How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[Warrior1979]

This also assumes they don’t live in really high-rise condos.

Once you start stacking people up, there is really no limit.

The analysis only discusses one side of the equation. The second part of it involves the resources necessary to support the population, everything from housing to food distribution to waste management. Then one has to consider the amount of arable land in the rest of the world along with the intense use of energy resources necessary to produce and distribute the food.

 

[paedagogo]

We can deal with the world’s resources in three ways:

1. Chastity.
2. Charity
3. Temperance

As far as I can see, the world is totally opposed to the above, as it is christian inspired and so is coming up with its own malthusian alternatives which now adays promote the murdering of the unborn.

I would call on all catholics here to reflect on the fact that as stewards of nature we have behaved awfully, sacrificing wild-life for more spacious abodes, for more food, and for more material toys.

What would St. Francis do ? What would Jesus do?

The Christian solution will lead to a world of peace and harmony. The materialist path is going to lead to wars, famines and ultimately enforced genocide.

Andrew Bacevich makes the point that the first US President to point this out was Jimmy Carter, in his famous “malaise speech”. The response to his message that perhaps temperance and conservation was in order, and that the profligate consumption of the past would lead to problems, was the election of Ronald Reagan who delivered entirely the opposite message of Carter.

It is an interesting read. Bacevich is even handed in his presentation, presenting his case in a sequential manner by starting at specific historic watershed points which have changed the direction of our government or society, and then tracing how that change evolved with each successive administration.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

http://www.wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/March-2011/Commentary-Population-Time-Bomb.aspx

Just ran across this and thought it might be helpful here.

 

[paedagogo]

An important point to remember, is that technology has made our explosive growth possible. It is not a “natural” development.

 

[kimmielittle]

An important point to remember, is that technology has made our explosive growth possible. It is not a “natural” development.

That theory presented by Thomas Malthus was argued very well, by Economic historian Ester Boserup. “Necessity is the mother of invention” .

Stating… our population preceded technologies growth.
Ester Boserup, The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. London, G. Allen and Unwin, 1965; Chicago: Aldine, 1965. 124 pp.

Case Study/Example

The Green Revolution

In the 1960s, a package of agricultural improvements known as the Green Revolution was seen as the answer to the food problem in much of the developing world. LEDCs commonly have high birth rates and rapidly growing populations, therefore food scarcity was a large concern. In order to address this problem, modified crops were invented. HVP (high-yielding variety seed programme) commenced in 1966-7.
India was one of the first countries to greatly benefit from HVP and to spark the Green Revolution. In 1967 India was still suffering from the aftermath of the Bengal famine, which occured in 1943 and in which an estimated 4 million people died of hunger. India implemented agricultural methods to increase food output, such as : continued expansion of farming areas, double cropping existing farmland, and using seeds with improved genetics. These methods were very successful as yield per unit of farmland improved by more than 30% and India became one of the world’s biggest agricultural producers.
This example of the Green Revolution demonstrates Boserup’s theory that technological advances will be made to increase food supply in order to avoid food scarcity in face of a growing population.

cac-ib-geography.wikispaces.com/Boserup

It seems arguable, that population growth precedes technology in historic evidence.

Read also Henry George’s chapters on poverty and subsistence in Progress and Poverty stand as the definitive marshalling of the abundant logical ammunition against Malthusian .

henrygeorge.org/pchp6.htm

And Amartya Sen’s Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford 1981), which dismantled another tenet of Malthusian theory – i.e. that famines were always (or mainly) caused by absolute deficiency of food.

 

[paedagogo]

That theory presented by Thomas Malthus was argued very well, by Economic historian Ester Boserup. “Necessity is the mother of invention” .

Stating… our population preceded technologies growth.
Ester Boserup, The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. London, G. Allen and Unwin, 1965; Chicago: Aldine, 1965. 124 pp.

Case Study/Example

cac-ib-geography.wikispaces.com/Boserup

It seems arguable, that population growth precedes technology in historic evidence.

