How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[GodLovesTheSpek]

And GBU2, Spek, but still: “Don’t try to lengthen your life b/c if you do, the world will overpopulate?”

Anybody who listens to such an argument would not be human.

And again, it’s not necessary. There has been no lengthening of the reproductive cycle, and there’s not likely to be. And for every poison, virus, etc that human science eliminates, another one surfaces. Science cured diphteria; now there’s AIDS. It purified drinking water; now there’s mercury in the fish; etc.

GB and ICXC NIKA.

Somehow, I don’t think my meaning is being viewed as I intend.

I’m not addressing any one item. It’s the collection of items over time.

Man will ultimately fail in the quest for Earthly eternal life yet there are those who will not accept the futility of the failure and will always try in vain. Trying in vain they leave behind the wreckage. The wreckage of: genocide, abortion, contraception, eugenics, etc. I do not believe there will be overpopulation (whoever declares whatever that means), either, but there are those who are, trying in vain to find the fountain of youth with no regard how they get there including methods which could theoretically lead to overpopulation which in turn leads some to propose Evil “solutions”.

In one of my earlier posts on this thread, I indicated that when the subject of “overpopulation” is discussed these days, the justification of abortion is usually hiding around somewhere.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

We have learned that we can, in fact, increase food production to feed dramatically increased populations.

But, man persists in committing immoral acts to deal with false statements of problems.

Hitler blamed the Jews, so he carried out his “final solution” of extermination.

Among other things, in exterminating the Jews, he wiped out his base of scientific and engineering talent.

The earth has plenty of resources; it is one giant resource.

The planet has naturally recovered from terrible disasters such as meteor hits and volcanic eruptions and major movements in tectonic plates, and yet we blame a tiny increase in carbon dioxide on man and then attempt to impose draconian limits on carbon dioxide. We even claim that increases in temperature and carbon dioxide will destroy agriculture, when we ALSO know that the optimum level of carbon dioxide is many times the present level.

And to attempt to control the behavior of others we even fabricate data. These fabrications and outright lies just defy common sense and history.

This morning I found this while surfing:

An email this morning from a friend in Canada:

After a long stretch of years with snowstorms “celebrating” Earth Day, it got cancelled in Edmonton for 2011. Not even the staunchest Greens could take any more of the
embarrassment of flagging a “Stop Global Warming” sign in a -15C blizzard. We got
a fresh six inches of snow on Thursday, but the a few degrees “warm”, together with the odd ray of sunshine has melted some of that away. The field in Hawrelek Park, where the main Earth Day celebrations used to be held, still has lots of deep drifts of winter snow.

From an email caution earlier today, it also looks like the opening of my Home Track
NASCAR racing season will be delayed until May 14. I race on the northenmost
NASCAR sanctioned track, Edmonton International Raceway, in the third division
of the NASCAR Whelen All-American series pretty much every Saturday evening
through the summer, and for the first time we may have a “snow-out” for the season
opener on May 7.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Just to make the point about false and misleading data, this was posted this morning on another Web site:

There’s a new TWTW newsletter posted today or yesterday available at www.sepp.org

Takes the EPA apart … again.

Here’s the link to the whole TWTW file … interesting just to read the index.

sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm

Here’s the direct link to the latest TWTW newsletter:

sepp.org/twtwfiles/2011/TWTW%202011-4-16.pdf

As usual, the TWTW newsletter is packed with interesting items; however, here is an excerpt from the “headline” front page article: [apologies for not getting rid of the word/line wraps … every time I fix it, the line breaks occur someplace else.]

The Week That Was: 2011-04-16 (April 16, 2011)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project
###################################################
PLEASE NOTE: The complete TWTW, including the articles, can be downloaded in an easily printable
form at the SEPP web site: www.sepp.org.
###################################################
Quote of the Week:
“EPA determined in December 2009 that climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases
threatens the public’s health and the environment.” EPA “Denial of Petitions…” (Emphasis added)
###################################################
Number of the Week: 22
###################################################
THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

GOOD NEWS! Heartland Institute is sponsoring the Sixth International Conference on Climate Change
(ICCC-6) to take place in Washington, DC from breakfast Thursday, June 30, to noon Friday, July 1, at
the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel. This event will be more modest than in the past, yet as informative
and, perhaps, even more challenging to the orthodoxy. Of course, SEPP is a co-sponsor. Details to follow!

---

The above quote illustrates the extent to which the leadership of the EPA will ignore all science that
interferes with its quest for power. The work of Sherwood, Craig, and Keith Idso, and many other
scientists, has clearly established that an atmosphere enriched with carbon dioxide provides for more
robust plant growth than the current atmosphere. Thus, a carbon dioxide enriched atmosphere is a great
benefit to agriculture, humanity, and the environment. The EPA ignores this work.

