in general are having lots of kids, overcrowding everywhere".

It should be noted, however, that for quite a while now, West & East europe, russia, the US, japan, australia, have all had negative native population growth - i.e. without any migration flows, their populations were naturally declining. This has been caused by cultural changes that have lowered average birth rates below the 2.1 baby/woman replacement level.

In a rational world, these countries (such as Australia, UK, france, wherever) would say to the high birth rate countries (India etc): "You're buttering your rag, now sleep in it", and the limits to their population growth would be set by the physical space those people had available (inside their borders). 

However (i.e. in the real, insane world), we have the situation that shrinking nations simply allow themselves to be displaced, supplanted etc, by immigration of growing nations - and not with resistance, but with _celebration_.

So as to the future, soylent green anyone?


----------



## sails (25 October 2011)

Kennas, I agree and think this is a bigger problem than co2 alone.

I don't understand a government which wants to tax us for co2 and yet allows the baby bonus to continue for an unlimited number of babies. It seems highly contradictory.

Perhaps limiting it to the first one or two children might help curb some of the population problems in this country, but I don't know how population can be curbed elsewhere.  I think certain religions promote large families obviously to increase their numbers.

Perhaps people could earn carbon credits for not having children...lol.  But then that's not much use as most of the world is not going down that path.


----------



## Calliope (25 October 2011)

kennas said:


> Surely this is the most significant bubble that we have to deal with in order to save ourselves and the planet.
> 
> Do we somehow develop technology to solve the eventual problems.




The problem is that technology is the main culprit in increasing population. Now they are claiming a cure for malaria, which in the past has put a brake on population growth in the third world. And of course technology lets us live way past our use-by dates.

.


----------



## Aussiejeff (25 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> The problem is that technology is the main culprit in increasing population. Now they are claiming a cure for malaria, which in the past has put a brake on population growth in the third world. And of course technology lets us live way past our use-by dates.
> 
> .




The problem is that the world economy is now totally reliant on an "endless" rapid growth model, which _requires_ "endless" rapid population growth to fuel demand to feed that growth.  

I see no way out of this endless feedback loop.

Unless.....


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 October 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> The problem is that the world economy is now totally reliant on an "endless" rapid growth model, which _requires_ "endless" rapid population growth to fuel demand to feed that growth.
> 
> I see no way out of this endless feedback loop.
> 
> Unless.....



At some point you can't have constant growth on a finite planet as it would simply become impossible. The questions are when that occurs, and with what consequences?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (25 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> The problem is that technology is the main culprit in increasing population.




Sure, that's why the developed countries with the most technologies have <2 birth rates. Why not tell this to Japan.


India needs to have a one child policy. Isolate 100% developed countries, especially with <2 birth rates from developing countries, esp with >2 birth rates. Ban immigration. Kick out any family which receives welfare long-term and has more than 2 children (I don't care what anyone says, they are too much of a drain on the economy). In the event they have twins after already having one child, that is ok (but perhaps they should have to pay a special tax or something). Better even if you say they are not allowed to have more than one successful pregnancy ever, unless their child dies.


Extreme problems require extreme measures.


----------



## Calliope (26 October 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> India needs to have a one child policy. Isolate 100% developed countries, especially with <2 birth rates from developing countries, esp with >2 birth rates. Ban immigration. Kick out any family which receives welfare long-term and has more than 2 children (I don't care what anyone says, they are too much of a drain on the economy). In the event they have twins after already having one child, that is ok (but perhaps they should have to pay a special tax or something). Better even if you say they are not allowed to have more than one successful pregnancy ever, unless their child dies.




What a load of garbage. Starcrafty's Final Solution.


----------



## So_Cynical (26 October 2011)

sails said:


> Kennas, I agree and think this is a bigger problem than co2 alone.
> 
> I don't understand a government which wants to tax us for co2 and yet allows the baby bonus to continue for an unlimited number of babies. It seems highly contradictory.
> 
> ...




Its the whole infinite/finite debate, haves and have nots...the developing world has lots of kids because the kids will look after there parents when they are old because the state wont and the more kids you have the better you will be looked after.

The western country's need immigration to maintain growing economy's...ya cant have consistent GDP growth without a growing population, and yet as Smurf so rightly pointed out in the other thread, all the stuff we need to keep growing is finite and is being somewhat squandered.

The Carbon Tax is so big picture it,s beyond the vision of so my Liberal voters...the Govt and Greens had to dumb it down to try and bring some swinging Liberals on board....the carbon tax is more like a 'lets stop being so stupid and think about the future' tax...its about better preparing Australia for the inevitable.


----------



## skc (26 October 2011)

kennas said:


> Surely this is the most significant bubble that we have to deal with in order to save ourselves and the planet.
> 
> Do we somehow develop technology to solve the eventual problems.
> 
> ...




As depicted in many many excellent documentaries such as _28 Days_, _I am Legend _and _Shawn of the Dead_. A zombie apocalypse scenario is the most likely outcome imho.

But seriously, nature will find a way. The "over" in over-population is not objective. It is subjected to, most fundamentally, living standards. The world can probably sustain 2-3x the current population if everyone's living on the average Indian standard (not that they'd be happy), while the threshold for everyone living on US/Oz standard will be a lot lower.

