Overpopulation

[Lilly]

Shall we just stop shagging without contraception, would that solve everything?

Certainly would be a step in the right direction IMO. We have finite resources and the population will be controlled one way or another, if not be us by nature....and nature can be a real *beep*.

[Clarakore]

I certainly think overpopulation is a real problem and affects everything in our life, from jobs availability to appropriation of natural resources........I am interested in hearing from the fundamentalist christians who believe overpopulation is a myth.......I just do not understand how they do not see the issues involved. Science and math are not their strong point but come on.......it is so obvious!

Did not read beyond page one but your argument is barking up the wrong tree. Most Western countries in fact do not have overpopulation issues. The reverse is true, they do not have enough natives to do every job, so they begin impoting in workers aka immigration. These Christians you are accusing of breeding unethically while the world is facing an overpopulation crisis, is an argument you are making that does not take into account the nuances of the situation.

Third world countries (what used to be called that anyway) is where overpopulation is an issue due to lack of infrastructure for distribution. Whenenever people starve it is not because of a lack of food but a lack of proper distribution.

The sticky part of the argument is that as someone from the West, living in the richest part of the world, to even speak of overpopulation is to speak of issues in the less developed parts of the world. I don't think someone from our part of the world has any say on that part when it comes to them having babies. We can see the problem. The only proper input we should do is go in with education, condoms, and assistance with developing proper distribution networks so they can enjoy the world as we do. Saying whether or not they should have babies is something their own society needs to discuss, we have no say.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Chasingtherabbit

[monk 56]

Hi Br. Cornelius,

I don't think that Global warming is a scam, and i feel you are right over population levels, so obviously i feel the next fifty years will be very interesting for the human race, for many reasons, perhaps we will overcome difficulties or perhaps we won't.

Nuclear Proliferation is still a major worry, we can only hope we will find a way through difficuties, at the last throw of the dice, usaully thats how we as a race leave things, at the last minute!

I feel the need to lighten the mood, so i add below, although black humour:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOBm2J4tn0&feature=related

[Guest]

Why do you think this? The earth's population could be reduced by half in two generations, if current falls in fertility rates continue. If every woman has only one child, then the next generation will be half the numbers of its parent's generation, and the next generation will be only a quarter of its grandparents. That figure is already being approached in parts of the world.

Given present trends and numbers, once fertility levels fall below replacement levels, it will only take two generations for numbers to fall very dramatically, once the older generation dies off. So, by the end of this century, the worlds pop could well be less than it is now and in rapid decline.

However, it is not about the numbers but about the resource use and ecological footprint of individuals. I 'consume", or require for my sustenance as an australian, 2 and a half hectares of the earth's surface. In the third world it is a few square metres per person. It is this inequality which is unsustainable. We can't afford the throw away, wasteful, consumer society of the west.

Humans have the technological abilty to restore both biodiversity and habitat to the earth, once we control population and consumption to sustainable levels. However, while we could reintroduce wooly mamoths dodos and tasmanian tigers to the earth, I am not sure that would be a wise move. Probably halting decline in, and mimimallly improving, the biodiversity might be safer and more feasible, at least to begin with.

Your not really listening to me here. The damage was done in the period in which populations rose from 3 billion to 7 billion. Any reasonable estimate says we will hit 10billion - that a further 3billion in an already stressed environment. Ecosystems degrade to the point where they cannot bounce back - they permanently change and there is evidence for this in every part of the globe - especially the oceans. You do not seem to understand the significance of the next 30yrs - its absolutely crucial to the survival of humans as a species - and all the evidence suggests that we will not manage it successfully.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Did not read beyond page one but your argument is barking up the wrong tree. Most Western countries in fact do not have overpopulation issues. The reverse is true, they do not have enough natives to do every job, so they begin impoting in workers aka immigration. These Christians you are accusing of breeding unethically while the world is facing an overpopulation crisis, is an argument you are making that does not take into account the nuances of the situation.