Further, the threat to the public’s health is based on numerical models that have never been verified and
are likely very wrong. Generally recognized calculations based on the “greenhouse theory” demonstrate
that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will result in an increase of about 1 deg C. Even the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognizes this. When compared with the natural
temperature changes for the past 20,000 years, when the last ice age reached its maximum extent, an
increase of 1 deg. C is not particularly significant.

The creators of the numerical models assumed that a small initial warming from carbon dioxide would be
greatly amplified by a significant warming from an increase in atmospheric water vapor, centered above
the tropics in the mid-troposphere (about 8 to 12 km). Twenty years of research have failed to uncover
this hot spot. Yet, the EPA and the creators of the numerical models have ignored this scientific failure.

Instead, the EPA cites the work of the IPCC, which was followed by the work of the U.S. National
Academy of Science and the U.S. Global Change Research Program, all of which ignore the crucial
scientific failure. Further, EPA disguises this failure by citing melting Arctic ice, sea level rise, etc. All
these claims may be true, but they do not establish cause. It is the unsubstantiated claim that increasing
atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming, that provides the
sole scientific justification for the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

EPA’s Alan Carlin recognized that the science behind the Endangerment Finding was inadequate, but was
ignored and his work hushed-up. Please see Articles #1, Article # 2, and articles under “Challenging the
Orthodoxy.” For the EPA “Denial of Petitions…” please see:
epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html

---

Number of the Week: 22: According to the IPCC-AR4, greenhouse gas emissions have a Global Mean
Radiative Forcing effect on climate 22 times greater than solar irradiance, the only natural influence
considered. It is claimed that the level of scientific understanding is high for the influence of greenhouse
gases. Yet, in spite of IPCC claims of high knowledge, and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide,
atmospheric temperatures reached a peak in 1998, an El Nino year, and have not gone above that since.
The gases are CO2, CH4, N2O, and Halocarbons. 2007, p. 32. The IPCC totally ignores the much more
important climate effects on variations in solar activity other than irradiance. These are summarized in the
2008 NIPCC report (p.12) “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate,” direct published evidence
confirms this fact.

 

[Peepers]

So called “pundits” have been decrying for at least a century [you can find the cute quotes] about how we are running out of every natural resource. Including oil.

Exploring for oil and gas is quite expensive. Because of the cost, the industry only pursues reserves of about 40 years.

All the statements about probably scarcity have been made by political science majors … not engineers and not economists.

The problem is that the poly sci folks don’t know one whit about how the planet Earth actually works. They have no actual hands-on experience. Guys like Al Gore or some of the movie stars. “Marxist theorists”. Whatever that is. “Socialists” who, if put in charge of the Sahara Desert, would run out of sand. The only thing that they are good at is what they learned at the Pol Pot School of Maintaining Order and Obedience. North Korea which according to another thread here on CAF is running out of food. Or Cuba which has had to hire China to help it drill for oil off the coast of Florida. Or Zimbabwe, which used to be the breadbasket of Africa, but since embracing socialism has become the basketcase of Africa.

And if you really believe in man-made climate change, then visit Leptis Magna. Used to be a major wheat growing area but is now one giant sand dune with the wreckage of the town and the port still there. But it went “away” not twenty years ago, but twenty CENTURIES ago.

And, if you read back, you will find that for decades and decades, the pundits have been complaining that we will run out in 40 years.

Hasn’t happened.

What has happened is that in the past two years, the oil and gas people have discovered enough shale oil and shale natural gas to last not 40 years, but … they got excited … 500 years. Not merely 40 years but 500 years. Five Hundred Years.

AND we know of other natural resources that are there but we haven’t yet figured out how the get them out … how to extract them.

The planet earth is one giant natural resource. Dig down and you will find all kinds of useful stuff.

If you want a pretty well balanced article on the current data and thinking on petroleum depletion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

I agree with you in general that technology and exploration provides hope for new sourced of energy, including petroleum still undiscovered, or un-extracted.

There is a stewardship and health issue though too. The more we can convert to renewable sources, the healthier we will be. Petroleum is a poisonous source of energy.Many of the renewable sources can also be decentralized. It would be nice to be rid of the likes of BP and Exxon, if we could do it.

 

[GEddie]

If you want a pretty well balanced article on the current data and thinking on petroleum depletion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

I agree with you in general that technology and exploration provides hope for new sourced of energy, including petroleum still undiscovered, or un-extracted.

