interesting article, rarely do I see the challenges of the world addressed from this point of view, but it closely echos my own - that we worry so much about saving lives and growing more food which only worsens perhaps the biggest issue - too many people
Still waiting for that Malthusian catastrophe, huh.
Still waiting for that Malthusian catastrophe, huh.
So one of the standard responses when you try to discuss the issue of overpopulation:
“Malthus has been proven wrong time and time again”
not really the case, Malthus never proposed a particular time when his scenario would play out. It may never play out of course, but the fact that we have grown to 7 billion people so far says nothing about whether there are upper limits to world population, and of course there are upper limits, even if we can’t know what they are (though I think we can put very reasonable bounds on it)
I do think a few catastrophes can and will happen to “normalise” the population. Of course wars don’t kill the numbers of people they used to.
This is probably why we don’t want to solve too many death-sentence diseases.
I am being a bit flip here, btw.
Here ya go Jack; we fought this battle a few years ago and folks ultimately decided that in the Lav Room, arguing over “faith” or, which short term politician was a bigger crook, is a better use of their time.
There is no hunger problem in the world today, nor will there be.
Look at all the fatties eating cheese curls using their food stamps to get them!!!
Seriosuly though, where is the hunger problem in the world today–it doesn’t exist and never will.
There is no hunger problem in the world today, nor will there be.
Ok, an interesting basis from which to start a discussion,.
Obviously if population continued to grow at the current rate, at some point there would be a hunger problem.
But, as food starts becomes scarce its entirely possible population will self limit ahead of any sort of crisis situation.
however, its also possible (I think) that certain resource constraints could pop up on us fairly quickly and cause world hunger problems faster than population can adjust for, as that would take a couple generations.
Things that could do this:
world mined fertilizers reserves could begin to run dry, or war could make them inaccessible
clean water could become scarce suddenly due to use in tar sands and oil shale processing, and/or bio fuel production
oil production could start to drop quickly making it impossible to run the industrial agriculture complex which we need to feed 7 billion people
global warming driven changes could make current agriculture hot spots less productive, and it would take us a few years to adjust.
now I agree, none of these things may come to pass. if everything above happens gradually enough, everything COULD be fine. discuss.
Hey, we’re animals after all. Who wouldn’t use free money to get cheese!?
The “biggest problem” with population growth is, well, who will volunteer to die first. Are you willing and able to tell anyone that they are not allowed to reproduce, or that they are N+1 and therefore are not authorized to consume any more resources? Are you willing to allow anyone to tell YOU that? Which population outside of the US or even the First World are you prepared to demand concessions on population growth or reducing their mismanagement of resources?
Early philosophers realized these “biggest problems” would arise, hence the proverb about the mice with a bell and a certain cat.
Oh, and by the way, population growth has for the most part reversed in the last few decades, so the overpopulation myth is likely to remain an unproven theory for at least the next few decades. Which is more than enough time for the human species to begin serious space exploration which will likely bring enormous amounts of new technology and resources that will increase the available room for growth.
http://www.un.org/.../poppressrelease.pdf
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/...in/ed20100115a2.html
http://geography.about.com/...data/a/russiapop.htm
http://www.prb.org/...raziltfrdecline.aspx
Obviously if population continued to grow at the current rate, at some point there would be a hunger problem.
I wouldn’t consider that “obvious” at all, unless you think it’s obvious that humanity will remain earthbound or that it’s obvious that the universe is finite.
.
yes, it is a working assumption that we will remain earthbound.
please note the use of the phrase “working assumption” and do not reply to point out that it is POSSIBLE we may not remain earth bound. that is not necessary, I am already aware of it.
Obviously if population continued to grow at the current rate, at some point there would be a hunger problem.
I wouldn’t consider that “obvious” at all, unless you think it’s obvious that humanity will remain earthbound or that it’s obvious that the universe is finite.
