Population

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Population

Postby shostakovich » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:15 pm

Once in a while there will be a letter or article regarding overpopulation. It's the problem no elected official will take on. The standard methods of population control are war, starvation, disease. Surely we can find a better way. Consumption of natural resources and pollution are directly related to human population. If a group of historians, scientists, and philosophers from all nations would study the problem and come up with recommendations, it would help remove the fear of facing this problem. Until some method of population control is implemented the human race will rush toward annihilating itself --- well before life is extinguished by some natural disaster. Just airing out a thought.
Shos
shostakovich
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2000 1:01 am
Location: windsor, ct, usa

Re: Population

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:25 pm

Amen, Shos.

This is just the type of perspective a real leader needs to have, and needs to direct the national focus toward. It's the kind of thing I was ranting about in the Gas Price thread.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: Population

Postby BigJon@Work » Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:26 am

Prosperity brings population control. Nothing else has worked so far.
"I am a 12 foot lizard." GCR Jan 31, 2006
BigJon@Work
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:01 am
Location: work. Duh!

Re: Population

Postby jamiebk » Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:27 am

shostakovich wrote:Once in a while there will be a letter or article regarding overpopulation. It's the problem no elected official will take on. The standard methods of population control are war, starvation, disease. Surely we can find a better way. Consumption of natural resources and pollution are directly related to human population. If a group of historians, scientists, and philosophers from all nations would study the problem and come up with recommendations, it would help remove the fear of facing this problem. Until some method of population control is implemented the human race will rush toward annihilating itself --- well before life is extinguished by some natural disaster. Just airing out a thought.
Shos


The Chinese believe that they have an answer for this, but we find this unacceptable. The world population is over 6 billion now. The US growth rate (for '08 anyway) is only .883%. The world rate is 1.167% so clearly the US is better than some areas. There is no doubt in my mind that mankind's existence is having a profound effect on the world environment.

I know this is harsh, but I think that some of the natural disasters, plagues, and previous short life expectations have all played a part in keeping the population in check. So too, many of the genetic defects that pop up and would have caused cause infant mortality are all being overcome thus adding to population growth (and to some extent a weakening of human gene pool)

It is, as you say, something we don't like to discuss and it has profound moral implications.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Population

Postby Shapley » Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:48 am

If we took all 6,000,000,000 people in the world, and relocated them to Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, the population density would be less than half that of New York City.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Population

Postby jamiebk » Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:56 am

Shapley wrote:If we took all 6,000,000,000 people in the world, and relocated them to Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, the population density would be less than half that of New York City.


Which is why I don't live in NYC....
:crazy:

And...you'd still have to suck resources from the rest of the world to support them
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Population

Postby GreatCarouser » Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:05 am

So where is that 'light' from centuries past to tell us something like "Remember 'be fruitful and multiply'? We need to modify that..." ?
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Re: Population

Postby analog » Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:43 am

This was one of Isaac Asimov's favorite subjects. In his usual fashion he weaves human nature into an interesting talk.... he gave a series of these around 1974, i had good fortune to attend one in Miami.


http://subjunctive.net/hosted/asimov-fu ... anity.html


a.
Last edited by analog on Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Re: Population

Postby Shapley » Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:49 am

jamiebk wrote:Which is why I don't live in NYC....
:crazy:

And...you'd still have to suck resources from the rest of the world to support them


True. However, they say we need approximately 10 acres/person to feed the world. If I did my math correctly, if you take the land area of the world, and multiply that by the 13% that is arable, you'll find that we have a little over 20 acres of arable land per person available, so we're not in trouble yet....

As I said at the beginning of the 'Healthy economy" thread, we've literally only scratched the surface of the Earth in mining natural resources. Our problem does not lie in the numbers. We have an access problem.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Population

Postby jamiebk » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:21 pm

Shapley wrote:
jamiebk wrote:Which is why I don't live in NYC....
:crazy:

And...you'd still have to suck resources from the rest of the world to support them


True. However, they say we need approximately 10 acres/person to feed the world. If I did my math correctly, if you take the land area of the world, and multiply that by the 13% that is arable, you'll find that we have a little over 20 acres of arable land per person available, so we're not in trouble yet....

