The Population Bomb.

[manualman]

1. I hate to contradict you because obviously you are a person who has spent some time talking to an African or is well traveled to Africa. But alas, the contrarian in me must prevail. So let me understand you. You are saying that population explosions occur only in areas where there is a transition from agrarian to urban demographics, for reasons of both prosperity and for abject poverty.
2. For reasons of prosperity, I would suggest that it represents a situation where agriculture has been mechanized to such a point that less farmers are needed, so people go to the cities for jobs which results in more time for technological advancement, better medicine for longer life, and better lifestyle. The growth in economy spurs with synergy a growth in population. Population explosions make sense in this context.
3. For reasons of poverty, I don’t think your analysis makes sense. I suspect it is a cultural thing such that the more kids & livestock one has, the more is one’s social status. Also, since many kids do not make it to adulthood, then many must be born to ensure security in one’s old age. This is more necessary in an agrarian or hunter / gatherer society. I have a little trouble accepting that prolonged poverty leads people to have more kids if they are going to the cities where they grow no food. Are they going to the cities for entitlements? Are they having large numbers of kids because only so many make it through life to reach a higher education? What’s the reason?

1. My third world experience is South American, but I’ve got enough contacts in the NGO world to know that Africa faces similar problems. And you’re almost right. It’s not just “agrarian”, but pre-industrial agrarian. And not just urban, but industrialized urban. More on the difference below.
2. If I understand you correctly, you’re on the right track. Industrialized societies require fairly low rural population to grow the food they need and the wealth tends to be urban centered. Urban living is inherently punishing to large families and lower TFRs naturally result. But such societies ALSO have low TFR in the rural areas because the mechanized agriculture tends to require less labor and the medical benefits developed in the urban areas also benefit the rural areas leading to lower mortality rates among children. In short, the two kids you have are MUCH more likely to survive childhood.
3. Pre-industrial agrarian societies had lots of kids, but not enough of them survived to adulthood to create booming populations. You may think all that is in the past, but it’s still all too true in places like rural Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Those populations generally don’t boom until the demographic transition starts (NGO’s bring medical advances, sanitation, hygiene, more reliable agriculture methods, etc. Almost overnight, those societies change from ones in which the typical family has 7 kids and 2, maybe 3 survive to adulthood to a very good chance of all 7 surviving. Thus, population boom.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The “recent” attempts [going back to the 1800’s] to scare people with stories about the “population bomb” are in my opinion, actually, attempts to destroy Western Civilization … i.e., Christianity.

 

[lynnvinc]

1. This works as long as there are nations with booming populations and compatible cultures. This is why America’s population is still growing and why we are fools to denigrate Mexican immigrants. We should be kissing their feet in gratitude for the time they are buying our culture. But like many Euro-centric “solutions” it has a hidden dark side. What sort of person is going to be allowed to immigrate to a Western country, the “tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to be free” or the cream of the crop; the educated, motivated and capable people that could transform third world countries into newly prosperous and flourishing nations? Answer: the latter. And thus the brain drain ensures that said third world nations stay stuck in poverty.
2. There certainly are some racists that initially got alarmed at the proportion of whiteys declining and that of brown skin increasing. If that were all there were to the story, it WOULD be a non-issue. But it’s not. The “Asian Tiger” countries have a disasterously low birth rate. Most of South America is down nearly to replacemet levels and still dropping fast (every sign of reaching Euro-style subreplacement). You can just dismiss this global developing trend as racist alarmism. It’s a truly color blind threat that just happened to manifest first in historically white countries. Nobody is immune. If there’s racism on this issue today its the soft sort you displayed in your initial response (Oh well, we’ll just import some ‘surplus’ people from one of THOSE countries).

I agree with you both about the brain drain and many countries having declining fertility. But I think the main problem is the means by which societies and people reduce their populations or strive to keep them at the same level – abortion, laws against having more than one child, etc. I don’t see anything wrong per se if most people decided to become priest, monks, and nuns, living celibate lives.