The “biggest problem” with population growth is, well, who will volunteer to die first.
easy, nobody has to die first.
Are you willing and able to tell anyone that they are not allowed to reproduce,
willing sure, or willing to impose family size limits sure. not that anyone is going to listen to me!
Are you willing to allow anyone to tell YOU that?
yes
Which population outside of the US or even the First World are you prepared to demand concessions on population growth or reducing their mismanagement of resources?
there are a hundred different population reduction protocols you could imagine, that would be fair or unfair in various ways. None of them will be liked by everybody of course =)
Oh, and by the way, population growth has for the most part reversed in the last few decades
“reversed” would imply that it is decreasing, which is not the case. It is still headed up. It is merely heading up at slightly less steep of a slope than previously.
Which is more than enough time for the human species to begin serious space exploration which will likely bring enormous amounts of new technology and resources that will increase the available room for growth.
that is the ultimate star trekkean dream, however it seems that nations are trending towards having less and less resources to spend on space travel. the space shuttle is done, nasa funding is dwindling, we are having trouble evening finding the money to keep the GPS satellite network in working order.
The question will be weather we have the resources to feed our growing population and at the same time explore space and colonize other planets…something that will take more energy than any previous human endeavor, at a time when world energy production is starintg to leveling out, instead of increasing.
I think Vechhia Capra above just gave the best answer as to why, if there is a problem with overpopulation, (which he/she claims is a myth), there really is no workable solution.
Who do we tell they can’t breed?
Who do we kill off?
Just not much that can be done, other than build more houses and infrastructure and design ways to live with the problem. If that does not work, fight it out over the resources that are left when the time comes.
Examples exist, both in present and past history, of societies that have managed to self regulate their own population, via various means. some of the most interesting examples are pacific islands that did so and manged to avoid the malthusian catastrophe that Easter Island suffered.
So it is certainly possible, though not easy, and many societies would have to alter some strong religious beliefs to do so. But that does happen.
I think Vechhia Capra above just gave the best answer as to why, if there is a problem with overpopulation, (which he/she claims is a myth), there really is no workable solution.
Who do we tell they can’t breed?
Who do we kill off?
Just not much that can be done, other than build more houses and infrastructure and design ways to live with the problem. If that does not work, fight it out over the resources that are left when the time comes.
I have been saying this for years. Many people view this as an attack on religion and Govt. interfering with their right to have children. It’s nuts. Too many people = poverty and starvation. What about the right
of the living?
I wouldn’t consider that “obvious” at all, unless you think it’s obvious that humanity will remain earthbound or that it’s obvious that the universe is finite.
We can do the math. Give me your estimate for when we’ll be able to do mass off-earth emigration
“Malthus has been proven wrong time and time again”
not really the case, Malthus never proposed a particular time when his scenario would play out.
However that may be, his central argument has been proven clearly false. As stated in his Essay on the Principle of Population, p. 4: “Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.”
Malthus wrote his essay in 1798. If what he claimed then were true, then the vast majority of people being born today would be starving. QED.
Like just about all the classical economists from Adam Smith to Karl Marx (yes, Marx fits into that school), Malthus failed to grasp the basic relationship between economic action and the human mind: Production and consumption cannot be delimited by mathematical equations, because human beings use their minds both to develop continually better methods of production and to regulate their consumption. In particular, the production of food does not increase proportionally with the available labor and other means, because of continually improving technological improvements.
hat we worry so much about saving lives and growing more food which only worsens perhaps the biggest issue - too many people
We ignore it because it’s the same problem as global warming. Who’s to blame? What’s the real limit on how many people the earth can hold? 1 Billion at US standard of living? 20 Billion by cave man standards? Who’s going to give what up? Who’s going to make those choices?
The problem is too nebulous as to not have any sufficient answers that can be “Put in place”. People have to CHOOSE to not have more kids.
In short people will make this decisions just like they will with fossil fuels…or they will die off.
~Matt