A Deceptively Simple Question

[vz71]

If wealth and economic resource distribution is poorly managed, globally speaking, the same must be said of human resources. And economists, I’m sorry to say, are not generally known for their concern about humanitarian and environmental issues…

It is interesting to see who thinks what of humanity and where they sit in this type of debate.

Perhaps the debate is not so much between people that disbelieve a population bomb and those that do as much as it is between those that look at humanity as having dignity and respect that God has given us and those that look at humanity as simply another resource to be managed.

 

[spn82756]

I think it was said most concisely by stating…and I paraphrase…

It’s not the earth’s population that is the problem…it’s how we are managing our resources.

What is the birth vs death rate in Europe right now? People are coming from Africa…Asia and the Middle East to fill jobs.

 

[1ke]

At yet many countries with vast populations are comparatively poor in terms of economy and infrastructure - consider many African nations, vast areas of rural China, India, South-East Asia. If wealth and economic resource distribution is poorly managed, globally speaking, the same must be said of human resources. And economists, I’m sorry to say, are not generally known for their concern about humanitarian and environmental issues…

These are a function of their corrupt governments, not any true population issue or lack of resources.

Their governments keep them poor, brutalize them, and mismanage resources and cut them off from meaningful trade and the ability to advance and prosper. These governments brutally repress and kill their own people, keep food from them, starve them, steal the aid sent to them, and on and on.

This is **not **a population or a resource problem, this is a problem of human greed and sin.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

These are a function of their corrupt governments, not any true population issue or lack of resources.

Their governments keep them poor, brutalize them, and mismanage resources and cut them off from meaningful trade and the ability to advance and prosper. These governments brutally repress and kill their own people, keep food from them, starve them, steal the aid sent to them, and on and on.

This is **not **a population or a resource problem, this is a problem of human greed and sin.

This is such an excellent point.

Some people apparently think all they need to do to bring about Utopia is ‘limit reproduction’. . .as though somehow magically all the ‘resources’ will then be available to the fortunate few.

Suppose we did find a magical formula that said exactly how many people in, say, Cote D’Ivore could live and ensure perpetual reusable resources, adequate standard of living, housing, etc. Let’s say it is 3 million people. The government announces this, and by all sorts of means (sterilization, abortion, euthanasia) the country is brought to the magic number.

Does everybody live 'happily ever after"? Heck no. Because (as is so often the case in human history) a junta takes power. The leaders take over the whole infrastructure of the country. They cause starvation (by taking too much of the food supply), they tap out the renewable resources in their conspicuous consumption, and by their brutality they kill enough of the people, especially of women, that the population is not going to renew itself and within the next 100 years will essentially die off, leaving the land a toxic cesspool and arid waste.

And the fact that they didn’t ‘overpopulate’ didn’t help them in any way. In fact, had they not done so, there might have been enough people to ‘overthrow’ the dictators and prevent the catastrophe that followed.

 

[tjm190]

How one sided.

The claim is there that medical science will continue to progress and create problems.
Yet no such faith is placed upon agricultural science.

Even if medical science stops dead, we will need twice as much food in 70 years. Bad news- our affordable water is dwindling and the petroleum based fertilizers go away when the oil does.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh, and one further point.

People might object to my scenario above as ‘only speculative’. But I can point out that I have the documentation of many events in recorded history to prove that these scenarios can, and do, occur.

And we have absolutely no documentation of the perfect ‘not overpopulated’ society (none having ever existed according to the pundits of ‘humanity is the ruin of earth’) so it is far more speculative to imagine that ‘population check’ will result in the scenes of ‘perfection’ that are portrayed of the perfect stewardship of earth, etc.

 

[tjm190]

These are a function of their corrupt governments, not any true population issue or lack of resources.

Their governments keep them poor, brutalize them, and mismanage resources and cut them off from meaningful trade and the ability to advance and prosper. These governments brutally repress and kill their own people, keep food from them, starve them, steal the aid sent to them, and on and on.

This is **not **a population or a resource problem, this is a problem of human greed and sin.

So the decreasing fallow periods and soil depletion in Indonesia are due to a corrupt government? Are the dictators in Africa running around causing desertification?

 

[vz71]

Even if medical science stops dead, we will need twice as much food in 70 years.

No we do not.

You assume a one to one ratio when there is no reason to expect that, and you are also assuming that we are already 100% efficient with distribution of the food we have.

Neither assumption is necessary, and both are misleading.

Rather then assuming that we simply need to double our food, it is far more rational to look at food distribution and see where we can improve the process.
Once the distribution is as close to 100% efficient as we can get it, then look at food production itself and seeing where it can be increased.

There is no problem with overpopulation, as a previous poster said so wisely, the problem is with human greed and sin.

 

[spn82756]

There is no problem with overpopulation, as a previous poster said so wisely, the problem is with human greed and sin.

Again…EXACTLY!

 

[spn82756]

No we do not.

You assume a one to one ratio when there is no reason to expect that, and you are also assuming that we are already 100% efficient with distribution of the food we have.

Neither assumption is necessary, and both are misleading.

Rather then assuming that we simply need to double our food, it is far more rational to look at food distribution and see where we can improve the process.
Once the distribution is as close to 100% efficient as we can get it, then look at food production itself and seeing where it can be increased.

