How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[Darkbloom]

This link will help.

 

[Warrior1979]

This link will help.

There are plenty of folks that are optimists, and there are plenty of folks that are pessimists. And there are those that simply shrug off any and all things contrary to their preconceived notions, regardless of the facts. And then there are those that are what I like to refer to realists, like myself, that simply look at the data and draw conclusions. For these rationally thinking people, the conclusions don’t have to coincide with their own belief systems, because they understand that their own beliefs aren’t going to change reality.

There were some interesting things in the article. One is this belief that population must increase to take care of the elderly. The basis of this is very simple…we designed a lifestyle that includes Ponzi-style benefits. Ponzi schemes always fail regardless of intent.

It also mentioned China reversing course on their strict population requirement. Having been their more than once, I was able to learn things that are typically not noted in the press here. As always, reports and those with an agenda cherry-pick data and ignore the rest. China currently has a MAJOR population problem. The number of peasants in that country, who live a far, far lower standard of living than western countries, is more than double the size of the US population. I had been to parks over there in the middle of the workday, and noticed 40+ year old individuals hanging out in the park. Our guide, who was shockingly forthcoming, told us that many of these people were forced to retire at 40 so that the younger generation could work. The “retired” middle age people than live on a pittance. Sometimes they get paid, sometimes they don’t.They’re also starting to run short on resources, hence the reason they are running around the world looking for them. It is unlikely that are going to be reversing their course anytime soon, and have in fact strengthened their resolve over the past decade.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This link will help.

GREAT ARTICLE!!

Here are the last few paragraphs:

Let me close with a story. Nearly a decade ago, I attended a conference on globalization at the Vatican that brought together economists and leaders from various religious faiths. From the first, it was clear that each profession found the other’s approach different from its own—and fascinating. As the conference developed, it became even clearer that while the language and approach of religion and economics differed, each was ultimately grounded in the same appreciation of individual human worth.

Gary Becker put it this way: “I am struck by the similarity between the church’s view of the relationship between the family and the economy and the view of economists—arrived at by totally independent means. Economic science and spiritual concerns appear to point in the same direction.”

So let others speak of a dismal science. We—the champions of human dignity and possibility—need to cheer and celebrate.

One does not have to be an economist to recognize that societies that open their markets are better fed, better housed, and offer better opportunities for upward mobility than societies that remain closed and bureaucratic. Nor does one have to be a religious believer to recognize that the source of all man’s wealth has been just this: that he does not take the world as given, but uses his mind to find new and creative ways to take from the earth and add to its bounty.

If, however, we do believe, can we really be surprised that the Almighty who created us in His image also bequeathed to us a world where we are most prosperous when we are most free?

e11

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Awesome! I remember that when I pay my oil bill and fill up my car this morning.

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.

 

[Darkbloom]

There are plenty of folks that are optimists, and there are plenty of folks that are pessimists. And there are those that simply shrug off any and all things contrary to their preconceived notions, regardless of the facts. And then there are those that are what I like to refer to realists, like myself, that simply look at the data and draw conclusions. For these rationally thinking people, the conclusions don’t have to coincide with their own belief systems, because they understand that their own beliefs aren’t going to change reality.

There were some interesting things in the article. One is this belief that population must increase to take care of the elderly. The basis of this is very simple…we designed a lifestyle that includes Ponzi-style benefits. Ponzi schemes always fail regardless of intent.

It also mentioned China reversing course on their strict population requirement. Having been their more than once, I was able to learn things that are typically not noted in the press here. As always, reports and those with an agenda cherry-pick data and ignore the rest. China currently has a MAJOR population problem. The number of peasants in that country, who live a far, far lower standard of living than western countries, is more than double the size of the US population. I had been to parks over there in the middle of the workday, and noticed 40+ year old individuals hanging out in the park. Our guide, who was shockingly forthcoming, told us that many of these people were forced to retire at 40 so that the younger generation could work. The “retired” middle age people than live on a pittance. Sometimes they get paid, sometimes they don’t.They’re also starting to run short on resources, hence the reason they are running around the world looking for them. It is unlikely that are going to be reversing their course anytime soon, and have in fact strengthened their resolve over the past decade.

It’s hardly shocking that a communist nation would have trouble supporting its people. Open markets and the rest will follow.

