Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family

[StAnastasia]

Ten miles with horse and buggy can be about an hour. On bikes, about the same or less. No oil needed…In fact, in the 1800’s that is how it was done; oil lamps on walls for light, perhaps candles; fireplaces for warmth and light; card games for fun; after Church social that lasted for hours; maybe go to town once a week for basic staples, the rest was all gotten from the acreage and the neighbors by trade. Also, one good sized tree could do the heat and cooking for a year for our big family…
So you see: the future will be… and maybe not what we imagine.

Nice reflections, Michael David, although with Catholics (and others) slacking off today when Church is a short SUV drive away, how many will take an hour buggy ride to get there?

My point is that the global population in the 1800s was around one billion, more or less in equilibrium with our use of resources. It took hundreds of thousands of years for the evolving human population to reach one billion; the population has ballooned to 6.7 billion in a little more than a century. Such growth is clearly not sustainable over the long term.

StAnastasia

 

[Michael_David]

Nice reflections, Michael David, although with Catholics (and others) slacking off today when Church is a short SUV drive away, how many will take an hour buggy ride to get there?
StAnastasia

And therein is the problem with today.

We were not too busy or too inconvenienced to go to Church… not only for the hour, but also for the 3-5 hour social after, pot lucks and cards and just having fun. Not only the family but the community meant something to all of us. We were members of the ‘bigger’ family, and did things accordingly. It was not that Church was a rule to attend, we ‘wanted’ to attend it. The rule part vanished when the desire for it took over.

This could be an attitude thing, but we were a part of the Church as the Church was a part of us.

So, we are back to the human condition of today… the many and the few… those that do and those that don’t… Where one’s Heart is, there their Treasure will be. ( Or is that visa-versa?)(Perhaps both ways). What is it that one Values? What takes Priority in one’s life? No matter what!

An hour ride out in the open of God’s Creation is nice for reflection… especially while going to Church. And it doesn’t hurt at other times too. Why are we so busy living (our) life that we really never find it? The way God intended us to live (this) life…

What is gained? What is lost?

 

[Geremia]

I’d recommend Fr. Frank Pavone’s article in the December 2008 issue of This Rock magazine about the real population bomb: not exploding but imploding.

Fr. Frank Pavone’s article will appear here for free in two months: catholic.com/thisrock/2008/

usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/03ruse.shtml

Thanks, Jennifer123, for the great USCCB “The Myth of Overpopulation and the Folks Who Brought it to You” link.

 

[Michael_David]

My point is that the global population in the 1800s was around one billion, more or less in equilibrium with our use of resources. It took hundreds of thousands of years for the evolving human population to reach one billion; the population has ballooned to 6.7 billion in a little more than a century. Such growth is clearly not sustainable over the long term.

StAnastasia

And if living (this) life means a bigger global community, then if resources are limited, it means with less of the physical stuff and more of the community stuff.

If God intends for all of us to be here, as a human community, then that ‘attitude’ with living ‘this’ life should be that… not the get everything one can while one can mentality; at the loss of many others loosing their share of these same resources.

Choices… always choices…

 

[StAnastasia]

And therein is the problem with today. …This could be an attitude thing, but we were a part of the Church as the Church was a part of us. …An hour ride out in the open of God’s Creation is nice for reflection… especially while going to Church. And it doesn’t hurt at other times too. Why are we so busy living (our) life that we really never find it? The way God intended us to live (this) life…What is gained? What is lost?

Agreed! More later; I’m off to my son’s Christmas concert at school. And my choir is singing a wonderful Christmas concert on Sunday, including a Mass by Palestrina.

StAnastasia

 

[Michael_David]

Agreed! More later; I’m off to my son’s Christmas concert at school. And my choir is singing a wonderful Christmas concert on Sunday, including a Mass by Palestrina.

StAnastasia

ENJOY!!!

 

[redhen]

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/03ruse.shtml[/URL] The Myth of Overpopulation and the Folks Who Brought it to You link.

I think the last paragraph sums up this fallacy nicely;

The population controllers continue to make their case, however. They still say the world will soon starve, and that we will soon run out of natural resources, and that the planet is running out of room. Anyone can test the theory, however. Next time you are in an airplane flying virtually anywhere in the world, even in the very populous United States, look down from on high and what you will see is a remarkably empty planet straining to be made a garden by more of us.

I believe this fallacy is called “taking words out of context”.
edit: (you can add Strawman fallacy to this as well)

No one has ever said there wasn’t enough room on the planet to accommodate the immediate future population growth. Sure, theoretically, you could give everyone x number of square feet to live on, and spread them out in the corn fields of Iowa, as Austin Ruse suggests.

But c’mon, let’s be realistic for a change, sure there’s lots of empty space, but people don’t move or migrate to the hinterlands.
Where do all the new migrants do? To the cities, and the cities continue to swell and become mega-cities.