It is still the christians which are predominantly against birth control and family planning - they are major deliverers of aid programs and have negative effects on third world countries - they are still actively evangelizing the third world spreading this message widely. They most definitely are a significant part of the problem.

Foreign labour is imported because it is cheaper to do so and it is business who consistently lobbies for lax immigration controls. We do not need foreign works - we could fill all labour posts internally if we so chose. This is a part of the capitalist system we live under - drive down costs.

However the developed countries are still overwhelmingly responsible for the environmental crisis because of the resource needs and their production of pollutants.

Third world countries (what used to be called that anyway) is where overpopulation is an issue due to lack of infrastructure for distribution. Whenenever people starve it is not because of a lack of food but a lack of proper distribution.

The third world countries are low technology societies which means that they rely on natural eco-services (wood fuel, clean water, etc) which are overtaxed by their low tech lifestyles - this is especially true in the mega cities which have grown massively in the last half century - and almost all of them are in the third world. Mega cities can only be supplied through large scale industrial agriculture - which sucks in land resources across vast areas and disenfranchises peasant farmers - there is currently an epidemic of suicides across India as a direct consequence of the replacement of small farms by industrial scale agriculture.

The sticky part of the argument is that as someone from the West, living in the richest part of the world, to even speak of overpopulation is to speak of issues in the less developed parts of the world. I don't think someone from our part of the world has any say on that part when it comes to them having babies. We can see the problem. The only proper input we should do is go in with education, condoms, and assistance with developing proper distribution networks so they can enjoy the world as we do. Saying whether or not they should have babies is something their own society needs to discuss, we have no say.

We may not have any say, but to deny that the problem is real is to deny reality. Population will continue to rise in the developing world and the Global ecosystem will become increasingly stressed as a direct consequence - that will make it all of our problems.

Br Cornelius

[Tommy13]

Are you kidding? With technology and a good plan, we can bring food and water to the whole world. IMHO, what a ridulous concept.

[Mr Walker]

Your not really listening to me here. The damage was done in the period in which populations rose from 3 billion to 7 billion. Any reasonable estimate says we will hit 10billion - that a further 3billion in an already stressed environment. Ecosystems degrade to the point where they cannot bounce back - they permanently change and there is evidence for this in every part of the globe - especially the oceans. You do not seem to understand the significance of the next 30yrs - its absolutely crucial to the survival of humans as a species - and all the evidence suggests that we will not manage it successfully.

Br Cornelius

That would be a shame; but a logical, natural consequence of our behaviour. I do all I can, personally, to prevent it; but on the other hand I have faith in human science and technology.

I think we will not only survive, but pass into a period of sustainable comfort never seen before on earth, for all human beings. before reaching out to space to expand. My home state is working towards almost total use of renewable energies, for example. And we just dont know what advances will be made in technologies in the next decade or two, although we do know they will be exponential compared with present progress.

Wind Power 'The New Baseload' In South Australia

by Energy Matters

Achieving 20% renewable energy in Australia by 2020 isn't impossible - in fact, South Australia has already blown past that goal courtesy of wind energy primarily, with a helping hand from residential solar panel installations.

According to a report from EnergyQuest, wind power derived electricity generation grew by 24% (300 GWh) in the March quarter, contributing just over 3% of east coast generation; with the highest level occurring in South Australia (942 GWh), representing 31% of the State's grid generation.

"In South Australia wind appears to be the new baseload," says EnergyQuest Chief Executive Dr Graeme Bethune.

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3231

An additional 4 % is provided by solar power meaning that over a third of our energy is now renewable We are also trialling hot rocks and wave energy.

Ie we will change the ecosystems back ourselves, not wait for, or rely on, time and evolution. Our abilty to create is just as great as our abilty to destroy. This is already happening on a small scale in places like australia, and will begin in the west where populations are diminishing and technolgy is the most advanced.

As the third world becomes more "modernised", and its own fertility drops to replacement level, as is occuring even now, along the model of population transition theory, they will follow suit.

