Overpopulation

[Sean K]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.