Arguing overpopulation?

[ValPal]

The pending crisis is NOT overpopulation, but population implosion.

A lot of people don’t consider that it is nature taking is course. Do you think it’s possible that nature (i.e., a biological system) will always allow itself to go off the cliff, or that it will start correcting itself before it gets there?

 

[Bookcat]

pop.org/

 

[tafan]

A lot of people don’t consider that it is nature taking is course. Do you think it’s possible that nature (i.e., a biological system) will always allow itself to go off the cliff, or that it will start correcting itself before it gets there?

Bordering on pantheism. Nature is God’s creation. To the extend “nature” , creation as a whole) does anything, it is because it follows Gods physical laws. The is no decision making power in nature

 

[ValPal]

Bordering on pantheism.

In your opinion, not mine.

Nature is God’s creation. To the extend “nature” , creation as a whole) does anything, it is because it follows Gods physical laws. The is no decision making power in nature

God created systems which follow certain laws. I call the biological system that abides by those laws “Nature.” I also frame my arguments in the context of those laws. Others obviously don’t; e.g., the “world’s population can fit in Texas” arguments.

 

[manualman]

A lot of people don’t consider that it is nature taking is course. Do you think it’s possible that nature (i.e., a biological system) will always allow itself to go off the cliff, or that it will start correcting itself before it gets there?

Based on this and later posts, it’s incumbent on you to describe this alleged natural corrective system in more precise details than just “it’s just Gaia magically correcting things, man.”

In pre-industrial agrarian societies (stage 0), there is a regulating equilibrium. People intentionally have large families because larger families increase the productivity of the farm and improve the chance of survival in case of disease or injury. Lack of modern medicine, sanitation and childbirth assistance lead to high mortality and low populaton growth in spite of the large families: low to modest population growth.

In stage 1, the culture remains oriented towards lots of children, but modern improvements dramatically lower mortality rates. Population booms for a few generations.

In stage 2, the growing population becomes much more urban of necessity since the amount of farmland is fairly fixed. Fertility rates plummet over a generation or two, for reasons described in stage 3 below.

In mature urban industrial societies (stage 3), children are an economic burden on families, not an income producing asset. LONG before contraception came along, established urban families were having 2-3 children each while their rural counterparts were having 5-8. When the acquisition of cash is the key to economic survival and societal rules prevent kids from meaningfully participating in said acquisition, nature nudges people towards fewer kids. These are the natural processes that actually work.

But when artificial contraception is introduced into the picture, the economic influences on people to have fewer kids are magnified by the total simplicity of achieving this ‘goal.’ (i.e. there is no COST to having fewer kids like there was when avoiding pregnancy meant avoiding sexual intimacy for a substantial percentage of the month). The contraception largely bypasses the naturally self-correcting human nature and a long term trend of depopulation is initiated. People average 1.2-1.8 kids instead of 2-3.

You seem to have been claiming that things will stabilize on their own because nature is self-correcting. But since we both agree that this process must be rational, explain to me how every single industrialized nation on earth will ever recover to at least replacement levels of fertility when the economic system heavily punishes having kids and the prevalence of contraception makes it seem to be a ‘zero cost’ way of avoiding said burden of cost. Precious few at all have more than 2 kids, which means that that portion who doesn’t marry, is infertile or die young will in the very long term result in depopulation (said 1.2-1. TFR average). I’ve provided the explanation why natural processes explain past fertility behaviors and why they will lead to long term depopulation. If you believe otherwise, then step up and explain. And explain why no stable industrial nation on earth (OK, Israel is an interesting exception) currently has an above replacement TFR.

 

[ValPal]

But when artificial contraception is introduced into the picture, the economic influences on people to have fewer kids are magnified by the total simplicity of achieving this ‘goal.’ (i.e. there is no COST to having fewer kids like there was when avoiding pregnancy meant avoiding sexual intimacy for a substantial percentage of the month). The contraception largely bypasses the naturally self-correcting human nature and a long term trend of depopulation is initiated. People average 1.2-1.8 kids instead of 2-3.

You seem to have been claiming that things will stabilize on their own because nature is self-correcting. But since we both agree that this process must be rational, explain to me how every single industrialized nation on earth will ever recover to at least replacement levels of fertility when the economic system heavily punishes having kids and the prevalence of contraception makes it seem to be a ‘zero cost’ way of avoiding said burden of cost. Precious few at all have more than 2 kids, which means that that portion who doesn’t marry, is infertile or die young will in the very long term result in depopulation (said 1.2-1. TFR average). I’ve provided the explanation why natural processes explain past fertility behaviors and why they will lead to long term depopulation. If you believe otherwise, then step up and explain. And explain why no stable industrial nation on earth (OK, Israel is an interesting exception) currently has an above replacement TFR.

What is “artificial?” Primates using tools? Industrialization?..where do such machines exist in nature? Cars?..I’ve never seen them exist naturally in, say, a rain forest.