Of course, declining populations could also have some economic impact, esp if there are not enough young working people to support the elderly…as is happening, even in the U.S.

Besides these issues (which are huge), I don’t see a problem in general of the world having a somewhat lower population. We’ve had lower populations in the past and did okay. There would be less people to work, but then less people to consume things. I’m not sure what the great fear of the human population declining a bit or remaining stable is – so far it is still increasing. See worldometers.info/world-population/

 

[JimG]

A decliing population trend is hard to reverse, and can lead to economic disaster. With the current trend in declining fertility rates among developed nations, a demographic winter is a real threat.

Governments expect economic growth to bail them out of huge debt. But declining fertility levels mean fewer workers, more elderly, less growth, more debt.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Since that time, India and China have both modernized their agricultural system and have vastly improved their food distribution systems, so we no longer hear of starvation in those countries.

Careful…

Just because we don’t hear about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Current day China is doing fairly well, though certain resources are alarmingly low, such as water. There would likely be a alarming shortage of various resources had China continued the policy of encourage woman to have as many children as possible.

India, on the other hand, has a major issue with starvation. According to the Global Hunger Index, it is the only non-African nation to have an index of “alarming.” That seems consistent with what people have told me that have been there. Extreme poverty and hunger is present amongst a significant portion of the population.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Careful…

Just because we don’t hear about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Current day China is doing fairly well, though certain resources are alarmingly low, such as water. There would likely be a alarming shortage of various resources had China continued the policy of encourage woman to have as many children as possible.

India, on the other hand, has a major issue with starvation. According to the Global Hunger Index, it is the only non-African nation to have an index of “alarming.” That seems consistent with what people have told me that have been there. Extreme poverty and hunger is present amongst a significant portion of the population.

I’ve read just the opposite.

China is having all sorts of economic problems … they are good at covering it up.

And India is doing quite well.

 

[lynnvinc]

I’ve read just the opposite.

China is having all sorts of economic problems … they are good at covering it up.

And India is doing quite well.

China is losing more to pollution harms, cancer alleys, etc, than it is gaining in GDP – it’s going backwards fast. And to the extent that we are buying products made in China, we are (perhap unwittingly) encouraging these harm.

Rich and middle class Indians are doing well. Many poor Indians are doing a bit better than in the past. Starvation and extreme poverty are still problems.

The world populations will be declining one way or another within 100 years due to serious environmental harms, which we are refusing to address adequately – see stockholmresilience.org/planetary-boundaries

It basically amounts to this generation committing genocide and ecocide against future generations. Or, the big abortion.

And the people who say there are no serious environmental problems are the ones contributing the most to these problems by way of persuading others to do nothing about them. There are many harms already in the pipes, but who knows, if we were perchance to mitigate these problems our human population may persist without much loss on into the future.

Those who are seriously concerned about human life and world population can look into their own lives to see what can be done to reduce harms to life, including a rich prayer life. You’d be surprised (initially) to find how much God will help in this pursuit. But afterall, it is His creation, His baby, so to speak.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’ve read just the opposite.

China is having all sorts of economic problems … they are good at covering it up.

And India is doing quite well.

I’m talking about hunger and starvation; you are talking about economic numbers. They are not the same thing.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I’m talking about hunger and starvation; you are talking about economic numbers. They are not the same thing.

India produces more than enough food, but somehow has not figured out how to distribute the food.

bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-19190437

Traditionally, India has some societal issues with tribal customs, caste systems, and adoption of the socialist economic model from the UK.

India is developing a technologically advanced middle class, which is new to them. And it is outside the caste system … so that all members of Indian society will be able to move ahead.

AND, India is a world leader in use of thorium for generating electricity … getting away from the uranium model, which was based on Western nuclear power for submarines and ships.