 

[Warrior1979]

It’s hardly shocking that a communist nation would have trouble supporting its people. Open markets and the rest will follow.

The China of today is not the China of Mao. The have a very robust capitalist economy. In fact, they are going in the complete opposite direction of the U.S. While the U.S. is artificially propping up and regulating the life out of their market, China is making their own economy very market friendly. They realize the failures of the past and have corrected them.

Another thing that should be noted about China is that historically they have been a reclusive nation. They are quickly changing that policy, simply because they have to. They need resources, and they are spreading out all over the world to obtain them.

 

[Darkbloom]

The China of today is not the China of Mao. The have a very robust capitalist economy. In fact, they are going in the complete opposite direction of the U.S. While the U.S. is artificially propping up and regulating the life out of their market, China is making their own economy very market friendly. They realize the failures of the past and have corrected them.

Another thing that should be noted about China is that historically they have been a reclusive nation. They are quickly changing that policy, simply because they have to. They need resources, and they are spreading out all over the world to obtain them.

First, I seriously doubt Adam Smith, Ludwig Von Mises, et al would recognize China as a capitalist country. They are making strides in improving the situation, but they have a long way to go.

Second, even if they were fully capitalist tomorrow, it would take sometime to shake off the inertia of Mao.

 

[Peepers]

Fossil fuels will always be available. The issue is, and will continue to be, the cost to obtain them, which is increasing over time. When their net energy becomes negative, they cannot be used on anything other than a small scale. Large scale use means larger scale energy (name removed by moderator)ut to obtain the materials.

Also, if one wants to argue proper management of resources, we cannot consider a particular country’s resources as their own. They consideration of dividing the resources amongst the other countries must be considered.

I must point out that fossil fuels are not infinite. The Earth is not infinite. Fossil fuels are a minuscule percentage of the Earth. Therefore the supply of fossil fuels is finite.

 

[Darkbloom]

I must point out that fossil fuels are not infinite. The Earth is not infinite. Fossil fuels are a minuscule percentage of the Earth. Therefore the supply of fossil fuels is finite.

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.

 

[Warrior1979]

First, I seriously doubt Adam Smith, Ludwig Von Mises, et al would recognize China as a capitalist country. They are making strides in improving the situation, but they have a long way to go.

Second, even if they were fully capitalist tomorrow, it would take sometime to shake off the inertia of Mao.

Mao is distant history. In fact, about the only place you see his picture in a public place is outside the Forbidden City. Mao is recognized for his leadership in putting together the country we know as China, but China is also not shy about pointing out his failures either.

There is no “inertia of Mao.” China took a completely direction, with a vengeance, starting with Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s. That country today looks a whole lot like the U.S. did when they ramped up the industrial machine in WWII.

Lastly, if Adam Smith wouldn’t view China as a capitalist country, he wouldn’t view the U.S. as one either. China has only a fraction of the incredibly destructive, business choking policies that we have in this U.S.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Today’s China is yesteryear’s China polished to a high gloss (at least in the areas Westerners are permitted to visit).

Ask about Tibet, the state of the Catholic Church there, political prisoners and the environment. The Gobi desert is expanding and advancing towards Beijing at a high rate. Other areas of China are experiencing desertification. China is a disaster waiting to happen.

The China government wants “the state” to be a god. Eliminate God and eliminate all foundation for Truth.

 

[GEddie]

Today’s China is yesteryear’s China polished to a high gloss (at least in the areas Westerners are permitted to visit).

Ask about Tibet, the state of the Catholic Church there, political prisoners and the environment. The Gobi desert is expanding and advancing towards Beijing at a high rate. Other areas of China are experiencing desertification. China is a disaster waiting to happen.

The China government wants “the state” to be a god. Eliminate God and eliminate all foundation for Truth.

In all fairness, W79 was referring to their means of doing business, not to their position on human rights or individual freedom. One can have a market economy without being a progressive state in a human sense. Example, the Third Reich.

One can also create a market economy without a high degree of environmental protection. We also incurred a lot of it and are now working our way back. The PRC has 6 times the people and are developing faster than we did; of course they will have some of the same problems.

