WW3 wouldn't affect world's population

[+DieChecker]

And this growth can simply stop by allowing each family having one child. In this scenario two dies (parents) and one remains (the child). Then he gets married having another single child and so on... Simple put taxes to pay for each additional child.

I wonder how that might work in the modern US with half the people having been married more then once, and kids from either/or parent being involved? Could a man with a child simply not marry a woman who already had a child? Would a child from a previous marriage count as only half?

Is the divorce rate in China low enough that they have no problems enforcing the one child rule?

[danielost]

I wonder how that might work in the modern US with half the people having been married more then once, and kids from either/or parent being involved? Could a man with a child simply not marry a woman who already had a child? Would a child from a previous marriage count as only half?

Is the divorce rate in China low enough that they have no problems enforcing the one child rule?

the abortion rate is high, because the child is the wrong sex. china has a new problem, too many men not enough women to go around. further it does away with extended families. if you have no brothers or sisters whose going to care what the government does to you.

[Doug1029]

there is plenty enough food to feed 10 billion if that is what we want to do. we are also no longer restricted to having to grow all our food on a planet., who can if we wish put farms/cities in space. we have plenty enough cash/credit for it too.

Food is only part of the problem. There is the effect of too many people on the food resource. Type I agricultural land can grow a cereal crop or corn crop every other year and a hay crop in the off year with acceptable soil losses (<3 tons/acre/year). For Type II land, we add an additional year of hay/clover. For Type III, it is a cereal crop followed by three years of cover crops. And for Type 4 it is a cereal crop to four cover crops. If you start growing more cereal crops than that, you deplete the soil and increase erosion, ultimately destroying the land's productivity. And that means that the resource that could support ten billion people ten years ago can now support only eight billion. What happened to the "extra" people?

And this all points up another problem: you can't grow grain every year. And people can't eat hay. So you feed the hay/clover to cattle and raise beef. That means that meat will always be part of the sustainable mix of foodstuffs.

The only real solution is to hold down the population. China has implemented some draconian measures to that end with marginal success. But if we simply educated women and made birth control readily available, most women would choose smaller families. We don't need to outlaw large families; all we need to do is allow people to make their own choices.

Doug

[danielost]

Food is only part of the problem. There is the effect of too many people on the food resource. Type I agricultural land can grow a cereal crop or corn crop every other year and a hay crop in the off year with acceptable soil losses (<3 tons/acre/year). For Type II land, we add an additional year of hay/clover. For Type III, it is a cereal crop followed by three years of cover crops. And for Type 4 it is a cereal crop to four cover crops. If you start growing more cereal crops than that, you deplete the soil and increase erosion, ultimately destroying the land's productivity. And that means that the resource that could support ten billion people ten years ago can now support only eight billion. What happened to the "extra" people?

And this all points up another problem: you can't grow grain every year. And people can't eat hay. So you feed the hay/clover to cattle and raise beef. That means that meat will always be part of the sustainable mix of foodstuffs.

The only real solution is to hold down the population. China has implemented some draconian measures to that end with marginal success. But if we simply educated women and made birth control readily available, most women would choose smaller families. We don't need to outlaw large families; all we need to do is allow people to make their own choices.

Doug

and shame those who choose larger families. because they don't fit your model.

[Doug1029]

and shame those who choose larger families. because they don't fit your model.

We don't actually need to do that. Experience in Europe has taught that, given a choice, women will choose smaller families - to the extent that declining population may ultimately be the bigger problem. In the end, governments may have to pay people to stay home and make babies (I can hear the conservatives wailing.). All the large-family folks will be doing is saving the rest some tax money.

But think of this: eugenics in reverse. Require good genetic makeup to get into the program. Lots of possibilities there. But I don't see it becoming the thing for a good 80+ years, yet. That will be somebody else's problem.

Doug

[+DieChecker]

I think that what will end up happening is that the lower and middle class will end up with only one child, while those in the upper class will have as many children as they want. It will just be another sign of wealth. And yet, when it becomes a status symbol (And I think it will), even if the tax is draconian, if you live in a free society, then people will have 2 or 3 kids, just to show off. Like people who are on welfare and somehow end up with a brand new Iphone, and a 50 inch plasma TV and $300 shoes. People living in poverty shouldn't own a giant TV, yet there you go, most own one. And people in poverty shouldn't have an expensive phone, or expensive shoes, yet, look they have them.

Given even the stupid people who can't afford kids, will stop at 2 or maybe 3. You will not see the 10 child families of the past any more, unless it is among the upper class.

[danielost]

if it wasn't for immagration the usa population would be dropping. if our population falls to0 far who will grow the food for the rest of the world. remember the usa government throws away enough food to feed the world ever year. this doesn't count the foods that we turn into gas.