These economic model improvements will allow India to reach all parts of their society to improve their lives in general and provide adequate food for all.

 

[lynnvinc]

India produces more than enough food, but somehow has not figured out how to distribute the food.

bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-19190437

Traditionally, India has some societal issues with tribal customs, caste systems, and adoption of the socialist economic model from the UK.

India is developing a technologically advanced middle class, which is new to them. And it is outside the caste system … so that all members of Indian society will be able to move ahead.

AND, India is a world leader in use of thorium for generating electricity … getting away from the uranium model, which was based on Western nuclear power for submarines and ships.

These economic model improvements will allow India to reach all parts of their society to improve their lives in general and provide adequate food for all.

India has instituted “right to food” and “right to work” laws to help ensure the poor get help when they need it (and they have “midday meal” program in schools). So at least a person can dig public works ditches and get ration rice (which tastes really horrible) and survive. Nevertheless there are still many people in India who don’t get these basic subsistence benefits and there is lots of corruption there, as well.

So for now there may be adequate food, even tho it is not distributed so that all get some, but the future looks extremely bleak, since India is projected to be grossly harmed by the impacts of serious environmental harms. Their population will probably be dwindling, perhaps sharply, within 100 years due to this…

…unlesss…unless someone cares enough in some rich country to start turning off lights not in use, and that leads to everyone around the world doing millions of EC (enviornmentally correct) things to reduce harms around the world.

 

[JimG]

When making public policy, we might want to consider the impact that a depopulation spiral will have on what are now seen as primary environmental issues. A declining population means less emissions, less energy usage, less trash disposal. But it also means fewer young workers, less innovation, more elderly, and economic stagnation.

 

[wynnejj]

1. Pre-industrial agrarian societies had lots of kids, but not enough of them survived to adulthood to create booming populations. You may think all that is in the past, but it’s still all too true in places like rural Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Those populations generally don’t boom until the demographic transition starts (NGO’s bring medical advances, sanitation, hygiene, more reliable agriculture methods, etc. Almost overnight, those societies change from ones in which the typical family has 7 kids and 2, maybe 3 survive to adulthood to a very good chance of all 7 surviving. Thus, population boom.

So what you seem to be saying is that the CIA colored map which shows how many kids are born on average in various areas, and suggests that central Africa is having kids on average of 4 to 8 unlike the rest of the world, is not an indication of what one might consider a population boom. That much of the area may be pre-industrialized agrarian where many kids born will simply not reach adulthood or, at least will have much shorter lives. That much of the area is not undergoing a demographic transition or population boom, despite the high child birth rate. I buy that.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It would be better for the people of India and Africa if they got rid of Socialism and dictatorships and installed representative republican forms of government … with free market economics and private property rights.

They would have incentives to produce and would have plenty of food to eat and would not need to come to the United States for a better life.

 

[lynnvinc]

Something I read today – “Hotter, wetter climate slashes labor capacity by 10 percent: U.S. study” at reuters.com/article/2013/02/24/us-climate-labor-idUSBRE91N0CN20130224?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2Fenvironment+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Environment%29

Since a main concern here is that depopulation will mean less workers to do the work, this is another serious harm to work and productivity. In the article is says work capability could even drop by 80% after 2050. Right when hurricanes, floods, droughts, and disease brought on by climate change and other serious environmental harms now in the pipes will require a tremendous number of workers to rebuild and rebuild, give aid and relief, and tend the sick, etc. (Imagine a Sandy or Katrina level disaster happening 2 or 3 times a year within the U.S., instead of every 7 years, along with 100s of other smaller disasters each year, and likewise in other countries.) So depopulation along with people being unable to work at full capacity will be really bad. And when you factor in all the hormone-disrupting chemicals and other pollution permeating our bodies, causing sterility, miscarriages, and birth defects. Even if people stopped a while, got off the rat race treadmill, and actually tried to have children, actually working on a stable marriage…it might not be so easy.