As I said at the beginning of the 'Healthy economy" thread, we've literally only scratched the surface of the Earth in mining natural resources. Our problem does not lie in the numbers. We have an access problem.


Not all the land is usable or bears resources
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Population

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:31 pm

I hope you see a world in which mankind has decided to be sane. But I must say in all honesty that I figure that the chances are against it.
- Isaac Asimov, November 8, 1974


Earlier in the lecture, Dr. Asimov suggested that that world might take 30 years or so to arrive. If it did. Maybe it's just a little late...

Thanks for the link, analog. I enjoyed the read.
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Population

Postby Shapley » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:35 pm

jamiebk wrote:
Not all the land is usable or bears resources


No, but all of the arable land is arable. I used the figure of 13%, which is the percentage of the worlds' total land surface that is identified as arable.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Population

Postby jamiebk » Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:25 pm

Shapley wrote:
jamiebk wrote:
Not all the land is usable or bears resources


No, but all of the arable land is arable. I used the figure of 13%, which is the percentage of the worlds' total land surface that is identified as arable.


Fine then Shap. You live like the rat in a cage. I'll take the current system and enjoy my trips to the unspoilled and untouched spaces.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Population

Postby GreatCarouser » Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:49 pm

Great link, analog. Thanks
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Re: Population

Postby Haggis@wk » Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:09 pm

The only resource we can’t afford to lose is the one we are already losing in the Western world, us.
Every other resource on the planet can be replaced or compensated for.

Population growth, ZPG and NPG have been Shos’ bugaboos for years and completely at odds with the available data. Alone among the industrialize countries the U.S. and Ireland are the only countries that are (slightly) above ZPG. Every other industrial country in the world and all of North American with the exception of the U.S. is at ZPG or NPG.

By 2005, Mexico’s growth rate had fallen 36% since 1990 to 2.1%, which is ZPG.

Canada and some American “blue” states have something in common, Canada and very few of the “Blue States” have sustainable birth rates; Canada’s at 1.5, NPG

For the first time in over a century the U.S. population is greater than Canada’s

Canadian newspapers got excited in 2007 when the fertility rate, in freefall for many years increased; 1.53 in 2005 to 1.54 in 2006. It is still far below the 2.1 sustainable rate.

Even in the U.S. there are less than 15 states that have sustainable population fertility rates of 2.1 or higher.

Japan’s NPG rate is the worst in the industrial world.

TOKYO, May 5 -- Japan celebrated a national holiday on Monday in honor of its children. But Children's Day might just as easily have been a national day of mourning.

For this is the land of disappearing children and a slow-motion demographic catastrophe that is without precedent in the developed world.

The number of children has declined for 27 consecutive years, a government report said over the weekend. Japan now has fewer children who are 14 or younger than at any time since 1908.

The proportion of children in the population fell to an all-time low of 13.5 percent. That number has been falling for 34 straight years and is the lowest among 31 major countries, according to the report. In the United States, children account for about 20 percent of the population.


China’s “one child” policy has already led to a desperate lack of women since families want that “one child” to be male. I think that China’s already lying about fertility rates and within the next 10 years or so we will see where that shortsighted policy will lead them.

UN data shows that global population will begin to decline in the 2050. While the optimistic projection show that population growth might begin to raise after that, I’m not impressed with their global projections. As for the UN’s “New Europe” projection, the outlook is almost desperate.

,
The UN projects that;

” In the so-called "New Europe", the situation is even gloomier. According to UN projections, Latvia will lose 44 percent of its population by 2050 as a result of demographic trends. In Estonia, the population is expected to shrink by 52 percent, in Bulgaria 36 percent, in Ukraine 35 percent, and in Russia 30 percent. In comparison with these figures, the projected population decline in Italy (22 percent), the Czech Republic (17 percent), Poland (15 percent) or Slovakia (8 percent) looks like a small decrease. France and Germany will lose relatively little population, and the population of the United Kingdom will even see a slight growth -- thanks to immigrants.”