ICXC NIKA

 

[kimmielittle]

Statement by H.E. Archbishop Francis Chullikatt
Apostolic Nuncio, Permanent Observer of the Holy See

Economic and Social Council
44th Session of the Commission on Population and Development
Fertility, reproductive health and development

New York, 12 April 2011

Report to the UN holyseemission.org/12Apr2011%20CPD.html

Mr. Chairman,

As we consider the theme of “fertility, reproductive health and development”, my delegation takes this opportunity to focus on the paramount importance of respect for the inherent dignity of the human person in all development efforts. At the outset, it will become clear that the theme for this Session mandates a careful scrutiny in order to attain, rather than frustrate, the noble goals of the United Nations that are ordered to preserving the “dignity and worth of the human person.”

Unfortunately many discussions in the present day continue to be led by a false notion that, in the context of population growth, the very act of giving life is something to be feared rather than affirmed. Such thinking is based on a radical individualism which sees human reproduction as a commodity that must be regulated and improved in order to encourage greater market efficiency and development. How can such a view be consistent with the objectives of the United Nations? Put most candidly, it cannot.

This flawed understanding leads to the distorted view that population growth, especially among the poor, must be decreased in order to address poverty, illiteracy and malnutrition. It is also based upon the consistently disproven theory that population increase will devastate the environment, lead to global competition and confrontation for resources and undermine the ability of women to interact fully with society. These apprehensions contribute to the advancement of forms of reproductive technology which denigrate the nature of human sexuality. The combination of these misconceptions have led some national governments to adopt laws and policies which discourage parents from exercising their fundamental and non-derogable right to have children free of coercion and which even make it illegal for mothers to give birth in some cases or for a child to have one’s own brothers and sisters.

As the Secretary General’s report notes, reproduction rates vary in many places in the world. However, the report improperly suggests that the rates of reproduction in developing countries are an area of primary concern which demands urgent action. The report, furthermore, promotes the tragic theory that if there were fewer poor children there would be less need to provide education; that if there were fewer poor women giving birth then there would be less maternal mortality; and, that if there were fewer people needed to be fed then malnutrition would be more easily addressed and that greater resources could be allocated to development. In order to combat legitimate problems, the increasingly discredited concept of population control must be discarded.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

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.

 

[Darkbloom]

Mao is distant history. In fact, about the only place you see his picture in a public place is outside the Forbidden City. Mao is recognized for his leadership in putting together the country we know as China, but China is also not shy about pointing out his failures either.

There is no “inertia of Mao.” China took a completely direction, with a vengeance, starting with Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s. That country today looks a whole lot like the U.S. did when they ramped up the industrial machine in WWII.

I highly doubt that a man who fundamentally transformed a nation and murdered something on the order of 50,000,000 to 80,000,000 people will have been completely effaced from the fabric of a nation less that fifty years after his death.

Germany can still feel the effects of Hitler, and he has been dead far longer than Mao.

Lastly, if Adam Smith wouldn’t view China as a capitalist country, he wouldn’t view the U.S. as one either. China has only a fraction of the incredibly destructive, business choking policies that we have in this U.S.

No disagreement there. But the fact remains, China is miles away from a capitalist nation.

 

[wynnejj]

Do people really take this stuff seriously? I personally thought there would be some substance to this website when I clicked on it. Note the complete absence of any link between what is discussed in the video and resource use.

I find the Population Research Institute and the overpopulationisamyth.com somewhat intellectually dishonest. It tries to state that overpopulation is a myth, but it supports its heuristics values based on the U.N.'s population projections.

It states that the empirical evidence of historical population trends supports the low U.N. population projection (check out the first videos text notes) that reaches a peak, then declines due to the trend of declining population growth rates. In fact, high, medium, and low projections all are factoring a decline in population growth rates.

Why is there a decline in population growth rates? That is because the belief systems of the world on average have decided to artificially change reproductive patterns to plan for families of smaller size.

Somewhere in the mid-20th century, the conventional wisdom has become “quality of life over quantity of life”. Most Christian religions accept contraception within marriage as morally acceptable and responsible, and unfortunately most Catholics do as well. The Magisterium has countered with planned partial abstinence programs, such as NFP, which says the conventional wisdom may be right, but the method of contraception is wrong.

The fact of the matter is that population trends until the mid-20th century when plotted on a graph looked more like a parabolic curve with unending exponential growth more closely following conventional growth rate formulae. But all of a sudden in the mid-20th century, the graph starts looking like what might be the birth of a sine wave trend in population growth.