How will nature find a way? First is self moderating. As a parent, if I don't see a decent future in which I would like to raise my child, I would probably not have any children, or reduce the number of children I have. This self moderating process will inevitably start in the developed world, as people are more informed and better educated to plan further ahead. While those in the developing world sees a potential better future by moving to the developed world.

Second is probably destruction. With increasing pressure on the system there will be diseases, other health problems, conflicts and wars that reduce the population, either gradually or abruptly. The obesity plague is probably moderating population numbers now, while I remember reading something like sperm counts have been dropping amonst men all over the world for unknown reasons (bio-accumuation of harmful chemicals?). Any major abrupt event would also feedback into the self-moderating mechanism.

Unless of course someone invents shrink rays and shrink every man/women/child/dog/cats etc to say 1/20 of current size... that's how technology will help.


----------



## wayneL (26 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> The Carbon Tax is so big picture it,s beyond the vision of so my Liberal voters...the Govt and Greens had to dumb it down to try and bring some swinging Liberals on board....the carbon tax is more like a 'lets stop being so stupid and think about the future' tax...its about better preparing Australia for the inevitable.




I didn't know you did comedy SC.


----------



## Aussiejeff (26 October 2011)

skc said:


> Unless of course someone invents shrink rays and shrink every man/women/child/dog/cats etc to say 1/20 of current size... that's how technology will help.




LOL.

Errr......you'd need to "shrink" cars & houses too. 

Imagine trying to drive today's "normal" sized cars when you are just 8-10 cm tall??  

Or open the front door of your "normal" sized McMansion? 

Thanks for boggling my mind this morning skc! Now I feel like scrambled eggs...


----------



## Starcraftmazter (26 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> What a load of garbage. Starcrafty's Final Solution.




No need to get emotional; sacrifices must be made in order to ensure the survival of the human race, deal with it.



So_Cynical said:


> The western country's need immigration to maintain growing economy's...ya cant have consistent GDP growth without a growing population




First of all, this is very false;
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/10/turning-japanese-is-a-boon/

Second of all, why have consistent GDP growth? Why not reform the way the economy works so that it doesn't rely on unsustainable perpetual growth? How about an economy that is sustainable and flexible to demographics?


----------



## prawn_86 (26 October 2011)

Can we have a thread that doesnt discuss the carbon tax?? 

Without global action we are screwed Kennas, and why should governments restrict their population growth when its that growth that is allowing their economy to grow so rapidly?

Im a beleiver in eugenics if done properly (which honestly it probably cant be) but realistic enough to know it will never happen. I think lifestyle standards will just continue to decline until it causes war or disease or both


----------



## finnsk (26 October 2011)

We as a world can not keep on growing like this there is going to massive problems in the future.
Since 1960 the world has had a population increase from 3b till todays 7b and is expecting 8b in 2027
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/


----------



## Calliope (26 October 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> Without global action we are screwed Kennas, and why should governments restrict their population growth when its that growth that is allowing their economy to grow so rapidly?
> 
> Im a beleiver in eugenics if done properly (which honestly it probably cant be) but realistic enough to know it will never happen. I think lifestyle standards will just continue to decline until it causes war or disease or both




Kennas is a world traveller and comes across places where over-population produces low standards of living that we would find unacceptable There is nothing we can do to change this.

While paying lip service to the dangers of over-population in Asia, Africa, Central and South America, we continue to engage in indulgences like IVF, saving premature and severely disabled babies, keeping alive people who would die without artificial support, or are brain dead. These procedures are vastly expensive and counter productive yet we think the Democratic state is obliged to do these things.

We also indulge ourselves by saving idiots who under Darwin principles should not be allowed to procreate themselves. We pull them out of the surf. we pull them off mountain tops, we rescue them from their unseaworthy boats and we rescue them from floods are fire in areas where they shouldn't be living. We think these are normal democratic entitlements, and the rescuers are called heroes.

So please let us hear no more rubbish about telling the third world how they should limit their populations by harsh laws.


----------



## prawn_86 (26 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> So please let us hear no more rubbish about telling the third world how they should limit their populations by harsh laws.




Not sure if that post is directed entirely at me, but if so i never mentioned applying anything specifically to the 3rd world. 

I have travelled the World too and some of the happiest you will find are in what we would class as over-populated 3rd world countries.


----------



## Sdajii (26 October 2011)

kennas said:


> Surely this is the most significant bubble that we have to deal with in order to save ourselves and the planet.
> 
> Do we somehow develop technology to solve the eventual problems.
> 
> ...




On an individual or small group level, people sometimes foresee evens, plan for them, prepare, and cope well. Even then, it's not really in our nature to be proactive, we are instinctively reactive as a species. On a community/national level, heh, we're very clearly reactive rather than proactive. Problems don't make us do anything until they actually start hurting us.

As a planet, we are a bit like a bunch of animals locked in a room with a fixed amount of food. Everything seems completely fine until the food runs out, and it's only immediately before everyone starves to death, when the last few crumbs are being consumed, that the problem is really acknowledged. Suddenly there's a huge fight over the last few crumbs and then everyone starves to death. By the time the problem is being addressed, it is far too late for anything to be done.

I remember as a child, at school, hearing things like "If we don't turn things around in the next 10/5/few years, we'll be beyond the point of no return". Well, that was over 5-10 years ago, you don't hear people saying it any more, and it wasn't until past that point of no return that I researched the situation myself and realised they were right. It makes sense that you don't hear that stuff any more, because it's a lot more bleak to say "We missed the boat" than "If we don't hurry we'll miss the boat".