[keithisco]

if it wasn't for immagration the usa population would be dropping. if our population falls to0 far who will grow the food for the rest of the world. remember the usa government throws away enough food to feed the world ever year. this doesn't count the foods that we turn into gas.

The EU is the World's biggest importer and exporter of foodstuffs, not the USA.

I also think that it is not the USA Govt that throws away all of this food but the actual consumers.

Edited November 4, 2014 by keithisco

[danielost]

The EU is the World's biggest importer and exporter of foodstuffs, not the USA.

I also think that it is not the USA Govt that throws away all of this food but the actual consumers.

they both do. the government to keep prices high.

[Guest]

they both do. the government to keep prices high.

Thats not how subsidy systems work, and the net effect is lower food prices.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

Thats not how subsidy systems work, and the net effect is lower food prices.

Br Cornelius

Subsidies have been largely replaced with a quota system. You can grow whatever you want, but you can only sell so much. Many farmers sidestep the system by feeding surplus grain to cattle, operating their own small-scale feed lots. And there's a "black market" in grain in which one farmer sells his grain directly to another who either sells it on the regular exchanges as his own, or feeds it to cattle/hogs, etc. The government doesn't seem too concerned about it. NRCS people know who's doing it and even encourage it.

Doug

[danielost]

Thats not how subsidy systems work, and the net effect is lower food prices.

Br Cornelius

One third of all food produced is wasted, the UN estimatesContinue reading the main story

Related Stories

• Europe's leftover food online trend
  
• 'End Bogof deals' to cut food waste
  

"If food was as expensive as a Ferrari, we would polish it and look after it."

Instead, we waste staggering amounts.

So says Professor Per Pinstrup-Andersen, head of an independent panel of experts advising the UN's Food and Agricultural Organization on how to tackle the problem.

Some 40% of all the food produced in the United States is never eaten. In Europe, we throw away 100 million tonnes of food every year.

And yet there are one billion starving people in the world.

The FAO's best guess is that one third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted before it is eaten.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28092034

this is food that never sees the inside of a grocery store.

[jesspy]

china has a new problem, too many men not enough women to go around.

I read in a newspaper that men in China look for mail order brides from countries such as Russia, Taiwan and Australia.

If there was a WW3, after it there should be strict population control measures put in place. We are more likely to have war over resources like water and food then oil. Also we have to remember that all the baby boomers will die in 20 -30 years. That would be a 10% loss of population for Australia for one. I think our population will peak maybe at 8 billion and then start declining.

[Deleted]

I believe it was the philosopher Sidney Hook that said;

"Paradoxical as it may sound life itself is not a value. What gives life its quality is not mere existence but its quality. Whoever proclaims live is worth living under any circumstances has written himself and epitaph of infamy. For there is no principal or human being that he will not betray, there is no indignity he will not suffer or compound."

People is these their world countries have no quality of life, in fact procreation with no means of support for their offspring is tantamount to child abuse, in fact could be construed as pure selfishness even evil to bare a child in to that world.

Would not the inhumane thing be to keep enabling it?

Would not the humane thing be to stop it?

so what? some guy tells you life has no worth and you believe it O.o.... I said you should think for yourself and not quote someone else. The world is in ruins because most of humankind think humans including themselves are worthless and that thougth in itself generates a "worthless" world/society. --> if you dont think taht every life is worthy how can you bring yourself to make society better, or look after your kids...etc..... People can create very different results under different assumptions.

No it is not humane. And there is actually no real aide, The world bank, the national banks ( for example the European national bank, they told the EU nations which banks have to close and which have to stay open, recently some letteres emerged which show how they pressuered Ireland for example.....) dictate everything, how the economy system should work who gets loans under which circumstances....etc.....

Edited November 8, 2014 by hellwyr

[spacecowboy342]

according to the bible, 1/3 of us will be killed. but in ww1 there was a population world wide of about v1 billion ww2 a billion and half. what this guy fails to know is they had the opposite effect on population growth. after each we had a population growth. the same would happen after a ww3.

Not if "nuclear winter" caused worldwide famine. Edited November 8, 2014 by spacecowboy342

[Bavarian Raven]

Not if "nuclear winter" caused worldwide famine.

Except nuclear winter is more of a myth then the Hollywood hype , or so it seems.

[+DieChecker]

Except nuclear winter is more of a myth then the Hollywood hype , or so it seems.

I think I would agree. Anything less then full release of all nuclear stockpiles would not create a significant Nuclear Winter. A limited exchange would doubtless kill millions, or billions, but unless Australia, Africa and South America also were nuked, humans (South of the Equator) would recover quickly.