There is no problem with overpopulation, as a previous poster said so wisely, the problem is with human greed and sin.

vz71…you notice that the nearly zero population growth I posted above has not been addressed by the folks who think we are over populating.

 

[vz71]

vz71…you notice that the nearly zero population growth I posted above has not been addressed by the folks who think we are over populating.

Not only are proponents of this population problem ignoiring it, they also support unwarranted assumptions to support the case that there is a problem.

This looks suspiciously like a goal is already in mind and a convenient crisis and solution has been made up to suit.

 

[fix]

Not only are proponents of this population problem ignoiring it, they also support unwarranted assumptions to support the case that there is a problem.

This looks suspiciously like a goal is already in mind and a convenient crisis and solution has been made up to suit.

Population control folks see humans as the problem.

 

[tjm190]

vz71…you notice that the nearly zero population growth I posted above has not been addressed by the folks who think we are over populating.

You stated that the world’s population growth rate is near zero?

 

[tjm190]

Population control folks see humans as the problem.

Hmmm… so observing the fact that the Earth can not sustain our current population, let alone current population trends, means you think humans are the problem?

 

[spn82756]

You stated that the world’s population growth rate is near zero?

No… I was referring to Europe.

 

[vz71]

Hmmm… so observing the fact that the Earth can not sustain our current population, let alone current population trends, means you think humans are the problem?

No.
It means that the person observing the problem has been very badly misinformed.
However, once the real information is given a person, what they do with it is going to tell. Does this person embrace the human race or do they see humans as the problem?

One need look at the prospective ‘fix’ for this made up issue to see the real agenda behind such a story.

 

[Sair]

No we do not.

You assume a one to one ratio when there is no reason to expect that, and you are also assuming that we are already 100% efficient with distribution of the food we have.

Neither assumption is necessary, and both are misleading.

Rather then assuming that we simply need to double our food, it is far more rational to look at food distribution and see where we can improve the process.
Once the distribution is as close to 100% efficient as we can get it, then look at food production itself and seeing where it can be increased.

There is no problem with overpopulation, as a previous poster said so wisely, the problem is with human greed and sin.

Food distribution is likely to equalise once every human is content to accept subsistence living - staple grains, the odd fruit, seasonal vegetables and minimal animal protein. That seems to me to be a worthy goal, but I can’t speak for everyone. Until every single person in the West accepts necessary limitations on our standard of living, overpopulation will always be a problem - and we Westerners, with our affluence, will always sound like hypocrites.

 

[Spirithound]

I’m pretty sure there’s a logical fallacy inherent in that question, but it’s too late in my part of the world to look up and describe what it is.

How about limiting the number of children people have…? Not even coercively, but through pointing out that it’s not necessary to reproduce - it’s a choice. I get the feeling there are many who would not reproduce if it were not assumed to be the done thing. And I don’t see it as a bad thing to have more people thinking before they have children…

The fallacy is probably a false dichotomy or some sort of argumentum ad baculum

Anyways, there is nothing inherently wrong with limiting the number of children we have, as long as it is done licitly, ie, without artificial contraception. There are, however, problems with a narrowing age-breakdown-pyramid. There is a growing problem that there are not enough doctors, nurses, and nursing homes for our old folks.

 

[Sair]

Our ability to utilize science to efficiently grow food to feed the population is not nearly as finite as people would have us believe.
Further, until 100% of the arable land is actually in use towards this goal, the problem is with distribution…not production

So we go for the economically expensive option, rather than the natural limitation option. Let’s all just keep reproducing indefinitely and rely on underfunded scientists to solve
the problems, yeah?

Since it is you that have now made claim to other sentient creatures on this planet besides man, I believe it is your responsibility to show the evidence and proof of this.
Name these other creatures and please provide proof of their sentience.

Every other mammal and almost certainly birds, too. They are just as capable of suffering, at least physically, as we are, because they have nervous systems analagous to our own, and what’s more, they have fewer means of overcoming suffering in their natural habitats. If you have such faith in science, look at the findings of science - other creatures are affected by our inconsiderate, selfish actions. If you think the scientifically verified neurological processes of other animals are not at issue, it is up to you to prove why they don’t matter.

 

[Sair]

The fallacy is probably a false dichotomy or some sort of argumentum ad baculum

Anyways, there is nothing inherently wrong with limiting the number of children we have, as long as it is done licitly, ie, without artificial contraception. There are, however, problems with a narrowing age-breakdown-pyramid. There is a growing problem that there are not enough doctors, nurses, and nursing homes for our old folks.

I would say you’re absolutely right that there’s a false dichotomy between unfettered reproduction and coercively limited reproduction, or active destruction of humans.

As I pointed out in a previous post, social research has indicated that when women are allowed better education and offered greater social and economic opportunities, they tend to have fewer children - this may well be the answer to overpopulation. To me, this seems like an absolutely beneficial scenario.

However, there are of course other factors involved - these include distribution of resources (including human resources), working with nature rather than against it (organic and biodynamic farming, for example), and limits upon capitalist economic growth (which tends to ignore any considerations other than building big business). We have to realise that everything we do has an impact upon the rest of the world.