Read also Henry George’s chapters on poverty and subsistence in Progress and Poverty stand as the definitive marshalling of the abundant logical ammunition against Malthusian .

henrygeorge.org/pchp6.htm

And Amartya Sen’s Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford 1981), which dismantled another tenet of Malthusian theory – i.e. that famines were always (or mainly) caused by absolute deficiency of food.

I just saw a graph of human population plotted against technological achievements. I don’t know enough about the topic to be an expert. Of course I know Malthus, etc… but the speaker in the presentation was making a cogent argument supporting the correlation.

I just thought I would throw that into the mix.

On the face of it, the cost of food, mortality rates, longevity… these things which technology directly affects, would seem to be important.

A biologist will tell you that our bodies are designed to live until about 50 years, based on the mutation rate of our cellular reproduction. That is approximately what we are programmed for.

Much of the population is older, and the trend continues. I don’t have the numbers at hand, but the ratio of people alive today to the total who have ever lived keeps growing at a rate which some say is not merely accountable by natural reproduction and mortality. A case can be made that these technologies make a difference.

 

[kimmielittle]

I just saw a graph of human population plotted against technological achievements. I don’t know enough about the topic to be an expert. Of course I know Malthus, etc… but the speaker in the presentation was making a cogent argument supporting the correlation.

I have found many sites that do the same i.e. make cogent arguments.

The problem, that I see, glaring at us…is what’s not said

I don’t think anyone can find fault in my statement made a few posts ago, about mismanagement of resources. Yet, the mismanagement of resources doesn’t come into the debate of those who argue the Malthusian theory.

Overpopulation becomes the scape-goat. Why? Well…we know why PP backs it.

Historic evidence, alone, proved the Malthusian theory wrong. It remains an interesting theory to explore, but has been proven, by history, as wrong / flawed.

I just thought I would throw that into the mix.

On the face of it, the cost of food, mortality rates, longevity… these things which technology directly affects, would seem to be important.

Absolutely!!!

A biologist will tell you that our bodies are designed to live until about 50 years, based on the mutation rate of our cellular reproduction. That is approximately what we are programmed for.

Much of the population is older, and the trend continues. I don’t have the numbers at hand, but the ratio of people alive today to the total who have ever lived keeps growing at a rate which some say is not merely accountable by natural reproduction and mortality. A case can be made that these technologies make a difference.

Of course, a case can be made - that is why Overpopulation sells. BUT what about all the evidence?

They point to such as the population is / lives older - true…but are they producing more babies?

The UN say no… …And without the second part, experiential growth, as theorized, is unattainable. The UN says we might reach a peak of 9-11 billion humans and they keep adjusting that figure downwards ] and then a rapid decline.

Technology also brings us some 400,000 abortions a year in the USA. So, we are not only living longer - we are living shorter.

Allow me to give you an example I come across often, with bias of studies / reports.

“33,000 people died last summer because of Global Warming” - On the face of it… a very cogent argument - However, They fail to report 177, 000 people didn’t die, that year, in the USA, because temperatures were a bit warmer over that winter.

 

[Warrior1979]

A biologist will tell you that our bodies are designed to live until about 50 years, based on the mutation rate of our cellular reproduction. That is approximately what we are programmed for.

Much of the population is older, and the trend continues. I don’t have the numbers at hand, but the ratio of people alive today to the total who have ever lived keeps growing at a rate which some say is not merely accountable by natural reproduction and mortality. A case can be made that these technologies make a difference.

One of the most interesting books I’ve read over the past decade dealt was written by a scientist who consulted on the X Files. Basically, the writers behind the show would come up with an idea, and the science consultant would come up with some type of theory that would make the idea sound plausible.

The book has some sound and interesting information. The issue of potential human age came up. The maximum age was around 120 years. This was based on cellular reproduction, with consideration given to the fact of cellular mutation (damage) that occurs during the reproduction process. Eventually the cells become damaged to the point where the organism dies, calculated to be 120 years.