The behavior of all Christian religions seems to support the idea that overpopulation is not a myth by supporting contraception or NFP within marriage.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

If the world becomes “overpopulated” it will our fault. Some plagues on this earth have been caused by someone’s Deceived thinking. “The Great Sparrow Hunt” of 1960 in China was an answer to the “problem” of sparrows eating grains before it was harvested. The answer? Eliminate the sparrows. The result? A plague of locust that decimated China’s crops and contributing to The Great Chinese Famine of which upwards of 30,000,000 people died.

Overpopulation of people? Perhaps by an overzealous quest to play God and seek eternal life on earth. Eradicate man’s natural enemies and the result will be unnatural. Contraception has led millions to create and pursue lifestyles of immorality and selfish pleasure resulting in “accidents”, abortions and scandal.

We cannot clean up the world’s messes by disobeying God and His Church – no matter what Deceived people might “think” or try to relabel and resell.

 

[GEddie]

If the world becomes “overpopulated” it will our fault. Some plagues on this earth have been caused by someone’s Deceived thinking. “The Great Sparrow Hunt” of 1960 in China was an answer to the “problem” of sparrows eating grains before it was harvested. The answer? Eliminate the sparrows. The result? A plague of locust that decimated China’s crops and contributing to The Great Chinese Famine of which upwards of 30,000,000 people died.

Overpopulation of people? Perhaps by an overzealous quest to play God and seek eternal life on earth. Eradicate man’s natural enemies and the result will be unnatural. Contraception has led millions to create and pursue lifestyles of immorality and selfish pleasure resulting in “accidents”, abortions and scandal.

We cannot clean up the world’s messes by disobeying God and His Church – no matter what Deceived people might “think” or try to relabel and resell.

If “eternal life on earth” became available it would not cause overpopulation, unless the years of fertility were likewise extended. The increase in human life length during the 1900s has not been of that pattern. While life can be lengthened near the end, however long the body lives, the reproductive system will let go at nearly the same age for everybody. We are seeing that now, with not-so-young women struggling to have children in their 40s. Life has lengthened since the 1800s, but the years of natural cycles have not changed.

Actually, “eternal life on earth” is NOT possible. You cannot defeat the law of entropy in a small, complex system like a human body. You can only delay it; lifetimes in centuries will be possible, but folks will still die of falls, drowning, poisons, cancers, viruses, etc.

Because people will not have children during the added years, this would add only a fixed term, not a geometric one, to the population. Population would not grow faster. And in fact, as in the 1900s, the increased life-length might well be accompanied be a reduction in children.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

If “eternal life on earth” became available it would not cause overpopulation, unless the years of fertility were likewise extended. The increase in human life length during the 1900s has not been of that pattern. While life can be lengthened near the end, however long the body lives, the reproductive system will let go at nearly the same age for everybody. We are seeing that now, with not-so-young women struggling to have children in their 40s. Life has lengthened since the 1800s, but the years of natural cycles have not changed.

Actually, “eternal life on earth” is NOT possible. You cannot defeat the law of entropy in a small, complex system like a human body. You can only delay it; lifetimes in centuries will be possible, but folks will still die of falls, drowning, poisons, cancers, viruses, etc.

Because people will not have children during the added years, this would add only a fixed term, not a geometric one, to the population. Population would not grow faster. And in fact, as in the 1900s, the increased life-length might well be accompanied be a reduction in children.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

But extending life AND the length of youthful life is what people are doing, right now and spending billions on it: Eliminating poisons, cancers, viruses, safer travel, extending the length of the fertility cycle (or bypassing it altogether), predicting disasters, etc.

I know eternal life on Earth isn’t possible but it doesn’t stop Deceived people from trying in vain. It’s the trying that is part of the problem. People are messing with things that they shouldn’t be messing with.

God bless you.

 

[GEddie]

But extending life AND the length of youthful life is what people are doing, right now and spending billions on it: Eliminating poisons, cancers, viruses, safer travel, extending the length of the fertility cycle (or bypassing it altogether), predicting disasters, etc.

I know eternal life on Earth isn’t possible but it doesn’t stop Deceived people from trying in vain. It’s the trying that is part of the problem. People are messing with things that they shouldn’t be messing with.

God bless you.

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.