How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[Cojuanco]

Also, in many cases it stems from the fact that the people who scream loudest about population control are not willing to engage in the efforts needed to make it necessary, usually because it would mean sharing more resources with the unwashed masses, and working to end the extreme economic inequities from which they benefit socially - I’m talking the global South here, not the United States, when I mean real inequality generally - so they prefer culling the poor than improving their lot, because it would mean they have to have less than mansions that would make Donald Trump blush, and that they won’t be getting a sixth gold-plated Mercedes-Benz (I exaggerate, of course, on that, but some of the inequalities really are stark in these places).

It’s incredibly short-sighted, of course - you can’t solve the problems of the world’s poor by killing off the poor - but it’s compelling to people who prefer handing out condoms than taking stock of the fact that perhaps, they, of all people, are contributing to the problem.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Acting responsibly!!

Yes, … now is that a subjective judgment or what!!

Too much.

As long as we have food and energy, the idea of having children … why should that be acting irresponsibly???

This started out as an exercise in math: population growth being “exponential” and resource growth topping out in ??? a million years? by 2400?

But all of a sudden, we have stopped the math and fallen back on “acting responsibly”.

With respect to population growth … so far NO ONE has picked up on the impact on populations of magnetic polar reversal.

Polar magnetic reversal is important …

If God said, multiply, populate the Earth … but if we discover the physical periodic phenomenon of polar magnetic reversal … then all of the math and all of the tearing of shirts are meaningless.

Then there are the Krakatoa events … so … none of the math whizbangs have felt challenged enough to calculate the effects on population of periodic polar magnetic reversals or Krakatoa events.

Why is that. Are you so enamored with faculty lounge conversations that you have abandoned math?

…

On the resource side, we have “Hubbard’s Peak” … peak oil. BUT … and here is a challenge for you mathies … what percent of the earth’s oil is controlled by dictatorships? You can even shred the numbers a bit and add columns for unstable personalities versus stable personalities. Is it 90% or is it 95%? You can go through country by country and add up the total and figure out what the percentage is. Quant skills and some look-up skills.

[And, the reason why that issue is important, is that OPEC and their ilk DO NOT WANT the West (aka, Chrisitianity) to come up with alternative energy sources … so they foist off on us the notion of “peak oil”. But what if it’s not true! What if it’s just an attempt at fooling us?]

Challenge the assumptions!

And then the other day, apparently Israel discovered the second largest oil field on the planet.

So, what’s the deal on resources?

Are we running out? Or not?

Or are we constantly discovering new resources all the time?

Linear answers do not qualify.

I didn’t start this thread.

But are the people insistent on behaving responsibly willing to do the math and the research … that the question is multi-dimensional. Not a linear question. Not a linear answer.

 

[cerad2]

Still … STILL …
… nobody is anticipating that material progress will be made.
No new innovations.
No improvements.
But there ARE innovations … and there ARE improvements … ALL THE TIME.
But the “theoreticians” are unwilling to believe that progress is possible.
The theoreticians are unable to visualize any kind of innovation.
THAT is the problem.

I was the one who posted some examples of where exponential growth would take us. I included faster than light inter-galactic travel and the ability to convert entire solar systems into people. I like to think that I have a pretty good imagination but I stand in awe of yours. What sort of progress do you envision?

Then there are the Krakatoa events … so … none of the math whizbangs have felt challenged enough to calculate the effects on population of periodic polar magnetic reversals or Krakatoa events.

Why is that. Are you so enamored with faculty lounge conversations that you have abandoned math?

Krakatoa type events can be pretty much ignored. Perhaps you were talking about super-volcanoes? Those would be a bit more serious but, do the math, even if 90% if the population was wiped out then we would still recover within a thousand years or so assuming that a reasonable amount of our scientific knowledge (i.e. wash you hands before delivering a baby) was preserved. A mere blip in the grand scheme of things.

And it’s difficult to predict just when such things will happen. Yellowstone is sort of over due for erupting again but remember that even if we drastically reduce population growth we will still end up with 3 million billion people in about 2000 years. Odds are that we won’t experience any natural mass extinction events in that short of time frame.

And of course a nearby super-nova will mean game over.

With respect to population growth … so far NO ONE has picked up on the impact on populations of magnetic polar reversal.

Polar magnetic reversal is important …

If God said, multiply, populate the Earth … but if we discover the physical periodic phenomenon of polar magnetic reversal … then all of the math and all of the tearing of shirts are meaningless.

Perhaps you could enlighten us on the dangers of a magnetic pole reversal? Understand that we are not talking about physical poles i.e. the earth isn’t going to suddenly tip over. The magnetic poles have reversed periodically through geological history. There doesn’t seem to be any direct correlation with mass extinction events.