Another interesting point made along the same lines dealt with clones. Using adult cells for cloning means using cells that have mutations due to cellular division. This seems to explain why many clones have appear to have shorter lifespans than than animals the cells came from.

With regard to the issue at hand, there are always certain assumptions that are made. Advances in technology are made, but once again, that technology doesn’t occur in a vacuum. The technology requires huge energy (name removed by moderator)uts, which is effectively replacing human labor. Physics dictates that always comes at a cost.

 

[Warrior1979]

Historic evidence, alone, proved Malthusian theory wrong. It remains an interesting theory to explore, but has been proven, by history, as wrong.

To be honest, I didn’t know who this person was, so I had to look him up. In my own case, simply put all the data together and draw conclusions.

He has not yet been proven wrong. He did not, nor did anyone else at the time, know that cheap energy sources would be found. The reason that world population increased as it did is solely for that reason. The labor of man was greater magnified as a result. A new energy source, of similar density and cost, must be discovered for the current situation to continue.

There are plenty of example in history as to what happens when we run out of resources. The difference between then and now is that we are running out of places to find new resources.

 

[paedagogo]

One of the most interesting books I’ve read over the past decade dealt was written by a scientist who consulted on the X Files. Basically, the writers behind the show would come up with an idea, and the science consultant would come up with some type of theory that would make the idea sound plausible.

The book has some sound and interesting information. The issue of potential human age came up. The maximum age was around 120 years. This was based on cellular reproduction, with consideration given to the fact of cellular mutation (damage) that occurs during the reproduction process. Eventually the cells become damaged to the point where the organism dies, calculated to be 120 years.

Another interesting point made along the same lines dealt with clones. Using adult cells for cloning means using cells that have mutations due to cellular division. This seems to explain why many clones have appear to have shorter lifespans than than animals the cells came from.

With regard to the issue at hand, there are always certain assumptions that are made. Advances in technology are made, but once again, that technology doesn’t occur in a vacuum. The technology requires huge energy (name removed by moderator)uts, which is effectively replacing human labor. Physics dictates that always comes at a cost.

The latest that I have heard on aging, is that it is a balance between cellular mutation, and the prevention of cancer.

Your cells start mutating at rates which increase exponentially right around the age of 50. This is why cancer is extremely rare before that age, and grows increasingly common after that age.

Balanced against that is your bodies natural defense against cancer. It employs several means to destroy mutated cells as soon as they are detected. This destruction of mutated cells is the physical degeneration which we observer with aging.

It is possible to interfere with both of these processes now. It is known which part of the the “genes” to tamper with in order to slow down the mutation rate, and even how to do it. However the trade off is that you also get a suppression of the defense against cancer. So, theoretically you could age more slowly, as long as you don’t mind having cancer, with today’s technology.

At least that is how it was explained to me within the past couple of months, in somewhat more technical terms by two well known professors of medicine who specialize in the field.

But this is straying way off the topic of this thread.

 

[kimmielittle]

To be honest, I didn’t know who this person was, so I had to look him up. In my own case, simply put all the data together and draw conclusions.

Thomas Robert Malthus introduced in his 1798 Essay in the Principle of Population a relationship between population growth and what he termed subsistence. The first grew geometrically while the second increased only at an arithmetic ratio.

There was no empirical historical ] evidence of this in 1798 - or before…there still isn’t.

When challenged, this theory fails both theoretically and empirically.

Analysis on both levels suggest, that there is no statistically proven simple relationship between population growth and economic growth, population growth and environment, Or population size and economic growth.

The absence of a “correlation” contradicts the conventional Malthusian deductive / logical conclusion. It fails empirical evidence.

The only argument in the face of this absence of correlation, is a plausible scenario in which one or more specified variables that have been omitted from the analysis would, in fact… lead to a negative relationship between population growth and economic growth. i,e. mismanagement of resources.

Historical results / evidence suggest that population growth is not the only relevant variable for development and as such, empirical evidence suggests that Malthus’ dynamic growth theory has failed.