Contraception is no more artificial than everything else in our daily lives. It is not surprisingly that an artificial solution would be the “natural” solution to an artificial environment. Move away from nature, and unnatural solutions will become prominent.

FWIW, it is unreasonable to assume that depopulation will eventually result in no population. That should be obvious, because there are segments of the population that continue to have large numbers of children. Eventually a certain part of the population will greatly reduce in number, and another will greatly increase.

 

[Stylites]

Odd to think that every person who argues that the world is overpopulated and that there shouldn’t be so many people, and that therefore murder is good, are people who are living. It’s okay for them that other people are murdered for the ‘good’ of others.

 

[ValPal]

Odd to think that every person who argues that the world is overpopulated and that there shouldn’t be so many people, and that therefore murder is good, are people who are living. It’s okay for them that other people are murdered for the ‘good’ of others.

This is the type of nonsense that one often sees in political discourse. Just paint everyone that has a certain belief with a broad brush, which makes it easier to denigrate others.

I’m one of those people that believe that resources are not infinite (along with the scientific background to understand why). I don’t believe rapidly increasing the population or squeezing everyone into Texas is the solution. I also don’t believe the murder and other such should be the solution. I believe that the human race should start living responsibly and within its means. If that doesn’t happen, then the usual solutions that happen in nature will take it’s course: conflict,war, murder, etc. I choose to avoid that; not encourage it.

 

[ahs]

… I don’t believe rapidly increasing the population or squeezing everyone into Texas is the solution.

Someone suggested that squeezing everyone into Texas might be a solution?

No, the hypothetical scenario regarding Texas was to show how ridiculous it is to claim their is a problem with overpopulation.

 

[McDale721]

No worries, once the zombie apocalypse hits, this will all be moot.

 

[ValPal]

Someone suggested that squeezing everyone into Texas might be a solution?

No, the hypothetical scenario regarding Texas was to show how ridiculous it is to claim their is a problem with overpopulation.

Space is only on factor, and focusing solely on that demonstrating how ridiculously out of touch people are with their environment and the argument. 100 people per square mile in the Brazilian Rain Forest might live very comfortably, but 100 people per square mile in the Sahara Desert might mean death for 99 of them.

It’s all about resources. Resources limit the population.

 

[ValPal]

No worries, once the zombie apocalypse hits, this will all be moot.

For most. Michonne and I will be exchanging sword techniques.

 

[manualman]

Nice dodge Valpal, “artificial” is, as you well know, not necessarily a derogatory. When a field needs plowing, there is nothing contrary to the nature of man for him to use a horse and plow or a John Deere, for that matter (the latter may have mild consequences: sitting on a tractor seat all day can make you fat and out of shape, just my darn office chair does). But at the deeper level, the use of ‘artificial’ tools in such cases doesn’t work at odds with the nature of man. But in some cases, technological meddling in the deepest parts of who we are as human beings DOES change the substance of the matter. Such is the case in contraception.

So don’t go making a smokescreen out of a minor adjective, please. You’ve done precisely what I expected you to do, which was to make the claim to rationalism, but ignore the rational explanation provided for the case contrary to yours and assert yours on a vague “it will work out somehow” hope not based on any rational process.

The challenge before you is clear. You’ve been shown that modern urban economics incentivize childlessness and that contraception has removed the natural biological counterweight, leading to a reasonable expectation that low fertility would be a problem. The assertion has been backed up with overwhelming empirical statistical data (global TFRs). But you remain convinced of your position, … just because. Well argued.

 

[ValPal]

Nice dodge Valpal, “artificial” is, as you well know, not necessarily a derogatory. When a field needs plowing, there is nothing contrary to the nature of man for him to use a horse and plow or a John Deere, for that matter (the latter may have mild consequences: sitting on a tractor seat all day can make you fat and out of shape, just my darn office chair does). But at the deeper level, the use of ‘artificial’ tools in such cases doesn’t work at odds with the nature of man. But in some cases, technological meddling in the deepest parts of who we are as human beings DOES change the substance of the matter. Such is the case in contraception.

So don’t go making a smokescreen out of a minor adjective, please. You’ve done precisely what I expected you to do, which was to make the claim to rationalism, but ignore the rational explanation provided for the case contrary to yours and assert yours on a vague “it will work out somehow” hope not based on any rational process.

The challenge before you is clear. You’ve been shown that modern urban economics incentivize childlessness and that contraception has removed the natural biological counterweight, leading to a reasonable expectation that low fertility would be a problem. The assertion has been backed up with overwhelming empirical statistical data (global TFRs). But you remain convinced of your position, … just because. Well argued.

People generally are so out of touch with nature they have no idea that they live in an artificial environment.