There is a stewardship and health issue though too. The more we can convert to renewable sources, the healthier we will be. Petroleum is a poisonous source of energy.Many of the renewable sources can also be decentralized. It would be nice to be rid of the likes of BP and Exxon, if we could do it.

Don’t kid yourself; the world is far healthier now than just before the oil age (ca. 1860).

Back then, it was normal for a family to lose one or more children before adulthood, and for people to die from minor skin wounds that became infected.

The “absence of chemical pollution” does not equate to “human health.” Engine pollution is less unhealthy than the heaps of horse manure than it replaced/

The manufacture of vaccines, water purification, etc, cannot happen in a low energy situation. And at present states of technology, renewable will be lower energy than we have now.

If there are health issues now, it is because of a secondary issue: that processed foods can feed many times more people than natural, but are less healthy.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Peepers]

Don’t kid yourself; the world is far healthier now than just before the oil age (ca. 1860).

Back then, it was normal for a family to lose one or more children before adulthood, and for people to die from minor skin wounds that became infected.

The “absence of chemical pollution” does not equate to “human health.” Engine pollution is less unhealthy than the heaps of horse manure than it replaced/

The manufacture of vaccines, water purification, etc, cannot happen in a low energy situation. And at present states of technology, renewable will be lower energy than we have now.

If there are health issues now, it is because of a secondary issue: that processed foods can feed many times more people than natural, but are less healthy.

ICXC NIKA

True in some ways, not in others. Air and water quality in industrial cities hit their low in the 1970’s. Drinking water quality is currently declining, and is at its worst in history. Even if you are one of the non scientist (or extremely small minority among scientists) who chooses to disbelieve the global warming theories, you can’t controvert the findings on the acidification of the oceans.

Regardless of what one chooses to accept as true or false, I think that the downside is potentially so severe that we should take it serious. Sort of like Pascal’s argument. We can only improve things by practicing the best stewardship possible. If the global warming folks are all crackpots, that is OK too. We end up with a cleaner and healthier planet. If the global warming folks are right, then we still win. Scandinavian countries are converting to wind energy. Germany is ahead of schedule converting to solar. No single technology is the answer, but there is much that we can do. California is the only state in the US with a zero net energy consumption change in spite of rapid population growth because of our building standards. That is a simple change which uses low technology. We should have national standards. etc… I have gone on long enough.

 

[caoindealbhan]

I explain to my children that it is irresponsible to have many children if you do not have the means to feed and clothe them. Using the rhythm method or abstinence to prevent conception I approve of. If they choose to use contraception, that is their choice. My wife and I don’t approve of abortion, but if our children pursue that route we will help them in the grieving process. We teach our children that God wants them to act responsibly and charitably to all. We love them dearly and the Church and us expect them to love themselves and others in return.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Ireland, actually, in the mid 1800s. Not because of a lack of energy sources, but because of the potato blight. In fact, there are still fewer people there now than lived there in 1847.

The Irish potato blight is an example of why “down to nature” existence is culturally unacceptable. On that pattern, there would inevitably be mass death every few generations.

ICXC NIKA.

Ireland relied on a monoculture … the potato. Didn’t even develop a fishing industry. And the climate was so mild that people lived out in the open.

Until the winter that led to the potato famine and mass deaths from pneumonia. Global cooling …

Provides evidence that global warming is a good thing … and also a rare thing.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This statement is pure comedy to any scientist with any basic understanding of physics. On a nonscientific level, if there were a solution, it would already exists. Many countries have have much larger resources (notably China) and would be greatly benefit nonreliance on fossil fuels. Certain countries, such as North Korea, desperately need energy resources and have the ability to focus the entire country on solving the problem. Why? Because it doesn’t exist.

The fundamental problem, as I’ve noted over and over, is that fossil fuel is a cheaply obtainable, stored energy source. The cheaply obtainable part is very relevant. Once it isn’t cost effective, then it stops becoming a commonly used source of energy. The issue with the alternatives is that they aren’t cheap, and in many cases, will never be. For example, ethanol. Ethanol is a created energy source, which requires more energy in than you get out. That can never change; it’s a fundamental physical law. Solar and wind do not have the density of a fossil fuel, nor will they ever.

The solution to the fossil fuel problem can only be using another energy stored energy source. Any created energy source results in a net energy loss.

North Korea has hydro power that they have not developed.

The result of a command economy.

Instead of ethanol, consider the chemistry and economics of methanol. Read up at www.energyvictory.net

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Yes, well, if YOUR government chooses to cut off and limit the supply, then the price at the pump will increase owing to high demand.