The only way now to prevent a massive catastrophe in the not too distant future is to deliberately bring about a slightly less massive catastrophe a little sooner. No one (almost) is going to voluntarily sign up to be one of the victims for the greater good, and no community would be unified in accepting that it's a viable option, or even that it's the best thing to do in the long term (let's face it, people are pretty stupid as well as being selfish). So, the inevitable will come, we're going to see some pretty spectacular spit hit the fan. I remember some older people saying it would be just outside their lifetime. I thought that was a cop out, so they wouldn't have to live to admit they were wrong, but I think their timeframe was about right. I think the fan will be hit well within my lifetime, assuming I don't meet an untimely death. I give civilisation about another 20-30 years, I just hope to be one of the survivors, or at least, I hope there are some.


----------



## Surly (26 October 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

An interesting page from Wikipedia showing that there has been minimal trimming of the population in the last 50 years compared to the past both in pure number and percentage of population.

Mutually Assured Destruction may one day be thought of as Mutually Guaranteed Overpopulation.

cheers
Surly


----------



## pixel (26 October 2011)

Sadly, there seems to be a Law of Nature that says 
A population of living organisms will fill any given space to capacity. Boundaries are set by quantity of food supply and level of predation.

Check the veracity at any level: bacteria in a petri dish, rabbits with and without predators, eagles on the Nullarbor,...

Once we accept that, it's only a small step to also recognise that humans are subject to those same Laws of Nature, regardless how many philosphers and humane societies try to tell us otherwise.
In this context of overpopulation, the only difference between humans and rabbits is: Rabbits have non-rabbit predators that keep their population in check; humans do not, hence have to do it themselves.
In Pre-industrial times, wars and diseases were fairly efficient; to a degree they still are, at least in the so-called Third World. However, disease control and food distribution have evolved to a level, where even those forces of nature are no longer working.

We may not like it, but there is only one solution: Maintain boundaries commensurate with regional food supply and encourage predation.

Neither of those two measures stand a chance of finding support in Western Peoples, who pride themselves in being "enlightened" and "humane". Therefore, societies, who cannot afford the luxury of such scruples, will continue to breed, the only limitation being their ability to export the surplus and their willingness to become their own predators, ready to cull the excess.

Here comes Thomas Robert Malthus.


----------



## skc (26 October 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> LOL.
> 
> Errr......you'd need to "shrink" cars & houses too.
> 
> ...




Yes we will need to shrink everything, except earth itself.



prawn_86 said:


> Not sure if that post is directed entirely at me, but if so i never mentioned applying anything specifically to the 3rd world.
> 
> I have travelled the World too and some of the happiest you will find are in what we would class as over-populated 3rd world countries.




Bhutan is one of the happiest nations on earth...



> In 2006, Business Week magazine rated Bhutan the happiest country in Asia and the eighth-happiest in the world, based on a global survey.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan


----------



## Calliope (26 October 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> Not sure if that post is directed entirely at me, but if so i never mentioned applying anything specifically to the 3rd world.
> 
> I have travelled the World too and some of the happiest you will find are in what we would class as over-populated 3rd world countries.




Of course not. It was about the futility of thinking that we can change foreign cultures. It's fair enough to comment but there is nothing we can do. Threads of this type are futile.

Incidentaly, kangaroos out West are in plague proportions following our wet season. The next drought will take care of that. When they begin to starve they stop breeding. In Ethopia they have their children and then watch them starve to death.


----------



## prawn_86 (26 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> In Ethopia they have their children and then watch them starve to death.




Perhaps that comes down to humans being on of the few species i am aware of that have sex for pleasure instead of extending the species. And without adequate birth control Ethopia and the likes are the result.


----------



## skc (26 October 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> Perhaps that comes down to humans being on of the few species i am aware of that have sex for pleasure instead of extending the species. And without adequate birth control Ethopia and the likes are the result.




Dolphins also are horny.


----------



## drsmith (26 October 2011)

As a species, we need to do two things.

We need to expand the energy pie and distribute that expanded pie more evenly.


----------



## Surly (26 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> As a species, we need to do two things.
> 
> We need to expand the energy pie and distribute that expanded pie more evenly.




How will this help overpopulation?

The energy pie is in a bit of trouble as it is and redistributing it expends pie!

cheers
Surly


----------



## pixel (26 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> As a species, we need to do two things.
> We need to expand the energy pie and distribute that expanded pie more evenly.




Logistics aside, what do you think will happen once the pie has been distributed? 
This  is what will happen: The average Global Citizen will be dirt-poor by  First-World standards; scrape-by in areas, where people presently live  from hand-to-mouth; and they'll feel really well-to-do - and encouraged  to breed even more vigorously - in today's Starvation Zones.

The  newly dirt-poor will lose all incentive to "further themselves", leaving  maintenance and upkeep of plant and distribution networks to chance, or  even more likely begin to sabotage the very installations. In the  latter, they will be ably supported by militants from hitherto  suppressed regions, who see their support base eroded because their  recruits find they can live better from hand to mouth or even feel  really well-to-do to procreate more vigorously.
Within a generation or two, we'll be back to Square One...


----------



## Aussiejeff (26 October 2011)

finnsk said:


> We as a world can not keep on growing like this there is going to massive problems in the future.
> Since 1960 the world has had a population increase from 3b till todays 7b and is expecting 8b in 2027
> http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/




Interestingly, digging into the data reveals the world population will increase by approx 77 million this year alone....that's the equivalent of adding the total population of Iran each and every year to the food and resources queue.