For example, take your modern farming example. Modern farming requires HUGE energy (name removed by moderator)uts: fossil fuels to run the machinery, petroleum for the pesticides, various fertilizers to grow the crops, etc. It pushes the yields up way over what nature can provide, and it’s obviously unsustainable. The results include soil degradation, pollution, reduction of aquifers, etc. There is little that is natural about all of this.

FWIW, your thinking is very western; direct cause = direct effect. That’s not the way nature works.

 

[manualman]

And still no rational explanation for influences that will return TFR’s to at least replacement levels. The best you can muster is “it’s complicated, but it will work, trust me.”

And an insult tossed in as a substitute for rebuttal to my argument.

 

[ValPal]

And still no rational explanation for influences that will return TFR’s to at least replacement levels. The best you can muster is “it’s complicated, but it will work, trust me.”

And an insult tossed in as a substitute for rebuttal to my argument.

Since I come from a scientific background, it is in my nature to observe things at all times and make sense of them. However, I don’t impose the western standard of observation upon my views; i.e., If “A” happens, “B” always follows. I take the more eastern view, which doesn’t impose the exactness western science impose, which is often superior since it doesn’t require an exactness on nature that nature does not have.

You can disagree with my views. However, they are consistent and based on simple common sense. Mankind’s nature on the whole does not change. Man in his natural environment will result in his actions being displayed in a natural way. Man in an artificial environment will results in his actions being displayed (often) in an artificial way. That is especially true when it comes to selfish (i.e., pleasureful) issues.

 

[manualman]

While I may just be a feeble-minded Westerner, it’s worth noting that the industrialized nations of the east are ALSO universally well below replacement levels of TFR. The impending long term depopulation pattern is an equal opportunity problem (see Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and China on the CIA TFR list).

Your closing line has me a bit confused since it argues my point rather than yours. The urban/industrial model of civilization and cultural normalization of contraception have indeed combined to alter man’s population level behavior. Where once man’s culture and environment contributed to sustaining populations, now those factors have changed to punish those with more children and provide short/medium term rewards to those who have less children. Of course there are variations and those that stand out from the crowd, but population trends DO mean things and are worth studying.

 

[_Abyssinia]

1/2 the world has a fertility rate below long term replacement level. 40 years ago an average woman 5 or 6 children, now average is 2.6

Resources

Most if not all are cheaper than ever before and more abundant

Food

Indian economist Raj Krishna said India could provide the whole world’s food supply by increasing crop yields

In 1990 it was said the world could feed 35 billion

Multiple experts think there is current capacity to feed sustainably 40 to 50 billion people even if there were no more advances in technology or science

Where people are not people fell is where are bad goverment policies that need moderisation or because of war, not because there is not enough food in the world. People are better fed currently than any time previously in recorded history

Living space

If the world’s population was put in to Alaska every person would have about 1 half the average size of an American family’s house with back and front yards or nearly 3500 square foot of space

Sources say the global population will level out at around 9.2 billion in 2050 and start to decline.

When you see images of overcrowded developing cities, you do not see the miles of countryside which is barely populated in nearly every country

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws..../the-worlds-population-concentrated-small.png

 

[ValPal]

1/2 the world has a fertility rate below long term replacement level. 40 years ago an average woman 5 or 6 children, now average is 2.6

Resources

The reference is simply a statement of personal opinion, no different that what the posts in this thread are. And, once again, it completely lacks the appropriate analysis. You don’t just throw seeds on the ground in one country and feed the entire world. It requires a very large amount of nonrenewable resources to do so.

When you see images of overcrowded developing cities, you do not see the miles of countryside which is barely populated in nearly every country

That barely populated countryside is a necessity when you have densely populated cities that obviously cannot support themselves in their own land area. Most opinions I’ve seen indicate that we live as if the earth is 1.5x its current size. Nonrenewable resources are the reason we can do so, forcing nature to do what it can’t do itself. It’s a given that the earth will depopulate at some point; it’s just a matter of how much.

 

[manualman]

Val, you accuse me of western linear thinking, but you yourself fail to see that projecting current technological limitations onto future populations is itself absurd. This is why Malthusians have ALWAYS been proven wrong for 200 years now. They always fail to account for the fruit of human ingenuity. You’re absolutely correct that we won’t be able to rely on fossil fuels forever. But we’re tantalizingly close to being able to harness NEW energy sources. There are massive supplies of hydrogen ions coating the surface of the moon waiting to be collected and gassified. Orbiting solar collectors hold the potential for collecting almost unlimited energy once we’ve licked the problem of how to store it economically for transport. Gravitational fields work suspiciously like magnetic fields which have long suggested that there may be ways to create artificial gravity fields just like we can make artificial magnetic fields (which would make orbital transport as routinely financially feasible as airline travel)…

These things are the fruit of human ingenuity that is the reflected image of God himself. But they won’t happen if future generations are so saddled with the costs of caring for an older generation that failed to adequately reproduce itself, as is happening in most industrialized nations.