Is there a screenwriter in the house – this sounds like a disaster movie.

I know that in the past hunter/gatherer people only worked on average about 20 hours (likely less) a week for a healthy life, but I seriously doubt society could go back to that. Someone would want an ipad.

 

[lynnvinc]

It would be better for the people of India and Africa if they got rid of Socialism and dictatorships and installed representative republican forms of government … with free market economics and private property rights.

They would have incentives to produce and would have plenty of food to eat and would not need to come to the United States for a better life.

Well, actually that’s sort of a good idea if the motive is to make people have more children. Only when there is socialism, social security, medicare, etc do people not feel pressured to have huge families.

In India the idea has been that a man needs at least one son to reach adulthood to take care of him in old age and perform funeral rites or the deceased will go to hell. In the past that meant having many children – an expensive investment, but necessary for well-being in this life and the next. Having 10 adult sons could make an old man rich. They actually have laws in India that adult sons have to take care of their elderly parents – who can sue them for such care. And wouldn’t you know it, there is a rising trend in elder abuse in this modern age of confusion.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

So-called “Global Warming” has been “determined” by some computer programs … computer models.

The alleged “most likely” scenario is a ONE degree increase in the next 100 years.

Not one degree PER YEAR. One degree increase by the year 2100 or so.

Keep in mind this: the (name removed by moderator)ut data that they used for the models was determined to be as much as FIVE degrees above actual … meaning that the alleged scientists did not calibrate the thermometers before using the data record. [Mostly they are at airports and used to help pilots determine their take off length requirements … and approximate temperature readings are more than adequate for density-altitude calculations.]

ONE DEGREE.

A temperature increase that is totally imperceptible to humans.

Well, what about the glacier in Glacier National Park melting? Well, sorry to tell you this, but THEY ALLL MELTED! … North America was covered in glaciers ONE MILE THICK.

And they all melted.

Carbon dioxide had nothing to do with it.

 

[JimG]

The Only Solution to Our Population Crisis

 

[manualman]

So what you seem to be saying is that the CIA colored map which shows how many kids are born on average in various areas, and suggests that central Africa is having kids on average of 4 to 8 unlike the rest of the world, is not an indication of what one might consider a population boom. That much of the area may be pre-industrialized agrarian where many kids born will simply not reach adulthood or, at least will have much shorter lives. That much of the area is not undergoing a demographic transition or population boom, despite the high child birth rate. I buy that.

I’m not sure I’m informed quite enough to say where specific countries on the demographic transition spectrum (Pre, during, or post), but Africa as a whole is well into the “during” category and population there is booming. In spite of the ongoing poor political and economic conditions in much of the continent, very little of the population there is still an unaffected pre-industrial society. Even in tribal areas with little modern technology there has been an enormous influx of education efforts, clean water sanitation assistance, basic medical services and at least midwife training (if not widespread OB-GYN availability). Barring civil war or disease outbreak (both tragically common in much of Africa), most children there really do reach adulthood.

Where conventional wisdom these days gets it dead wrong is to focus on booming population as a primary problem to combat rather than the reality of it being a transitory stage in cultural development. Every dollar spent in handing out condoms and promoting dependence on the pill is a dollar NOT being used to establish a just legal and political order. Help them to a just and stable political/economic system and population will stabilize by itself after a while.

 

[Gricken]

It’s difficult to engage in any kind of meaningful conversation with so much hyperbole.

The PRI have their own, rather blatant, agenda.

You know there’s a difference between having enough space, and having enough resources, or being able to get enough resources to that space, to support those occupying that space, right?

Overpopulation is no myth.

Mother Earth does have her limitations.

Sarah x

The threat of overpopulation is no myth. But I would say that right now, it’s far less of a problem than misdistribution of resources.

 

[JimG]

Right now, the most imminent threat is the threat of depopulation spiraling out of control, leading to economic and political crises.