 

[Warrior1979]

Acting responsibly!!

Yes, … now is that a subjective judgment or what!!

Too much.

As long as we have food and energy, the idea of having children … why should that be acting irresponsibly???

That’s exactly the way people think…they think about now, and completely ignore what will happen in the future. Take the housing bubble for example. Did buyers care that they were paying 110% of market value for a property…nope…because the money was available. But any thinking person would realize that “free money” was going to come to an end someday…and end it did.

The same with resource use. The cheap resources are going to end within the forseeable future, yet people ignore it…they only care about the here and now. It’s easy to ignore than act, and so ignore people will.

But all of a sudden, we have stopped the math and fallen back on “acting responsibly”.

Why is that. Are you so enamored with faculty lounge conversations that you have abandoned math?

Why the importance on math? Math is simply a man-made tool to describe that which already exists.

With respect to population growth … so far NO ONE has picked up on the impact on populations of magnetic polar reversal.

Why the obsession with this? Lots of natural events will occur over the course of time that affect life on this planet. It’s happened before; it’ll happen again.

On the resource side, we have “Hubbard’s Peak” … peak oil. BUT … and here is a challenge for you mathies … what percent of the earth’s oil is controlled by dictatorships? You can even shred the numbers a bit and add columns for unstable personalities versus stable personalities. Is it 90% or is it 95%? You can go through country by country and add up the total and figure out what the percentage is. Quant skills and some look-up skills.

Who controls it really isn’t relevant. Some argue we’ve hit the peak, and the highly optimistic crowd puts it out a few years. Someone controlling, at best, a few years of supply doesn’t make an difference.

And, the reason why that issue is important, is that OPEC and their ilk DO NOT WANT the West (aka, Chrisitianity) to come up with alternative energy sources … so they foist off on us the notion of “peak oil”. But what if it’s not true! What if it’s just an attempt at fooling us?

People like to play this game. There are various countries non-Christian nations around the world that have high technically expertise and would benefit greatly by eliminating oil dependence…North Korea, Japan, etc. The Christianity aspect is pure and utter nonsense.

So, what’s the deal on resources?

Are we running out? Or not?

Or are we constantly discovering new resources all the time?

I’ll repeat once again. The amount of resources is not relevant. EROEI is what matters.

 

[GEddie]

The earth’s poles do not snap back and forth like the armature of an electric buzzer.

They do drift, within the mass of liquid metal that is the central earth, over thousands of years.

But even if they did reverse, what harm would that do to our nonmagnetic bodies?

 

[wynnejj]

The earth’s poles do not snap back and forth like the armature of an electric buzzer.

They do drift, within the mass of liquid metal that is the central earth, over thousands of years.

But even if they did reverse, what harm would that do to our nonmagnetic bodies?

For me, instead of not knowing my left from my right, I wouldn’t know my right from my left.

If it reverses ocean currents, instead of the high cliffs of the American Pacific Coast, you would have the high cliffs of the Atlantic Coast.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The earth’s poles do not snap back and forth like the armature of an electric buzzer.

They do drift, within the mass of liquid metal that is the central earth, over thousands of years.

But even if they did reverse, what harm would that do to our nonmagnetic bodies?

It’s documented.

Take a couple of seconds and google it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

No one anticipated the Hall–Héroult process … google it.

It took merely one genius to make it work. In this case, two geniuses working independently each came up with the idea.

Yet it virtually revolutionized life as we know it.

Think of other very other super expensive or difficult economic goods … how might a revolutionary idea came about.

No one anticipated penicillin.

And they absolutely derided antiangiogenesis …

So, look around and think what processes might be beneficial to have, if made the end result easily adapted to daily life.

Not sure about teleportation, though.

Conversion of methane to gasoline?

 

[Warrior1979]

Not sure about teleportation, though.

Highly likely, at least in the sense we see in sci fi movies, due to uncertainty principles.

Conversion of methane to gasoline?

Governed by entropy. The methane has to be produced, then converted, at a loss, of course. It is most certainly no substitute for an already existed fossil fuel source.

 

[wynnejj]

“Does the world have to worry about limiting our population due to finite resources?”.

The answers seem to come in the following forms:

1. The second coming of Jesus will make all concerns about population control a non-issue. He will come before our world resources run out.
2. God will provide the answers with man and his science as the instrument. We do not have to resort to limiting our families. Don’t worry. God will provide the technological advances in society when we need it.
3. God expects us to limit our families by remaining celibate if one does not have the wherewithal to support a family or, use partial abstinence within the confines of marriage through NFP during periods of privation.
4. God expects us to use good sense through barrier contraception acceptable within the confines of marriage, without resorting to abortifacients or abortions or same-sex partnerships.
5. God expects us to use good sense through contraception including ABC and early abortions before the human being develops brain and pain centers.
6. Do your personal best.