Ps not all estimates go to 10 billion. There is a lot of different modelling. Some shows the pop falling back to about 6 million by 2100

World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on UN 2010 projections (red, orange, green) and US Census Bureau historical estimates (black). According to the highest estimate, the world population may rise to 16 billion by 2100; according to the lowest estimate, it may decline to only 6 billion.

http://en.wikipedia....orld_population

Edited November 18, 2012 by Mr Walker

[darkmoonlady]

I imagine sadly that because of the population levels and our travel availability that eventually a global pandemic will reduce the populations of the earth.

[Guest]

The most reasonable estimate for population is the middle line. To achieve the bottom line requires significant direct interventions which are not happening - it represents the absolute best case scenario. 10 billion is the best guess based on current trends.

I do not share your confidence in the ability of man to change his ways. The growth of alternative energy is an encouraging trend - but it to little to late. Agriculture is the real ticking time bomb as many agricultural lands are degraded and current levels of production are only sustainable with fossil fuel derived fertilizers.

A complete change of everything in human society is required to make us sustainable and i really cannot see it happening.

Mr Walker - your a technological optimist, a magic bullet thinker. I cannot share that optimism since I see that every single problem we face is a direct consequence of the unforeseen consequences of technology.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 18, 2012 by Guest

[Orcseeker]

Are you kidding? With technology and a good plan, we can bring food and water to the whole world. IMHO, what a ridulous concept.

Whatever you say is obsolete. Maybe we can GIVEN the technology and resources. But we don't. We can't support what we have right now so right off the bat there overpopulation is a problem. More and more people are moving to live in cities and most of the worlds population lives confined in these cities. A breeding ground for a super virus.

We cannot support what we have now, therefore overpopulated. Even taking all from the rich and distributing it all around isn't enough.

[Mr Walker]

The most reasonable estimate for population is the middle line. To achieve the bottom line requires significant direct interventions which are not happening - it represents the absolute best case scenario. 10 billion is the best guess based on current trends.

I do not share your confidence in the ability of man to change his ways. The growth of alternative energy is an encouraging trend - but it to little to late. Agriculture is the real ticking time bomb as many agricultural lands are degraded and current levels of production are only sustainable with fossil fuel derived fertilizers.

A complete change of everything in human society is required to make us sustainable and i really cannot see it happening.

Mr Walker - your a technological optimist, a magic bullet thinker. I cannot share that optimism since I see that every single problem we face is a direct consequence of the unforeseen consequences of technology.

Br Cornelius

Is there any time in the past of humanity when you would rather live, or do you agre that the present is the best of all times for most of humanity? And if that is true why shouldnt the future be even better? While technologies do present unforseen problems they improve human life immeasurably in a multitude of ways. It is not the technology but the human nature of mankind which is the real problem, and which must be changed. Current technology allows us to feed up to 10 billion people adequately, if we can distribute the food fairly and equitably. People in the west waste enough food to feed all the people who are starving. For less than 50 cents a meal, I can provide an adequate meal for a child in the third world.

[Mr Walker]

Whatever you say is obsolete. Maybe we can GIVEN the technology and resources. But we don't. We can't support what we have right now so right off the bat there overpopulation is a problem. More and more people are moving to live in cities and most of the worlds population lives confined in these cities. A breeding ground for a super virus.

We cannot support what we have now, therefore overpopulated. Even taking all from the rich and distributing it all around isn't enough.

Actually if everyone in develped countries gave about 5% of their income, we could not just eliminate poverty and malnutrition/starvation, but also do a lot for sanitation, water supplies and thus health etc. The problem is really not that big, looked at globally.

I agree with you that the problem is that we choose not to.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Guest]

Is there any time in the past of humanity when you would rather live, or do you agre that the present is the best of all times for most of humanity? And if that is true why shouldnt the future be even better? While technologies do present unforseen problems they improve human life immeasurably in a multitude of ways. It is not the technology but the human nature of mankind which is the real problem, and which must be changed. Current technology allows us to feed up to 10 billion people adequately, if we can distribute the food fairly and equitably. People in the west waste enough food to feed all the people who are starving. For less than 50 cents a meal, I can provide an adequate meal for a child in the third world.