You have the opportunity at the ballot box to turn out any government that chooses to penalize YOU by cutting off and limiting the supply of cheap energy.

By the way, the Main Stream Media has refused to report on the recent events in Canada … the neomalthusian government has been replaced by a free market economics government.

Should result in substantial improvement in standard of living.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

True, it is finite, but peak oil doomsday has been predicted for decades and decades. We have enough oil to run our economy until wind, solar, etc, becomes a viable alternative. We should make use of it.

But the main thing is we need to get away from the ideal that wealth is zero sum. It can be created.

Absolutely true … here is an essay I found:

God created our sun and placed the Earth in the perfectly designed orbit around the sun. Not too far away and not too close.

God designed this planet perfectly. It has an almost infinite supply of energy and other natural resources … did you ever wonder why we call them “natural resources”?

This planet is NOT a big blue marble. It is essentially a volcano with some people on the surface … a red hot ball of molten rock 7000 miles in diameter with a temperature of several thousand degrees, spinning at 1000 mph measured at the equator. The molten rock is covered by a paper thin layer of solid room temperature material … about 30 miles thick and the surface layer has major cracks and is moving constantly … allowing the molten rock to seep to the surface and where it seeps we can see and sample and measure and analyze the liquids and gases that emerge. Where they are underwater, they are called “black smokers” and they are so hot they can melt the submarines sent down to investigate and explore.

The number of volcanos is not known; the estimates are as high as 100,000 but the number is constantly revised. Most are underwater. Some are very strange, such as one very near the South Pole, Mt. Erebus, which is as far as we know, the only continuous caldera volcano, which each day spews hundreds of tons of chlorine and other basic chemicals high into the atmosphere. Which accounts in part for the so-called ozone hole.

At the same time, this planet is bombarded by solar explosions with electrically charged particles of all kinds, many or most of which are fatal to life. However, this planet also has a magnetic field that deflects the charged particles to the north and south magnetic poles; however, every 25000 years or so [it varies] the magnetic poles swap polarity; this is documented in solidified volcanic layers found in places such as Hawaii which has a very long historical/geological record and is easily accessible and an easily studied set of solidified volcanic lava fields.

The interactions between the sun’s heating and bombardments and cosmic rays and the Earth’s atmosphere causes strange and massive changes to the atmosphere including: changes to density, dramatic expansion of the extent of the stratosphere, the Aurora Borealis, and seasonal changes to the ozone layer, more in some places than others, which is measured in the number of molecules per cubic mile. The ozone layer is densest at the north and south poles and thinnest at the equator and also changes dramatically with the seasons, being twice as dense in Spring as it is dense in late Fall. North and South polar regions are, of course, somewhat opposite in seasonality … but partly because the planet maintains a more or less constant orientation with respect to the sun even though it is tilted. [Source: Dobson, Exploring the Atmosphere … it has not been revised since his death in 1976,]

This planet has a corrosive atmosphere being 20% oxygen; with about 80% nitrogen and a tiny trace amount of other gases. Despite being hit by the solar bombardment and being hit by cosmic rays and being hit by massive meteors that have radically changed the surface, the gaseous atmosphere persists. There are dissolved gases in the oceans that occupy the largest part of the surface; and those gases migrate back and forth to the atmosphere constantly. The oceans are only on average about 4 miles deep; the gaseous atmosphere is only about ten miles thick, although humans must bring artificial supplies of air/oxygen if they ascend more than about five miles, and there are still measurable amounts of air molecules even one hundred miles above the surface.

Twelve men have walked on our moon. And others were supposed to go there but our Congress, after all the hardware and training had been built, accomplished, and paid for, cancelled the last three missions which were the science missions. Apollo 18, 19, and 20. People still want to return to the moon to study what it has to show us including helium-3. They would even like to build a habitat there to allow long term study.

Two men have traveled to the deepest part of the earth’s ocean … seven miles deep … and they were so terrified by the harsh conditions that they returned to the surface after only twenty minutes and they had no desire to return to study anything.

We still have a lot to learn about our planet Earth, but we do know that it is an exceptionally harsh environment, worthy of further study, but it is not something that we humans have to worry about protecting.

This planet is no more delicate than any other volcano.

A volcano does not need to be “saved”.

Nor does the Earth need to be saved.

No one can or needs to save the planet any more than they can or need to save a volcano.

If we can harvest and develop any kind of energy from this volcanic planet, then we should do it.

Not a zero sum game either. We can use sand to pile up, or to make concrete or glass or computer chips. We are only limited by our inability to think about how we can best use what God gave us.