On Malthus point of view of the population growth-development trade off argument: Evidence shows that most underdeveloped countries that have implemented population control policies, have not shown definite signs of success in overcoming the problems of development. Problems that are often attributed to the “Overpopulation trap.” . If Malthus’ theory were true, one would see some evidence…Thus turning an “unproven hypothesis” into a provable one.

In fact, since Coale-Hoover (1958), several studies have followed not supporting population control policies.

In 1986, the National Academy of Science published a study titled “Population, Growth and Economic Development,” they studied the effect of slower population growth achieved by the reduction of fertility through national family planning programs. The results were ambiguous.

No clear causalities were found, as was previously mentioned between population and growth, population and poverty… or population and environment.

Some countries do show some correlation between these variables…But others do not and in all cases there is no possibility to prove the population size is what facilitated or hampered economic development. Failing Mr Poppers falsifiable test ].

 

[kimmielittle]

A new energy source, of similar density and cost, must be discovered for the current situation to continue.

There are plenty of example in history as to what happens when we run out of resources. The difference between then and now is that we are running out of places to find new resources.

Are we? running out ] - I know the Overpopulation / Malthusian folks want us to believe that.

The truth is technology isn’t standing still as implied in their theory. You see, technology has to be at a stalemate for Malthus’ hypothesis to work. It’s one of those pesky variables not factored in.

Remember what I said here? I added the bolded portion

The only argument in the face of this absence of correlation, is a plausible scenario in which one or more specified variables that have been omitted from the analysis would, in fact… lead to a negative relationship between population growth and economic growth. i,e. mismanagement of resources…**Or technology stalemated **

Here are just a few examples: Hat tip to my friend Monte ]:tiphat:

If Barack Obama were to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project, he might reasonably hope to reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.

telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html

pagaslease.com/natural_gas_forum/index.php?topic=9689.0

energyfromthorium.com/pdf/

 

[Warrior1979]

Analysis on both levels suggest, that there is no statistically proven simple relationship between population growth and economic growth, population growth and environment, Or population size and economic growth.

The absence of a “correlation” contradicts the conventional Malthusian deductive / logical conclusion. It fails empirical evidence.

Why is the population of the Andaman Islands so small after 60,000 years of occupation? Why has the population of the Middle East grown so rapidly after the discovery of oil? Why did the population of Ireland shrink in the late 1800s…etc., etc., etc.

 

[Warrior1979]

If Barack Obama were to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project, he might reasonably hope to reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.

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.

 

[GEddie]

Why is the population of the Andaman Islands so small after 60,000 years of occupation? Why has the population of the Middle East grown so rapidly after the discovery of oil? Why did the population of Ireland shrink in the late 1800s…etc., etc., etc.

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.

 

[paedagogo]

The Earth is limited in space and resources, yes. So I suppose that yes, there is a maximum number of people who could inhabit the earth if people had lots and lots of children and never died.

But people die, and more recently people have no children or fewer children. The rate of population growth actually peaked in 1962 and has been decreasing since.

Yes, as a percentage. In 1962 it was at about 2.2% or 68,000,000 per year. It is currently at about 1.2% or 84,000,000 per year.

 

[kimmielittle]

This statement is pure comedy to any scientist with any basic understanding of physics.

The opening statement maybe, but here, again, is an attempt ad hominem. As you well know, ad hominem attempts don’t dilute the facts.

What are the facts stated of the article? Not the interpretation by the journalist… but the facts stated by scientists.

Like:

Dr Rubbia says a tonne of the silvery metal – named after the Norse god of thunder, who also gave us Thor’s day or Thursday - produces as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal. A mere fistful would light London for a week.

OR:

Thorium eats its own hazardous waste. It can even scavenge the plutonium left by uranium reactors, acting as an eco-cleaner. “It’s the Big One,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA rocket engineer and now chief nuclear technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering.