I would choose to lead that short and brutal life which existed in the period before civilization. For me civilization has taken us away from our true nature as caring sharing creatures of manageble community size. Civilization has been a slow progression towards a smaller proportion of the society exploiting a larger portion of their fellow humans. It has been designed to serve the needs of a smaller and smaller elite.

I maybe a romantic, but I truely believe that there was a time likened to the Garden of Eden where life was a simple state of grace.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Actually if everyone in develped countries gave about 5% of their income, we could not just eliminate poverty and malnutrition/starvation, but also do a lot for sanitation, water supplies and thus health etc. The problem is really not that big, looked at globally.

I agree with you that the problem is that we choose not to.

The problem is, that no matter how you redistribute the resources - we are living an unsustainable life which has an inevitable brick wall moment. We could all live a better life by redistribution to the developing world - but it would still destroy the eco-system we rely on for survival.

Br Cornelius

[Mr Walker]

I would choose to lead that short and brutal life which existed in the period before civilization. For me civilization has taken us away from our true nature as caring sharing creatures of manageble community size. Civilization has been a slow progression towards a smaller proportion of the society exploiting a larger portion of their fellow humans. It has been designed to serve the needs of a smaller and smaller elite.

I maybe a romantic, but I truely believe that there was a time likened to the Garden of Eden where life was a simple state of grace.

Br Cornelius

Ah well then i can understand your pov even if i disagree, and I can appreciate that you are true to your core belief. I grew up with a grandnother born before anaesthetics, (at least in her home town) electricity, or any modern medicines like penicillin. She made it clear to me that times had improved considerably as technology progressed and i have seen the same thing occur over my lifetime. Humans still stuff things up, but life is better for most. Just imagine a tooth dieing and rotting out, without any anaesthetic or dentistry. The nature of civilization also provides benefits to all members of it, even if we tend to take them for granted.Eg it allows centralised education of all people.

[Mr Walker]

The problem is, that no matter how you redistribute the resources - we are living an unsustainable life which has an inevitable brick wall moment. We could all live a better life by redistribution to the developing world - but it would still destroy the eco-system we rely on for survival.

Br Cornelius

True. There are two problems. But if we fix the distribution and equity problem, the population one will take care of itself even more quickly, as the fertility of people in developing countries will drop even faster.

We could end up with a billion or so people living a sustainable but comfortable existence. The long term problem might be sustaining that population and not having it drop to below a viable level As long as women have less than two children on average each, the pop. will continue to decline; eventually, theoretically, to one person, then zero.

[Professor Buzzkill]

I would choose to lead that short and brutal life which existed in the period before civilization. For me civilization has taken us away from our true nature as caring sharing creatures of manageble community size. Civilization has been a slow progression towards a smaller proportion of the society exploiting a larger portion of their fellow humans. It has been designed to serve the needs of a smaller and smaller elite.

I maybe a romantic, but I truely believe that there was a time likened to the Garden of Eden where life was a simple state of grace.

Br Cornelius

I think its ironic that you want to live in a pre-civilization world, where you would undoubtable believe that gods control the weather/seasons, and you would be killing large game animals slowly, with stone tipped spears, for food. All this from a athiestic, animal rights activist, bleeding heart liberal.

Feel free to correct any assumptions i have made.

[Guest]

I think its ironic that you want to live in a pre-civilization world, where you would undoubtable believe that gods control the weather/seasons, and you would be killing large game animals slowly, with stone tipped spears, for food. All this from a athiestic, animal rights activist, bleeding heart liberal.

Feel free to correct any assumptions i have made.

Your assumptions are based on the false - premise that the Civilization we have at the moment is somehow inevitable and right.

My assumption is based on the acceptance that to live a "natural" life is intrinsically less cruel to the individual living it and the animals been exploited.

The massive mental health problems we face as a culture are stark testament to the disfunction of our current culture compared to the "natural" life of a tribal culture.

