Overpopulation

[IFocus]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

: 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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[sptrawler]

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]

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]

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

 

[tothemax6]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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