These are some of what you have to attack

The point I was making,

The truth is technology isn’t standing still as implied in their theory. You see, technology has to be at a stalemate for Malthus’ hypothesis to work. It’s one of those pesky variables not factored in.

On a nonscientific level, if there were a solution, it would already exists.

Partly correct - it “already exists” But you are dangerous with your “nonscientific level”…you are assuming ALL in science and nature has been identified.

We see from this simple example - This premise…well…it’s just not true.

Physicists will announce Wednesday that data from a major US atom smasher lab may have revealed a new elementary particle, or potentially a new force of nature, one of the researchers told AFP.

The discovery is believed to relate to mass and how objects obtain it – a persistent riddle to experts and one of the most sought-after answers in all of physics.

“There could be some new force beyond the force that we know,” said Giovanni Punzi, a physicist with the international research team that is analyzing the data.

“If it is confirmed, it could point to a whole new world of interactions,” he told AFP.

While much remains a mystery, one thing researchers agree on is that this is something beyond the “God Particle,” or the Higgs-boson, a hypothetical elementary particle which has long eluded physicists who believe it could explain why objects have mass.

ca.news.yahoo.com/us-atom-smasher-may-found-force-nature-report-20110406-073624-567.html

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.

What you state above does not support Malthus’ Overpopulation hypothesis - It supports MY “mismanagement of resources” statements.

You have elegantly defended mismanagement of resources, as the culprit

 

[kimmielittle]

Why is the population of the Andaman Islands so small after 60,000 years of occupation? Why has the population of the Middle East grown so rapidly after the discovery of oil? Why did the population of Ireland shrink in the late 1800s…etc., etc., etc.

Well we know why in Ireland and it wasn’t Overpopulation.

We could also point to the “Dust Bowl” of the 1930’s in America - But it had nothing to do with the Overpopulation / Malthus’ hypothesis.

You need to “correlate” Overpopulation / Malthus’ hypothesis ] to effect. It hasn’t been done historically empirical evidence ].

When challenged, this theory fails both theoretically and empirically.

Analysis on both levels suggest, that there is no statistically proven simple relationship between population growth and economic growth, population growth and environment, Or population size and economic growth.

.

 

[Warrior1979]

Well we know why in Ireland and it wasn’t Overpopulation.

It was due to overpopulation relative to the resources (i.e., food). Overpopulation is always measured relative to the resources in the environment. One person in the middle of the desert with no food or water is overpopulation.

You need to “correlate” Overpopulation / Malthus’ hypothesis ] to effect. It hasn’t been done historically empirical evidence ].

Whenever the resources diminish or disappear, the population reacts accordingly. I’m not convinced that population increases when there is no food to eat, and there is no empirical evidence to suggest that it is true.

 

[kimmielittle]

It was due to overpopulation relative to the resources (i.e., food).

Actually wrong…

As a scientist, you understand complexities…and the hazards of attempting to attribute simplistic correlations to complex equations.

Ireland was not Overpopulated at the time - Is not today.

Overpopulation didn’t diminish Ireland’s economy / resources / food source during this time. The effect and causation correlation ] was mismanagement of resources.

A potato blight brought this mismanagement of resources, to the light / forefront. Just as the “Dust Bowl” in America did.

Frankly, It scares the heck out of me when scientists broad brush simplistic answers to complex problems.

Overpopulation is always measured relative to the resources in the environment.

The resources were there - are still there. Ireland based it’s economy on producing potatoes - it mismanaged it’s resources. Had it not based it’s economy on potatoes at the time, they would have had other economic resources available.

One person in the middle of the desert with no food or water is overpopulation.

One doesn’t allow themselves to be put into that position normally…do they To do so, is mismanagement of resources - including thought processes.

What does one do…Manage their resources

I’m not convinced that population increases when there is no food to eat, and there is no empirical evidence to suggest that it is true.

Who is debating this?

See Straw Man argument:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

And Red Herring argument
fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

We are debating Malthus’ Overpopulation hypothesis. Which history, nor you, have provided empirical evidence in support of.