Do you think that the Pig or Cow living in a factory farm is "happier" because it dies quickly from a stun gun - or that animal which lives a free natural existance up until the last few minuites of its life, when it is dispatched by an arrow. Maybe you have never though about the intrinsic cruelty of our current animal husbandry and how it is an inevitable consequence of having to feed 7billion people - which is in turn the fruits of a "Civilized" culture.

Maybe you consider living a life which poisons our air water and soil to be better than one which leaves them unpolluted. Maybe you consider a life which is driving 50% of the animals and plants of the planet into exinction is somehow intrinsically superior to one which leaves them to live out their natural existance.

I have thought about these issues long and hard and live my life by the consequences of those thoughts. If thinking about the issues which effect your life and the lives of future generations makes you a "bleeding heart liberal" then I think we all need to be "bleeding hearts".

Br Cornelius

Edited November 21, 2012 by Guest

[Guest]

Ah well then i can understand your pov even if i disagree, and I can appreciate that you are true to your core belief. I grew up with a grandnother born before anaesthetics, (at least in her home town) electricity, or any modern medicines like penicillin. She made it clear to me that times had improved considerably as technology progressed and i have seen the same thing occur over my lifetime. Humans still stuff things up, but life is better for most. Just imagine a tooth dieing and rotting out, without any anaesthetic or dentistry. The nature of civilization also provides benefits to all members of it, even if we tend to take them for granted.Eg it allows centralised education of all people.

I think that if you were to ask many of the Aboriginese whether they agreed that life in Australia had got better - they may very well disagree with your position. Similarly the large number of people working in sweat shops across the developing world may have a different persective about the overall benefits of the "Civilization" they currentl;y live under.

I would not be so ignorant to say that civilization has brought many benefits to many people, but the overall package has wrought a very heavy price in terms of lives lost and blighted in pursuit of the God progress. These matters are complex in that we can say without a shadow of a doubt that the half million people dead in Iraq are dead as a direct consequence of the American imperitive to sustain their progress of fossil fuel security, and the ability to kill so many civilians is a direct consequence of progress in technology.

I am not intrinsically an enemy of the concept of Civilzation - but I really feel that the system we currently have falls far to short of any reasonable definition of been "Civilized".

Br Cornelius

[Mr Walker]

I think that if you were to ask many of the Aboriginese whether they agreed that life in Australia had got better - they may very well disagree with your position. Similarly the large number of people working in sweat shops across the developing world may have a different persective about the overall benefits of the "Civilization" they currentl;y live under.

I would not be so ignorant to say that civilization has brought many benefits to many people, but the overall package has wrought a very heavy price in terms of lives lost and blighted in pursuit of the God progress. These matters are complex in that we can say without a shadow of a doubt that the half million people dead in Iraq are dead as a direct consequence of the American imperitive to sustain their progress of fossil fuel security, and the ability to kill so many civilians is a direct consequence of progress in technology.

I am not intrinsically an enemy of the concept of Civilzation - but I really feel that the system we currently have falls far to short of any reasonable definition of been "Civilized".

Br Cornelius

Im not going to speak for aboriginal people. i will let the aboriginal doctors, lawyers, teachers, politicians, poets etc., do that.

I dont get the 'god progress' comment. Civilization and god have nothing to do with each other. Humans have had a spiritual element and worshipped gods since neandertal and cromagnon times . I also dont accept that the middle east wars had so much to do with oil. i think they are like many of the wars america finds itself in; a genuine reaction to the tyranny and autocracy of some regimes which oppress their peoples. Saddam hussein after all used nerve gas on his own peoples The taliban destroys historic monumnents and oppresses women, and anyone who doesnt follow their strict and particular religious code.

To most americans that is an anathema, and creates acceptance in a democracy for wars seen as wars of liberation.