[Jeremiah65]

I'm afraid we have another problem coming our way that we...seemingly...just choose to ignore and hope it goes away...and yes, it is relevant to population numbers.

A paradigm shift is expected to be witnessed in the way workplacesoperate over the next 15 years, making nearly 50 per cent of occupationsexisting today redundant by 2025, a report has said.

Artificial intelligence will transform businesses and the work that people do. Process work, customer work and vast swathes of middle management will simply disappear, it said.

The report titled 'Fast Forward 2030: The Future of Work and the Workplace' has been prepared by realty consulting firm CBREand China-based Genesis, a property developer, after interviewing 220 experts, business leaders and young people from Asia, Europeand North America.

"Nearly 50 per cent of occupations today will no longer exist in 2025. New jobs will require creative intelligence, social and emotional intelligence and ability to leverage artificial intelligence. Those jobs will be immensely more fulfilling than today's jobs," the report said.

read the entire article here...

http://www.business-...10701279_1.html

Now...we will, at some point...have some very difficult questions to answer. Do we continue with the current economic model? Is that going to even be feasible given this scenario?

I have no idea what the next 15 years will hold...I have no idea if I'll still be around but I am pretty sure my kids will be.

These are the types of things that concern me...we really don't talk about what the world is going to be like as machines do more and more and manufacturing and food production requires less and less labor. Are the machine makers going to get all philanthropic and just do the right thing?...nah...I doubt that is going to happen.

Population control might already have an answer...it's called poverty, homelessness and starvation...kinda hard to feed and shelter yourself and your family if there is nothing for you to do...

Edited November 9, 2014 by Jeremiah65

[danielost]

thing is for every job that disappears another one starts up. with out automation we would not be able to keep up with the purchasing of any product. there really would be a shortage of food.

[spacecowboy342]

Except nuclear winter is more of a myth then the Hollywood hype , or so it seems.

Who told you that?

[+DieChecker]

There is extreme poverty today in the world, and 50%+ (2006) of deaths (62 million) are malnutrition related. That is like 10% of those living in poverty. For this to be a world wide population controlling event, the percentage would have closer to 50% of those living in poverty. And we'd also have to see the middle class pushed into the lower class, to starve with them, or the plan clearly would not work.

[Guest]

thing is for every job that disappears another one starts up. with out automation we would not be able to keep up with the purchasing of any product. there really would be a shortage of food.

This is not remotely true as there is no essential rule which makes one new job miraculously appear when another job is automated. No one has adequately addressed the essential flaw in capitalism that it destroys its foundations (consumers) as it becomes more "perfect".

This is the central objection I have to capitalism as an organising principle - it doesn't fundamentally work because it requires consumers but innately destroys the ability of people to consume. This is the thing you have failed to grasp in all our discussions about capitalism - it simply doesn't work in the long term.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

This is not remotely true as there is no essential rule which makes one new job miraculously appear when another job is automated. No one has adequately addressed the essential flaw in capitalism that it destroys its foundations (consumers) as it becomes more "perfect".

This is the central objection I have to capitalism as an organising principle - it doesn't fundamentally work because it requires consumers but innately destroys the ability of people to consume. This is the thing you have failed to grasp in all our discussions about capitalism - it simply doesn't work in the long term.

Br Cornelius

what system does work. don't say socialism, the nations of Europe are being slowly chocked to death. don't say communism, the Chinese have gone capitalist in economy. controlled but still capitalist.

and don't say dictatorships, the dictator is only in it for himself.

[Guest]

what system does work. don't say socialism, the nations of Europe are being slowly chocked to death. don't say communism, the Chinese have gone capitalist in economy. controlled but still capitalist.

and don't say dictatorships, the dictator is only in it for himself.

I never said anything worked and certainly am not an advocate of socialism in the traditional sense. It is not a simple either/or socialism/capitalism since they are both just aspects of the same fundamental principle of materialistic consumption.

We need to analyses the flaws in our basic assumptions of living and this ping pong of if your against capitalism you must be a socialist will get us nowhere fast.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

Except nuclear winter is more of a myth then the Hollywood hype , or so it seems.

Thanks to a planet-wide dust storm on Mars, planetary scientists decided to look at the effects of dust in the atmosphere. That, in turn, led to dust studies of the earth and what would happen in a nuclear war. Conclusion: all we need to do to precipitate nuclear winter is detonate between 100 and 200 megatons of atomic weapons. Chemical spills, fires and the like will do the rest.

BTW: the closest natural analog to nuclear winter occurred about 70 to 75 thousand years ago with the eruption of Mount Toba. We almost went extinct. Human populations were down to less than 10,000 people, maybe as low as three or four thousand. Nuclear winter is a real risk.

Doug