 

[Observer3]

You can’t. The world is ever increasing population and will continue to do so to the point that people will be forced to stop living ideals and start living a practical reality.

 

[GEddie]

You can’t. The world is ever increasing population and will continue to do so to the point that people will be forced to stop living ideals and start living a practical reality.

Nope; populations will flatten out on their own, absent anything new to increase the carrying capacity. It’s a mathematical principle.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Observer3]

Nope; populations will flatten out on their own, absent anything new to increase the carrying capacity. It’s a mathematical principle.

ICXC NIKA

lol, how does that work exactly? more people = more people reproducing, which = more people.

Believe that if you want, but it’s false.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

lol, how does that work exactly? more people = more people reproducing, which = more people.

Believe that if you want, but it’s false.

More people = more people inventing, innovating and producing.

 

[Observer3]

More people = more people inventing, innovating and producing.

But there’s one major problem - the earth is not inventing, producing or becoming any larger.

More people + the same size planet = major problem.

 

[Warrior1979]

More people = more people inventing, innovating and producing.

That’s true. China is an excellent example. But notice how China, a historically reclusive country over the millennium, has been forced to go beyond their borders to obtain resources in order to keep their economy afloat.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

China is now and has always had one MAJOR failing: it is a command economy.

And command economies always fail.

Because the people running things and giving the orders lack innovative skills.

They are unable to actually develop anything innovative on a consistent basis.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

But there’s one major problem - the earth is not inventing, producing or becoming any larger.

More people + the same size planet = major problem.

NOT true.

We have just barely begun to discover all of the natural resources that the Planet Earth has to offer.

The deepest mine only goes down about one mile … except for ONE gold mine in South Africa which has one small shaft down to about three miles.

We are finding new oil and natural gas “deposits” constantly. Because innovation has allowed us to discover and constantly refine the use of new drilling techniques. We have now discovered so much natural gas in the United States that the Alaska natural gas pipeline has been put on hold. There just is so much supply in the “south 48” that we no longer need the Alaska natural gas … at least for the foreseeable future.

AND we are exploring in new places and finding petroleum that is NOT the result of dying fossil critters.

And to say that the Planet Earth is the same size is also false. The Earth “receives” stuff from outer space constantly … so the mass of the Earth is increasing. Slightly. But more importantly, very recent scientific discoveries are showing that the Earth is also receiving energy from outer space. Cosmic rays are being found to be extremely important AND we are finding that the climate models have excluded many important factors.

The more we learn, the more natural resources we are finding.

We are experiencing floods in many places. That means we have a LOT more water resources than previously thought. We only need to develop and harness that water.

We are learning that rainfall is often cyclical. Australia is suddenly learning that their droughts are cyclical and NOT a permanent feature of their ecology. Australia had given up on ever seeing rainfall again … they spent a HUGE amount of money on desalination plants … only to experience “sudden” heavy rainfalls and flooding. Of interest, previously scientists and engineers had noted the earlier cycles of drought and floods, but some very verbal politicians and policy wonks were successful in convincing voters that they would never again see rain.

So they put the rain water collection projects on the shelf. And then they spent all their money on desalination. And then it began to rain … right on “schedule”. So now they have floods and they have NO rain water collection infrastructure and no money to pay for rain water collection infrastructure.

And the policy wonks keep saying its a fluke.

But, clearly, it’s not a fluke.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Nope; populations will flatten out on their own, absent anything new to increase the carrying capacity. It’s a mathematical principle.

ICXC NIKA

The problem is that innovation takes place all the time OUTSIDE of command economies.

In other words, one or two really smart people are not smart ENOUGH to discover everything we need and not smart ENOUGH to make all the decisions.

If it was true that a few really smart people can do it for us, then Samuel Langley from Washington DC would have invented the airplane. Instead he failed. And two bicycle shop owners that nobody ever heard of from Dayton Ohio invented the airplane.

The really important thing is the FORM of the political economy.

Click here and watch the lecture by Larry Schweikart. It is excellent.

booktv.org/Program/12316/What+Would+the+Founders+Say+A+Patriots+Answers+to+Americas+Most+Pressing+Problems.aspx

Consider that in the mid-East all the oil is controlled by command economies … and they don’t have any water. But little Israel with no oil and LOTS of innovation has all kinds of water. BUT you won’t see the command economies adopting Israeli water development techniques.

Iran has the third largest supply of oil [or thereabouts], but they still haven’t figured out that they might want to build more refining capacity for gasoline … so they import gasoline.

When Israel pulled out of Gaza, the first thing the Arabs did was to break the glass in the hydroponic agricultural facilities …