Ps i just worked it out. You see the importance of a comma. "In pursuit of the god, progress." Progress becomes a noun rather than, as i read it, a verb. "the god progress"

Edited November 23, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Guest]

The "God Progress" is reference to exalting the idea that progress as a universally positive and desirable quality. To elevate the idea of progress to a similar status to the idea of God. In a secular age the concept of technology and progress have largely surplanted the religious "God" as a motivational principle.

Br Cornelius

[White Crane Feather]

Ah well then i can understand your pov even if i disagree, and I can appreciate that you are true to your core belief. I grew up with a grandnother born before anaesthetics, (at least in her home town) electricity, or any modern medicines like penicillin. She made it clear to me that times had improved considerably as technology progressed and i have seen the same thing occur over my lifetime. Humans still stuff things up, but life is better for most. Just imagine a tooth dieing and rotting out, without any anaesthetic or dentistry. The nature of civilization also provides benefits to all members of it, even if we tend to take them for granted.Eg it allows centralised education of all people.

There was not much tooth decay before agriculture

Edited November 23, 2012 by Seeker79

[Mr Walker]

There was not much tooth decay before agriculture

I am not sure about the truth of this. It sounds intuitively correct but many primitive people show a lot of teeth loss. The cause for this, of course, may not be tooth decay.

[Guest]

I am not sure about the truth of this. It sounds intuitively correct but many primitive people show a lot of teeth loss. The cause for this, of course, may not be tooth decay.

Tooth decay and damage seem to be a peculiarly civilized condition. It was associated with the move away from teeth strengthening meat and bone consumption towards soft grains. Unfortunately until modern times those self same grains led to sever tooth damage as they always had a high fraction of grit which wore away tooth enamel and chipped teeth.

For a potted history look at Wiki;

Archaeological evidence shows that tooth decay is an ancient disease dating far into prehistory. Skulls dating from a million years ago through the neolithic period show signs of caries, excepting those from the Paleolithic and Mesolithic ages.^[86] The increase of caries during the neolithic period may be attributed to the increased consumption of plant foods containing carbohydrates.^[88] The beginning of rice cultivation in South Asia is also believed to have caused an increase in caries.

A Sumerian text from 5000 BC describes a "tooth worm" as the cause of caries.^[89] Evidence of this belief has also been found in India, Egypt, Japan, and China.^[87] Unearthed ancient skulls show evidence of primitive dental work. In Pakistan, teeth dating from around 5500 BC to 7000 BC show nearly perfect holes from primitive dental drills.^[90] The Ebers Papyrus, an Egyptian text from 1550 BC, mentions diseases of teeth.^[89] During the Sargonid dynasty of Assyria during 668 to 626 BC, writings from the king's physician specify the need to extract a tooth due to spreading inflammation.^[87] In the Roman Empire, wider consumption of cooked foods led to a small increase in caries prevalence.^[84] The Greco-Roman civilization, in addition to the Egyptian, had treatments for pain resulting from caries.^[87]

The rate of caries remained low through the Bronze Age and Iron Age, but sharply increased during the Middle Ages.^[86] Periodic increases in caries prevalence had been small in comparison to the 1000 AD increase, when sugar cane became more accessible to the Western world. Treatment consisted mainly of herbal remedies and charms, but sometimes also included bloodletting.^[91] The barber surgeons of the time provided services that included tooth extractions.^[87] Learning their training from apprenticeships, these health providers were quite successful in ending tooth pain and likely prevented systemic spread of infections in many cases. Among Roman Catholics, prayers to Saint Apollonia, the patroness of dentistry, were meant to heal pain derived from tooth infection.^[92]

I think you will find that primitive hunter gathers would show consistently better teeth than urban populations.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 24, 2012 by Guest

[White Crane Feather]

I think you will find that primitive hunter gathers would show consistently better teeth than urban populations.

Br Cornelius

Eskimos in isolated reigons have almost zero tooth decay without dental hygiene. But it was also found that soil in hunter gather diets did indeed grind their teeth down. This did not increase incidence of decay it actually worked against it. The effect was like smoothing the teeth and eliminating places for bacteria to lodge.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Seeker79