Mind bending, ain't it? 

Also worth noting is that the world population is currently growing at approx. 1.1% pa and declining steadily (down from approx 2.15% in 1972 after rocketing up prior to then). The rate of decline is expected to reach a lowly 0.5% by 2050, when the planet is due to be stuffed full with 9.2 Billion poor souls...gawd help 'em. 

I wonder whether all these debt woes are to some increasing extent inextricably linked with declining world population growth rates? As already discussed, it is the prospect of booming growth rates (of any sort) that fuels buoyant speculation, investment & generally bullish sentiment. How can a grinding year on year lower population growth rate _for the foreseeable future_ (with rapidly aging populations to boot) do anything but deflate the world economy bigtime? Are we seeing the first big deflationary move post GFC1?

http://www.google.com.au/publicdata...ue&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population+growth+rate


----------



## drsmith (26 October 2011)

pixel said:


> Logistics aside, what do you think will happen once the pie has been distributed?
> This  is what will happen: The average Global Citizen will be dirt-poor by  First-World standards; scrape-by in areas, where people presently live  from hand-to-mouth; and they'll feel really well-to-do - and encouraged  to breed even more vigorously - in today's Starvation Zones.



If we redistribute without significant expansion then that is the likely outcome.

What I'm advocating in expansion to bring everyone up to something like first world standards. In terms of the energy required, this may seem like a dream from where we currently stand, but from a global perspective, it's where we need to aim.


----------



## Julia (26 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> The problem is that technology is the main culprit in increasing population. Now they are claiming a cure for malaria, which in the past has put a brake on population growth in the third world. And of course technology lets us live way past our use-by dates.
> .



True, in objective terms.  But when applied personally, say if you or I had malaria, we'd probably be pretty happy to accept a cure.



prawn_86 said:


> Can we have a thread that doesnt discuss the carbon tax??



+1.



Calliope said:


> While paying lip service to the dangers of over-population in Asia, Africa, Central and South America, we continue to engage in indulgences like IVF, saving premature and severely disabled babies, keeping alive people who would die without artificial support, or are brain dead. These procedures are vastly expensive and counter productive yet we think the Democratic state is obliged to do these things.
> 
> We also indulge ourselves by saving idiots who under Darwin principles should not be allowed to procreate themselves. We pull them out of the surf. we pull them off mountain tops, we rescue them from their unseaworthy boats and we rescue them from floods are fire in areas where they shouldn't be living. We think these are normal democratic entitlements, and the rescuers are called heroes.
> 
> So please let us hear no more rubbish about telling the third world how they should limit their populations by harsh laws.



 Totally agree, especially when it comes to keeping old people alive against their will.


----------



## sails (26 October 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> Can we have a thread that doesnt discuss the carbon tax??




Yes, my apologies. 

Perhaps we could fix population and any percieved co2 issues if all humans held their breath for 15 mins...

However, I still think that overpopulation presents a far greater danger to our existence than the little issues for which we may be taxed next year while baby bonuses continues to be handed out freely to all and sundry who want as many babies as they want with no regard to some sensible controls.


----------



## Calliope (26 October 2011)

sails said:


> Yes, my apologies.




If you are having withdrawal symptoms, sails, call it Electricity Tax.


----------



## Logique (26 October 2011)

Malthusianism comes and goes, and may be found at the base of most Green scrums. Little further comment necessary or warranted. 



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
> ..Many journalists, academics and other commentators have criticized the neo-malthusian revival on various grounds. In light of the green revolution, which has seen substantial increases in food production, sufficient to keep up with the rapid population growth of the latter 20th century, some of the more dramatic malthusian warnings now appear to many to be overstated..


----------



## robusta (26 October 2011)

This is a old video but very interesting in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

The above link is for part 1 of 8, just looked at them all again definate food for thought.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (26 October 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> and why should governments restrict their population growth when its that growth that is allowing their economy to grow so rapidly?






prawn_86 said:


> I think lifestyle standards will just continue to decline until it causes war or disease or both




You answered your own question there buddy.



These videos are also very relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnXZzx9pAmQ


----------



## kimcasablancas (27 October 2011)

This is an economic issue, and it mainly involves the status of women. It's more complicated, because the status of women doesn't happen overnight, but that seems to be the link. Countires where women have more status and therefore, more education, have more sustainable or even declining birth rates. As women gain ground, birth rates fall, and this is becoming more clear in sectors of emerging economies.


----------



## Sdajii (27 October 2011)

kimcasablancas said:


> This is an economic issue, and it mainly involves the status of women. It's more complicated, because the status of women doesn't happen overnight, but that seems to be the link. Countires where women have more status and therefore, more education, have more sustainable or even declining birth rates. As women gain ground, birth rates fall, and this is becoming more clear in sectors of emerging economies.




I think you're mistaking two things happening at the same time for a case of cause and effect.

By this logic you could correlate any two trends of an advancing culture and say it is a case of cause and effect.

Increasing education of a population tends to cause both those things to happen, I'd argue the two trends you've identified have a common cause rather than one causing the other. You could make women as equal as you like, you could even make women rule the country and keep men as slaves, but if they're still uneducated idiots they're still going to be having sex and it's still going to cause pregnancy, they're still going to be wanting children, and they're still going to be short-sighted enough to fail to realise that having too many kids is going to make the whole family suffer.