Mexico city for example has the same population as the country of Canada.

 

[JimG]

But c’mon, let’s be realistic for a change, sure there’s lots of empty space, but people don’t move or migrate to the hinterlands.

The hinterlands? You mean, like Kansas?

You are right. People migrate to the cities because the like high population density. And high population density is good for the economy. Small towns in Kansas try to keep population to keep the economy alive. A declining population means a declining economy.

The odd thing about the “limited resources” and Malthusian arguments is that they can be made equally well at any given point in history.

An Egyptian philosopher, gazing out at the annual Nile flood in 4,000 BC might have speculated that the world was rapidly running out of resources, and could support only a limited increase in population before mass starvation set in.

A Greek philosopher in 1,000 BC might have concluded the same thing.

King David might have speculated that God’s plan must soon come to fruition, as the land of Israel was becoming overcrowded.

A Roman emperor in the year 200 AD might have considered that the Empire had reached its natural limits, and the unknown hordes lying outside its boundaries were too numerous to be fed.

A scientist in the 1700’s might have figured that the world could not much longer support an increase in population, given the known resources at the time.

Malthus in 1798 thought that the world would population would starve and run out of space within a hundred years.

Anyone can look around at any given time, and conclude that given the resources and technology of that moment in time, mankind faces imminent extinction.

And they are always wrong, because resources and technology are not static. In particular, the one resource capable of improving productivity and finding new resources—man himself—is always undervalued.

And if the doomsayers one day turn out to be right, it will be because we squandered that one productive resource.

 

[Geremia]

How can the USA have so many rigs, and planning more off shore, in Alaska, Dakota’s as well as other locations, and we get so much oil from the East? Are ours like a ‘savings account’ for when the foreign wells go dry? Or are ours doing all the agriculture, plastics, medicinal, etc… while the auto’s use is from the East?

I am sure all rigs do not produce the same amount of oil.

 

[Michael_David]

I am sure all rigs do not produce the same amount of oil.

Yes, there are different volumes, but not by 400%. There are also differences in oil types, heavy or light… and what these are refined for. And the Alaska pipeline can easily double what flows in it down to the states, if they had it.

The refineries seem to be the bottleneck for us, not the amount of crude oil. And we also have market and price manipulation to keep the purveyors of this resource feeling like bringing it to us… for a (hefty) fee!

It is not only the rig count, but that is one of the factors to consider when viewing this commodity.

 

[redhen]

You are right. People migrate to the cities because the like high population density

Hehe, I would love to get out of the city, unfortunately, the real reason people move here is because that’s where the jobs are.

Anyone can look around at any given time, and conclude that given the resources and technology of that moment in time, mankind faces imminent extinction.

And they are always wrong, because resources and technology are not static. In particular, the one resource capable of improving productivity and finding new resources—man himself—is always undervalued.

Do you really think the ancient Greeks and Romans thought they were running out of land and resources? In hindsight of course, they were. Lebanon used to be covered in cedar trees. Greece and Italy were also heavily forested, now they’re reduced to grazing sheep on barren hills. The moors in England were also once dense forests 2,000 years ago.

Don’t get me wrong, despite the fact that 99% of all the species that ever existed, are now extinct, I don’t advocate a voluntary human extinction movement.There is much in our species to be admired.

However, our fecund success has been to the detriment of all the other species on our planet, who, for all we know, are our only companions in the cosmos.

One more time, in case someone missed my earlier post;
well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

 

[JimG]

However, our fecund success has been to the detriment of all the other species on our planet, who, for all we know, are our only companions in the cosmos.

One more time, in case someone missed my earlier post;
well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

I am personally happy not be sharing the planet with those extinct species, dinosaurs in particular. If we had the obligation to preserve every species, now that really would be overcrowding.

But let’s give thanks for CO2 production, since without it, there could be no forests.

 

[redhen]

I am personally happy not be sharing the planet with those extinct species, dinosaurs in particular.

Amen. Thank God for that asteroid!

If we had the obligation to preserve every species, now that really would be overcrowding.

I call reductio ad absurdum on this one.

I repeat: “The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth’s limits.”

Union of Concerned Scientists (1992). World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html

Editor’s Note: Some 1,700 of the world’s leading scientists, including** the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences**, issued this appeal in November 1992. Their message is still valid today

 

[Jennifer123]

Hehe, I would love to get out of the city, unfortunately, the real reason people move here is because that’s where the jobs are.

But how does that prove overpopulation? I mean, how is it that 100 years ago living to 50 was an acheivement with all the disease, child labor, rat infested tenements, on and on, but yet for most people the standard of living is much better now than it was then? Even with the fact that some people are still mired in that lifestyle, IT IS NOT DUE TO POPULATION. It is due to poor political practices. Compare Sudan,sparsely populated, with Hong Kong.