There are already ghost villages in Russia and where population declines have lead to forest reclaiming cultivated land.

The population declined is all across Europe with Ireland being the only country in Europe with a positive population growth.

The unintended consequences?

Eurabia.

From Germany
to Spain to Italy declining birth rates among the native population is an open invitation to immigrants, mostly Muslim, to repopulate those country.

When the supporters of Socialism preached “cradle to grave” benefits they didn’t realized that the “graves” were going to out number the “cradles’ fairly quickly.

I suspect that many of us will live long enough to see what's going to happen next. From all the available evidence it's certainly not going to be a long drawn out process. More like a snowball going down hill; slowly picking up speed, ponderous and inevitable


While well intentioned, this is bigotry. And I noticed those bigots all waited to get themselves and their children born before calling for population control.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Population

Postby shostakovich » Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:26 pm

BigJon@Work wrote:Prosperity brings population control. Nothing else has worked so far.


Interesting if true, but the prosperous will always be a minority, so it will never be a global check on growth.
Shos
shostakovich
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2000 1:01 am
Location: windsor, ct, usa

Re: Population

Postby shostakovich » Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:42 pm

Shapley wrote:If we took all 6,000,000,000 people in the world, and relocated them to Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, the population density would be less than half that of New York City.


Not so. You and I and all New Yorkers would be in Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona. NYC would have zero density. Hypothetical silliness justifies doing nothing about a real problem. NYC can hold its population because of vertical housing, which is not abundant in the 3 states you picked. The people who end up with acres of desert would not be happy campers. NYC can not sustain its own population, nor the 3 states 6 billion. Get serious.
Shos
shostakovich
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2000 1:01 am
Location: windsor, ct, usa

Re: Population

Postby shostakovich » Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:00 pm

GreatCarouser wrote:So where is that 'light' from centuries past to tell us something like "Remember 'be fruitful and multiply'? We need to modify that..." ?


He was talking to a primitive people in a primitive time, assuming He ever said it. Millenia later, with a partially enlightened world we do need to modify that. Unfortunately, at the present time, if the enlightened limited themselves, we'd be in worse shape. A battle of religions may be necessary. Theoretically, it could be done with words and ideas. Practically, that ain't the way it will happen. Too many people have such an emotional attachment to their religions, that reason will not penetrate.
Shos

PS: I think this last statement does not apply to the vast majority on the BBB.
shostakovich
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2000 1:01 am
Location: windsor, ct, usa

Re: Population

Postby shostakovich » Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:33 pm

I find statistics fascinating, too. ZPG, NPG, MPG, PGA ----------- really are beside the point. The earth is finite. There will be a time when the earth can not sustain the population it has now or even a billion people. Natural resources will run low. Food sources will run low. Of course, cannibalism could go a long way to solving that problem as well as the population problem. Climate change may reduce the amount of land on which people can live. Nuclear power, which many people extoll now, will DEFINITELY reduce the amount of land and water on/in which anything can live. Human history goes back less than 10 thousand years. It will not last another 10 thousand without a change in attitude about population. We, meaning our distant descendents, will have to learn again how to live with (and within) nature in order to survive. Thinking "green" is a possible start.
Shos
shostakovich
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2000 1:01 am
Location: windsor, ct, usa

Re: Population

Postby Haggis@wk » Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:11 pm

shostakovich wrote:I find statistics fascinating, too. ZPG, NPG, MPG, PGA ----------- really are beside the point. The earth is finite. There will be a time when the earth can not sustain the population it has now or even a billion people. Natural resources will run low. Food sources will run low. Of course, cannibalism could go a long way to solving that problem as well as the population problem. Climate change may reduce the amount of land on which people can live. Nuclear power, which many people extoll now, will DEFINITELY reduce the amount of land and water on/in which anything can live. Human history goes back less than 10 thousand years. It will not last another 10 thousand without a change in attitude about population. We, meaning our distant descendents, will have to learn again how to live with (and within) nature in order to survive. Thinking "green" is a possible start.
Shos



You sound almost wistful
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Next

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]