Personally, I go along with #1 and #2.

**Does acting responsibly necessarily mean limiting family size?
**
For myself, I define responsible action as complete trust in Divine Providence. God will provide in one way or the other, no matter what. I chose #1 and #2, but not #3, even though it is within the guidelines of the Catholic Church. For example, I would be inclined to advise a young couple that naturally fall in love to take the natural next step of marriage and commitment to accepting children, and NOT to defer marriage or children regardless of other practical / responsible concerns. The Catholic alternative #3, which involves abstinence, is certainly OK but has the disadvantage of a temptation to temporarily break with the faith in order to cohabit and/or contracept. The #4 alternative is considered by many Christians as acceptable, but is contrary to the Catholic faith. Alternatives #5 and #6 is generally(?) accepted to be out of bounds for all Christians.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Highly likely, at least in the sense we see in sci fi movies, due to uncertainty principles.

Governed by entropy. The methane has to be produced, then converted, at a loss, of course. It is most certainly no substitute for an already existed fossil fuel source.

There are already a couple of processes in use for decades.

Methane is arguably the most commonly available substance on the planet.

We need better conversion processes, but these two are there already … and no net energy loss.

You can look them up. You know how to do that. You don’t need me to tell you, do you?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

For me, instead of not knowing my left from my right, I wouldn’t know my right from my left.

If it reverses ocean currents, instead of the high cliffs of the American Pacific Coast, you would have the high cliffs of the Atlantic Coast.

Why are you so frightened about looking it up?

 

[zdon011]

But what would you say to this argument:

The Earth is limited. There is only so much room and resources, etc. Even if it would take 50 billion or 500 billion people or whatever to exhaust the resources, at some point, they would be exhausted. Therefore, at some point we would be required to limit the number of children we are having, and having more people would be unsustainable.

How would you respond?

Two words: People die.

 

[wynnejj]

Why are you so frightened about looking it up?

Are we heading down the path of december212012.com/ ?
Or, polereversal.com/ ?

 

[wynnejj]

Ooh! Did you notice the number of my posts on that last one? 666

 

[wynnejj]

I’ve thought about this before and I think others have brought it up in various ways, but here goes:

I do not believe in the whole overpopulation myth or the belief that humans are parasites on this Earth and that we must work to reduce our numbers, etc.

But what would you say to this argument:

The Earth is limited. There is only so much room and resources, etc. Even if it would take 50 billion or 500 billion people or whatever to exhaust the resources, at some point, they would be exhausted. Therefore, at some point we would be required to limit the number of children we are having, and having more people would be unsustainable.

How would you respond?

*“Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, *above my pay grade.”

 

[ESMDHokie77]

***“Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, ***above my pay grade.”

have you thought about running for political office? You might have the knack for it with answers like those

I think the dignity of human life should not be less than the importance people place upon Creation (earth).

 

[wynnejj]

***“Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, ***above my pay grade.”

Can you imagine the press that would follow if the Pope dodged the question?

"Do you think that married couples should act responsibly and limit family size from a theological point of view in light of the scientific projections of overpopulation - that is, too many people and too little resources in the not too distant future?"

 

[graceandglory]

Regarding there only being so much room, everyone in the world could fit into Texas (and comfortably)…

Right, just go to Google Earth, and look for civilization. We always “hear” the overpopulation myth from people who live in large metropolitan areas that limit growth.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

We have lots of people using an infinite series for projecting population numbers … with NO countervailing equations for population reduction factors … black plague things. reversing of the magnetic field … krakatoa events.

No effort at all.

AND on the resource side, one of the brilliant minds must be able to look back at innovation in food supply [e.g., miracle rice ] and in energy [whale oil, petroleum, shale gas, nuclear] and in medicine [small pox innoculations] and in public health [mosquito screening, DDT, water treatment] and in transportation [canal boats, steam locomotives], and in a host of other technological areas and come up with some kind of index similar to Moore’s Law.

You know what Moore’s Law is, right?

So, create an index … for technological progress in the past …

So project out based on past innovation and invention to see what the index might look like into the future.

For one current data point …

bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-07/poland-targeting-shale-gas-with-exxon-to-end-russian-dominance.html

… for new energy sources …

I mean, like, ANYBODY, with graph paper and a straight edge can project a series of numbers out to infinity.

That doesn’t take any talent.

[Ah, yes, you assumed that it took TALENT to do that! To use a straight edge to infinity … no, sorry, guys … Whoa.]

So use your intellect to come up with a modified population growth curve.

And then come up with a Moore’s Law for technology.

[You could even start with Moore’s Law!]