It wouldn't matter if you were only educating the men enough to understand the situation and use contraception (or make their women use some form of it), even if they were keeping their women as utterly unequal sex slaves.

It's just that when we educate a population, women tend to gain a more equal place in society.

Before any feminists start burning their bras at me, I don't have any problem with women being educated or women having equal rights etc etc, I'm all for it, and I don't pose the above hypotheticals as any sort of ideals.


----------



## kimcasablancas (27 October 2011)

I think you're mistaking my post as well. I basically meant what you just said...that education is important because it brings women higher status and also better information regarding birth control and such. It also does decrease family size because people can put two and two together that larger families don't mean a better economic situation for them.

I worded my post poorly....sorry!


----------



## sails (27 October 2011)

kimcasablancas said:


> This is an economic issue, and it mainly involves the status of women. It's more complicated, because the status of women doesn't happen overnight, but that seems to be the link. Countires where women have more status and therefore, more education, have more sustainable or even declining birth rates. As women gain ground, birth rates fall, and this is becoming more clear in sectors of emerging economies.




Kim, I agree with you.  I think education and careers give women more choices.  In days gone by, and in some cultures today, women are expected to be only home makers and care for the children while the male earns enough to keep them all.

When women have choices other than raising children, some clearly choose career over children.  Also, if a woman wants both career and children, they are more likely to limit their number of children to one or two so that they can more effectively juggle both motherhood and career.


----------



## Eager (27 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> We also indulge ourselves by saving idiots who under Darwin principles should not be allowed to procreate themselves. We pull them out of the surf. we pull them off mountain tops, we rescue them from their unseaworthy boats *and we rescue them from floods* are fire *in areas where they shouldn't be living.* We think these are normal democratic entitlements, and the rescuers are called heroes.



So a significant portion of Brisbane, population 2m+, and just down the road from you, should be abandoned.


----------



## IFocus (27 October 2011)

kennas said:


> Surely this is the most significant bubble that we have to deal with in order to save ourselves and the planet.
> 
> Do we somehow develop technology to solve the eventual problems.
> 
> ...





Two problems amongst a million that come to mind.

1. Over population and the inevitable wars that follow for resources. Wars consume higher level of resources, nice circular destruction formula. Wars don't reduce populations over all BTW. Losers get culled some what victors have higher rates of fertility.

2. History shows so far the higher levels of technology the higher level of consumption of energy / resources. This has been trend since Adam and Eve.
There is absolutely no drive to move beyond fossil fuels so wars will be a given.

As we continue to defy the elements to cull and control our numbers only a deep impact from outer space will reset the biosphere.

I think the earth will survive, we we as species will not and don't deserve to.


----------



## Julia (27 October 2011)

kimcasablancas said:


> I think you're mistaking my post as well. I basically meant what you just said...that education is important because it brings women higher status and also better information regarding birth control and such. It also does decrease family size because people can put two and two together that larger families don't mean a better economic situation for them.
> 
> I worded my post poorly....sorry!



No need to apologise for the wording of your post.  I had no trouble understanding what you meant and found it a thoroughly sensible and realistic comment.  Thank you.


----------



## Calliope (28 October 2011)

Julia said:


> No need to apologise for the wording of your post.  I had no trouble understanding what you meant and found it a thoroughly sensible and realistic comment.  Thank you.




I totally agree. kimcasablancas' post is the most sensible made on this thread so far. There is no doubt that educated women are less likely to allow their bodies to be used as a vehicle for the production of children above the population replacement levels.


----------



## Sean K (30 October 2011)

Some startling figues here off wiki:

*Projections of population growth*

According to projections, the world population will continue to grow until at least 2050, with the population reaching 9 billion in 2040, and some predictions putting the population in 2050 as high as 11 billion.

According to the United Nations' World Population Prospects report:

The world population is currently growing by approximately 74 million people per year. Current United Nations predictions estimate that the world population will reach 9.0 billion around 2050, assuming a decrease in average fertility rate from 2.5 down to 2.0.

Almost all growth will take place in the less developed regions, where today's 5.3 billion population of underdeveloped countries is expected to increase to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of the more developed regions will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion. An exception is the United States population, which is expected to increase 44% from 305 million in 2008 to 439 million in 2050.

In 2000-2005, the average world fertility was 2.65 children per woman, about half the level in 1950-1955 (5 children per woman). In the medium variant, global fertility is projected to decline further to 2.05 children per woman.

During 2005-2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States, Ethiopia, and China, listed according to the size of their contribution to population growth. China would be higher still in this list were it not for its One Child Policy.

Global life expectancy at birth, which is estimated to have risen from 46 years in 1950-1955 to 65 years in 2000-2005, is expected to keep rising to reach 75 years in 2045-2050. In the more developed regions, the projected increase is from 75 years today to 82 years by mid-century. Among the least developed countries, where life expectancy today is just under 50 years, it is expected to be 66 years in 2045-2050.
The population of 51 countries or areas, including Germany, Italy, Japan and most of the successor States of the former Soviet Union, is expected to be lower in 2050 than in 2005.

During 2005-2050, the net number of international migrants to more developed regions is projected to be 98 million. Because deaths are projected to exceed births in the more developed regions by 73 million during 2005-2050, population growth in those regions will largely be due to international migration.