 

[Jennifer123]

Fr. Frank Pavone’s article will appear here for free in two months: catholic.com/thisrock/2008/Thanks, Jennifer123, for the great USCCB “The Myth of Overpopulation and the Folks Who Brought it to You” link.

Thanks for reposting them - you can lead a horse to water…

 

[Michael_David]

But how does that prove overpopulation? I mean, how is it that 100 years ago living to 50 was an acheivement with all the disease, child labor, rat infested tenements, on and on, but yet for most people the standard of living is much better now than it was then? Even with the fact that some people are still mired in that lifestyle, IT IS NOT DUE TO POPULATION.

May I go back even more then 100 years and say that most of the people in the Old Testament lived in the area of 800-900 years.

Looks like long life started early… then went sour… and now is going back up. Looking at this, we almost did kill ourselves off before just recently getting the life-span to again increase.

What would the population do if the life span was say 50? If 150? If 300? If even back to 800’s??? This life-span almost is more telling about population control then is the planets resources.

Do we control the resources (earth), or do the resources (earth) control us?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Do you really think the ancient Greeks and Romans thought they were running out of land and resources? In hindsight of course, they were. Lebanon used to be covered in cedar trees. Greece and Italy were also heavily forested, now they’re reduced to grazing sheep on barren hills. The moors in England were also once dense forests 2,000 years ago.

Don’t get me wrong, despite the fact that 99% of all the species that ever existed, are now extinct, I don’t advocate a voluntary human extinction movement.There is much in our species to be admired.

However, our fecund success has been to the detriment of all the other species on our planet, who, for all we know, are our only companions in the cosmos.

One more time, in case someone missed my earlier post;
well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

The ancients had insufficient knowledge to prevent things like deforestation and savage erosion. In my state, by way of contrary example, forest land is growing. Not only is it growing, it’s healthier than it once was, because of good management. And, and 80% of it is owned by private landowners. Back when I was a kid, soil depletion was a problem. Now, in my area at least, people rebuild soils. I do that myself. People do things differently now if they have the knowhow and the resources to do it with.

Minks, river otters, bald eagles, herons, turkeys and all kinds of wildlife that was not here or was extremely rare when I was a kid are here now in great numbers. The deer are so plentiful, they are a nuisance. Our streams teem with wild trout. I very much doubt the Indians who lived here had so much wildlife around them.

I don’t doubt there are areas on earth that are being devastated by poor practices. Typically, those are areas where governments do not care what they do, and will sell anything for money to hide away in Swiss banks.

It’s not the population. It’s whether people know how to take care of the land and whether they are motivated to do it.

 

[survive]

When population grows dense, stress decreases sex drive and fertility in most adults. At least that’s a theory my experience supports most of the time.
If women had the freedom to choose when and whom to marry and how often and when to have sex but there was no ABC or abortion available, most would probably choose to marry at about 16-17 years of age and would have a child about every four years, having the first at 18. This is an average of a lot of data I don’t remember where I picked up, but it jibes with my experiences as well so I’m going along with it for now. About every fifth child would be miscarried or stillborn. That’s six live babies born. Some women have the multiple-birth gene, and some have identical multiples, no twin gene required, so we can round it to seven. This is fewer than the number they tend to have when someone else demands they have more or when they fear almost all will die in childhood. But it is more than the number they have when they are given the message that no one wants their children in the world, that motherhood is a tragedy, that the time to begin serious courtship is years after prime fertility in the mid-20’s, when society’s standard of constant sexual availability makes the Pill a part of social acceptance, etc. So it would be a good in-between number of kids. Around one would die in childhood or early adolescence, one would choose not to marry, one would happen to be infertile, one would be unable to find a spouse, and three would carry on. That’s my statistical guess anyway.
Gen.1: 5000
Gen 2: 7500
Gen 3: 11250
Gen 4: 16875
Gen 5: 25313
This is actually disaster insurance for a population. If a natural disaster occurs and reduces the population by half on average every 50-odd years, such a level of fertility would mean a very slight growth.

 

[JimG]

When population grows dense, stress decreases sex drive and fertility in most adults.

You mean–there’s no sex in the city?

 

[StAnastasia]

ENJOY!!!

Thanks – it was gorgeous today at the dress rehearsal. We have an augmented choir of twenty voices, plus an early music chamber ensemble of 3 sackbutts, 3 violas da gamba, cornetto, archlute, and Renaissance drums. I suggested we make a CD for the parish from the performance, and the choir director was warmly receptive to this.

I suspect we will see more of this community music making as the end of affordable oil and a shrinking population brings people into greater local contact with less far-flung travel. Les media saturation and more sacred music!

StAnastasia