In 2000-2005, net migration in 28 countries either prevented population decline or doubled at least the contribution of natural increase (births minus deaths) to population growth. These countries include Austria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Qatar, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom.

Birth rates are now falling in a small percentage of developing countries, while the actual populations in many developed countries would fall without immigration.

By 2050 (Medium variant), India will have 1.6 billion people, China 1.4 billion, United States 439 million, Pakistan 309 million, Indonesia 280 million, Nigeria 259 million, Bangladesh 258 million, Brazil 245 million, Democratic Republic of the Congo 189 million, Ethiopia 185 million, Philippines 141 million, Mexico 132 million, Egypt 125 million, Vietnam 120 million, Russia 109 million, Japan 103 million, Iran 100 million, Turkey 99 million, Uganda 93 million, Tanzania 85 million, Kenya 85 million and United Kingdom 80 million.

*2050*

Africa - 1.9 billion
Asia - 5.2 billion
Europe - 674 million
Latin America & Caribbean - 765 million
North America - 448 million


----------



## pixel (30 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> There is no doubt that educated women are less likely to allow their bodies to be used as a vehicle for the production of children above the population replacement levels.



 But therein lies an additional problem:
The educated women will be outbred by the uneducated ones, who, together with their abundant offspring, will remain caught in poverty and swell the ranks of disenfranchised, unemployable unemployed.
Unless the divergence can be reversed - and I do not see a practicable way for this to be achieved - the gap between Haves and Have-nots will increase: On one side disposable income; on the other, disposable humans, who can, end will continue to be, recruited by unscrupulous radicals.


----------



## Whiskers (30 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Two problems amongst a million that come to mind.
> 
> 1. Over population and the inevitable wars that follow for resources. Wars consume higher level of resources, nice circular destruction formula. Wars don't reduce populations over all BTW. Losers get culled some what victors have higher rates of fertility.
> 
> ...




I don't know that we as a species will completely die out, I suspect as a species we will continue to evolve (from ape to homo sapien) into a higher species.

What that will be, I suspect will be determined more by genetic adaption to biological pressures such as quality of diet, climate and disease pressures in particular, which tend to be the main factor in limiting the life span and sustainability of living things.

It's interesting to note that the quality of the food we eat, that is the nutritional value is steadily dropping, causing many to use supplements which apparently cause long term shorter life expectancy.

There is something significant about 'living' organisims, the purpose, that we haven't discovered yet that has to do with the 'control' factor that kennas mentions.


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2011)

pixel said:


> : On one side disposable income; on the other, disposable humans, who can, end will continue to be, recruited by unscrupulous radicals.




Right. The average family size in the impoverished Gaza Strip is six children. Future cannon fodder?



> The population is predominantly Sunni Muslim. With a yearly growth rate of about 3.2%, the Gaza strip has the 7th highest population growth rate in the world.



 Wikipedia


----------



## derty (31 October 2011)

Whiskers said:


> I don't know that we as a species will completely die out, I suspect as a species we will continue to evolve (from ape to homo sapien) into a higher species.
> 
> What that will be, I suspect will be determined more by genetic adaption to biological pressures such as quality of diet, climate and disease pressures in particular, which tend to be the main factor in limiting the life span and sustainability of living things.



With the prevalence of modern medicine there is no evolution via natural selection occurring in the developed world. While we generally have a longer lifespan due to nutrition and medicine, those with illnesses and defects that would have previously been fatal are now able to live long enough reproduce and the deleterious genetic information is passed on. As a species we are weaker now than we probably ever have been. 

Those third world countries where life is tough and mortalities are high are probably the only places left where humans can be considered to be under going some sort of natural selection. You could say that they are more 'evolved' than us and if down the track civilisation crumbled I would put my money on them to be the last ones standing.

As for evolving into a higher species, evolution is too slow a process for today's society. We will design ourselves into the next iteration of humans long before nature gets a chance.


----------



## Whiskers (31 October 2011)

derty said:


> With the prevalence of modern medicine there is no evolution via natural selection occurring in the developed world. While we generally have a longer lifespan due to nutrition and medicine, those with illnesses and defects that would have previously been fatal are now able to live long enough reproduce and the deleterious genetic information is passed on. As a species we are weaker now than we probably ever have been.
> 
> Those third world countries where life is tough and mortalities are high are probably the only places left where humans can be considered to be under going some sort of natural selection. You could say that they are more 'evolved' than us and if down the track civilization crumbled I would put my money on them to be the last ones standing.
> 
> As for evolving into a higher species, evolution is too slow a process for today's society. We will design ourselves into the next iteration of humans long before nature gets a chance.




I'm not sure third world cultures will be naturally stronger. History has a tendency to show that old civilizations not exposed to modern disease tend to capitulate pretty quickly when a new disease or infection weakness if found.

But I agree we are going to face huge problems if we rely on technology and medicine to cure our ills, rather than living a healthier and more sustainable lifestyle including family planning.

One of the probably biggest issues that tend to be pushed into the background is the cumulative effects of modern medicines, chemicals etc on our physiology in a mad rush for short term solutions to an escalating problem of clearly unsustainable population density in more and more areas. 

This is what I was thinking about in terms of evolution. While what you say about third world cultures toughening up by natural selection is true, I'm wondering what the cumulative effects of drugs, chemicals, extra radiation even hybridization in the western world will have on genetic manipulation inducing progressively different species as opposed to just toughened up species.


----------



## bellenuit (1 November 2011)

7 Billion: How did we get so big so fast?

http://www.wimp.com/bigfast/


----------



## sptrawler (1 November 2011)

I saw a programme that one of the participants said the population could go to 16 billion without a problem.
Then one of the other panel members said, what would be the living standards of the people. He gagged on that because living standards would be crap, no water, no food.:


----------



## johenmo (3 November 2011)

Here is a relevant article.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/world/02/13/11/food-population-growth-fueled-egypt-uprising-analysts

When the standard of living gets affected, people will get upset.  When it gets to a stage that our needs (rather than our wants) are in danger then action will occur.

Just as a farm can sustain a maximum number of stock, it's the same with the earth.  Education is a big factor.  And education has to bring realisation about things such as overconsumption, food waste.  Overconsumption + exponential pop growth is NOT sustainable.  Some generation in the future will have to accept their standard of living is not going to be as good as the generation before.


----------



## Glen48 (3 November 2011)

We  will never have birth control while we  have religion . We will never stop religion.
 We  will never have a solution.


----------



## tothemax6 (3 November 2011)

Glen48 said:


> We  will never have birth control while we  have religion . We will never stop religion.
> We  will never have a solution.



We've not been doing too bad on that front really. Day to day I meet very few people in Australia who are religious. Objective rationality has been on the rise for quite some time now. It is becoming more and more acceptable to openly refer to religion as a bad thing.
If it weren't for the malicious self-harm many Western countries are inflicting on them selves by supporting muslim immigration, we'd be making great progress in the long run.


----------



## prawn_86 (4 November 2011)

johenmo said:


> Some generation in the future will have to accept their standard of living is not going to be as good as the generation before.




That has already happened. The western generation born now is the first to have a lower life expectancy than their parents. Child obesity, diabetes etc etc all contributing towards this. Throw in uncertain financial times and who knows where the world will be in 60+ years


----------



## Glen48 (4 November 2011)

Here in the Philippines they run TV shows run by Pro life and mad bible thumping Yank's who tell all who step outside the Catholic church brain washing  ideas they are doom to live in Hell.

The pro lifers only charge the facts and distort as much as possible to win their case. 
As most can't or don't know how or can't afford  to use the net they can't check the facts and find out for themselves.
 If you sold condoms here for a living you would need a second job by the end of the week.
 Sadly if any place  need Birth control it has to be the poorer countries.
Send the bill to the Coil of Rope and his crooks.


----------



## tothemax6 (4 November 2011)

Glen48 said:


> The pro lifers only charge the facts and distort as much as possible to win their case.



The fetus is either a person or it is not. If it is, it is murder, if it is not, it is a medical procedure. It is the former. 
By no moral principle can the size or location of a person modify his rights, nor does tissue attachment to another human modify his rights, so long as he made no actions to enter these situations himself.
The most obvious definition of 'when my life began' is 'when did I begin to exist as a thing'. This implies two things: a unique embodiment as an entity, a transition to this embodiment from a null state. This is most easily determinable by following a persons life course from now backwards (since 'now' clearly contains that person as a unique embodiment). The transition point the becomes clear: 'the persons cell count transitioned between 0 and 1'.
Life begins at conception, no religious argument needed.

Overpopulation may be bad, but murder to rectify it is obviously worse.


----------



## Julia (4 November 2011)

That's a bit dogmatic.   A definition that makes sense to me is that the 'person' exists when the entity can survive independently.  A just conceived foetus cannot do this.

Probably unwise to allow this thread to descend into the eternal moral argument about a woman's right to choose, but imo that's what it comes down to.


----------



## pixel (4 November 2011)

... and this is the point, where a link into "Religion is crazy" may be called for.

A rational person could just as easily argue that it amounts to murder if one allows the addition of an N+1st child into a population that's already at the brink of starvation at number N.
Believers in "Life begins at conception" may well take that extra step a la Monty Python and claim "Every sperm is sacred." Even if it were true that "God will provide" - why make His/Her job unnecessarily difficult by crowding this poor planet beyond he point of even Divine capabilities.

Abstinence, "Just say No", may be a possible solution for a handful of truly enlightened spiritual beings.
But Nature has opened Pandora's box and spread the urge to copulate across the entire spectrum of living beings. Humans cannot deny that they're embedded in the fabric of Nature, so it follows logically that the overwhelmig majority of humans will not refrain from copulating. What we can do, however, is minimize the consequences of this innate behaviour at the least disruptive, most "humane" point in time:


Either ensure that no conception occurs in the first place,
or emulate Nature by preventing an excessive number of fertilised eggs to reach maturity.


----------



## Joe Blow (5 November 2011)

For those who would like to discuss the abortion issue in more depth, the abortion thread is this way: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12333


----------



## Sean K (25 January 2013)

Possibly the greatest issue for our generation.

When do we accept that rampant population growth will destroy us?

Even Bini knows.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...obel-peace-prize/story-e6frfmqi-1226561828041


----------



## white_goodman (25 January 2013)

kennas said:


> Possibly the greatest issue for our generation.
> 
> When do we accept that rampant population growth will destroy us?
> 
> ...




humans and their constant need for crusades...

by default you would have to be anti foreign aid specifically to Africa (which I agree with)


----------



## basilio (25 January 2013)

Give it a break White.

Is the wordl in such a great shape that any and every effort to improve it has to be labelled a "crusade"

That was an excellent essay by Bindi.  Certainly opens up a conversation on how overpopulation is one of the big issues that is challenging our environment.


----------



## CanOz (25 January 2013)

basilio said:


> Give it a break White.
> 
> Is the wordl in such a great shape that any and every effort to improve it has to be labelled a "crusade"
> 
> That was an excellent essay by Bindi.  Certainly opens up a conversation on how overpopulation is one of the big issues that is challenging our environment.




Agree...


I'm not a doomsayer by any means, and i believe the human race is capable of overcoming almost any challenge. Overpopulation is however, a grave concern for humanity. There is allot of suffering due to this issue.

CanOz


----------



## Sean K (25 January 2013)

There probably are solutions, but we're not looking. In fact, world government and economic policy continues to encourage more children.

The hockey stick graph we really should be worried about.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation


----------



## prawn_86 (25 January 2013)

kennas said:


> View attachment 50597




WOuld have liked to have been long on that trade... 

I honestly do not thin that anything will be done about overpopulation as it is those of us in a comfortable position trying to tell others who are less fortunate how to behave. They need children not only on a genetic basis, but also due to societal pressure as well as providing for them as they grow old as their government health/retirment packages wont.

Unless you can get a unified World government nothing will ever be done, or anything that is will be pointless


----------



## white_goodman (25 January 2013)

basilio said:


> Give it a break White.
> 
> Is the wordl in such a great shape that any and every effort to improve it has to be labelled a "crusade"
> 
> That was an excellent essay by Bindi.  Certainly opens up a conversation on how overpopulation is one of the big issues that is challenging our environment.





no finding issues that you dont understand and precede to proclaim as the greatest threat to humanity or whatever is a crusade...

go re-read Malthus and refer to whats happened in history, look at the western worlds birth rates, look at the major areas of population growth in the next 50 years projected, Kuznets curves..

then come back and report findings

also under this assumption of overpopulation, people arent subject to market prices, economic scarcity does not exist (which is funny), technology is in stasis..


----------



## sydboy007 (25 January 2013)

I'm expecting mother nature to come up with a solution.

Dengue fever has gone from nothing to practically all over the world in 50 years.  nasty virus too.  4 strains and building up immunity to 1 makes u far more susceptible to the others.

We're well over due to a good influenza pandemic.  I shudder to think how the world will cope with JIT manufacturing and the massive inter dependency we have on each other.  Countries wanting to shut their borders, yet they need to trade to keep a modern functional society.

I would say it will be access to fresh water that limits human populations the most.  We'r hitting the limits already.


----------



## white_goodman (25 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I would say it will be access to fresh water that limits human populations the most.  We'r hitting the limits already.




assuming no major technological breakthroughs id say yes.. and resource scarcity is why population growth has limits


----------



## white_goodman (25 January 2013)




----------



## Sean K (25 January 2013)

white_goodman said:


>



The graph shows that the human population has grown from 1.5 to 9.5 billion in 150 years. That might be OK for ants.


----------



## white_goodman (25 January 2013)

kennas said:


> The graph shows that the human population has grown from 1.5 to 9.5 billion in 150 years. That might be OK for ants.





surely you just extrapolate that out and assume we will all be giving birth on top of ourselves...

China's population will be under 1billion in the next 50-100 years.. exponential growth isnt a certainty


----------



## MrBurns (25 January 2013)

Dont sweat it,  a good war or epidemic usually takes care of it.


----------



## Some Dude (25 January 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Dont sweat it,  a good war or epidemic usually takes care of it.




Or asteroid, ask the dinosaurs


----------



## MrBurns (25 January 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Or asteroid, ask the dinosaurs




Exactly Mother Nature takes care of these things because we sure can't


----------



## Gringotts Bank (2 May 2013)

80,000,000 population growth each year.  *80 million!
*
Hilarious!!  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this not spell disaster?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (2 May 2013)

80 million is nearly 4 times Australia's total population.

Four new Australias every year added to the planet!!

China


----------



## bellenuit (2 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Four new Australias every year added to the planet!!




Does that mean 4 Julia Gillards. That would be hell.

You might be interested in this TED talk which suggests that world population will stabilise at around 10 Billion. What is interesting is the changes in birth rates in muslim populations. Not what we often think.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html


----------



## FlyingFox (2 May 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Does that mean 4 Julia Gillards. That would be hell.
> 
> You might be interested in this TED talk which suggests that world population will stabilise at around 10 Billion. What is interesting is the changes in birth rates in muslim populations. Not what we often think.
> 
> http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html




Yeah I think that is what UN projections are saying. Also most of the increase will come from the African continent.

As stupid as it sounds, we will more likely have issues due to lack of population growth than due to overpopulation.

Most developed countries have and even few developing countries e.g China have passed their economic dividend levels i.e their working population as a proportion of total population has peaked.


----------



## FlyingFox (2 May 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Does that mean 4 Julia Gillards. That would be hell.
> 
> You might be interested in this TED talk which suggests that world population will stabilise at around 10 Billion. What is interesting is the changes in birth rates in muslim populations. Not what we often think.
> 
> http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html




Great talk btw. Highly recommended.


----------



## Julia (2 May 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Great talk btw. Highly recommended.



Agree.  I only recently discovered the Ted Radio Hour.  Just some terrific stuff.


----------

