Can we talk about world population?

HiTempguy wrote: And the final part is when we go to other planets. There really isn't a lot stopping us from living on Mars except money. Might not be great, but it would be an adventure if nothing else. There are much more pressing concerns out there, the earth can easily support 14 billion people.

I'm not too worried about the world ceasing to exist. I'm worried about the world ceasing to exist as we know it. See my type enjoys fishing, diving, camping and exploring. Basically I need the environment for my hobbies. If the world keeps moving towards a world of concrete jungle/video games for enjoyment....what's the point.

It comes down to being selfish. I would just be pissed if all these years of hard work/saving for the future ended up being a future of lameness.

SVreX wrote: And I'd much rather live in a society and world that enables open conversation so I can come to a reasoned and beneficial decision about how I can run my life and contribute to society, than one that tells me I am vermin and forcibly cuts my hootus off.

Keep your hootus, I'm simply saying let's not subsidize/incentivize popping out babies. Just let me know when we do such a thing so I can pull my money out of the market before the ponzi scheme crashes.

z31maniac wrote:

T.J. wrote: The human population has already surpassed the number that can be sustained without the use of oil. We rely on oil not only for transportation, but also to make plastics and fertilizers. Without oil most of us on the planet starve because our agricultural system collapses along with the associated food packaging and distribution systems. This is like many things, a big problem that there is very little to nothing that an average person can do to change it. As long as the world runs on a debt based fiat money supply, we will tend to attempt to continue exponential growth in the population in an effort to maintain the unsustainable status quo of an exponentially growing economy needed to try to pay off the exponentially growing debt. At some point, there will either be a massive culling/die-off of humans or there will be some sort of magical breakthrough technology that allows us to continue along as we are.

No, don't bring facts into this. We need to rely on rampant conjecture and speculation about the potential of smart people being born.

lol exactly.

I have two somewhat opposing views on the subject:

Humans are resourceful and will find ways to overcome food, space and energy concerns when the need becomes great enough. Humans are hard to kill.

Nature has ways of population control and humans are fools if they believe they can predict this or always control it. Humans are easy to kill.

The simple fact is humans really haven't been around for very long. We can't really hurt the planet simply because by nature "Life" is a fluid and changing thing. Species evolve, grow, change and die off. Others take their place. Eventually the planet itself dies and is vaporized. It's been that way for millions of years on this world and throughout time on countless others.

And this assumes the planet goes through its life cycle without influence from outside forces. Rarely is this the case.

SVreX wrote: I understand to you, it's just a condom. To some people who hear you, you are saying their family will cease to exist, and that's OK.

Not trying to be a jerk, but I don't get it. No one has said the world should stop having kids. Assuming clean water, ample food and basic health care everyone having one or two children doesn't mean your family os going to vanish. I have one step daughter and one biological daughter, neither will likely have kids with my last name. Does that mean my family will cease to exist and I'm not going into an existential panic over vanishing.

If someone honestly thinks that a condom, the pill, tying the tubes (his or her) is murder, then I honestly hope that person doesn't reproduce.

Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for pope Francis, hopefully he can bring some sense to at least his little religion.

I hope to be re-incarnated as my own dog. I love that little berkeleyer to death :)

SVreX wrote: Since we are talking about world population, why would we think that WE get to choose, or that OUR solutions are best? We are a puny minority. I have lived with people who will never understand why Americans kill their babies, hoard resources, or many other things. If the world gets to choose about it's cultural priorities related to the population debate, it's very possible the cultural mindset on the issue many people would choose to eliminate is OURS. In other words, there are places where people believe the world would be a better place without our elitist, bourgeois, ethnocentric thinking that says we have too many people on the planet.

Who is "WE" in this case?

I think i missed something.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

SVreX wrote: I understand to you, it's just a condom. To some people who hear you, you are saying their family will cease to exist, and that's OK.

If someone honestly thinks that a condom, the pill, tying the tubes (his or her) is murder, then I honestly hope that person doesn't reproduce. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for pope Francis, hopefully he can bring some sense to at least his little religion. I hope to be re-incarnated as my own dog. I love that little berkeleyer to death :)

As a Catholic who wants 3-4 kids, and will probably have 2:

Swank Force One wrote:

SVreX wrote: Since we are talking about world population, why would we think that WE get to choose, or that OUR solutions are best? We are a puny minority. I have lived with people who will never understand why Americans kill their babies, hoard resources, or many other things. If the world gets to choose about it's cultural priorities related to the population debate, it's very possible the cultural mindset on the issue many people would choose to eliminate is OURS. In other words, there are places where people believe the world would be a better place without our elitist, bourgeois, ethnocentric thinking that says we have too many people on the planet.

Who is "WE" in this case? I think i missed something.

SVreX wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: It's a pretty simple math problem. If 1% are Einsteins, 10 million extra people means 100,000 more Einsteins. You think they all do nothing of value? What a pessimistic view.

The problem with this math is that Mother Nature is a stone cold bitch and has a sense of humor to boot. So, for every Einstein she is going to deliver one of these charismatic charmers as part of the package. Oddly enough they all seem to advocate population controls of some sort.

This Mao dude took care of 40 million between tea-breaks. Neat thinker though.

Another popular politician brought to you by Mr and Mrs statistics and probability: Somewhere between 20 to 60 million, but whos counting eh?

And his good buddy to the west:

And if we need to look locally, we might have our own contender on the rise

So lighten up people, whether you are born or not, nobody gets out alive.

The sooner we can start harvesting asteroids for materials to build and power space ships, the better.

As much as I support renewable resources here on earth, I fully support "drill baby drill" of resources else-where in the galaxy. Unless they are populated by super tall kinda sexy blue aliens.

MrJoshua wrote: It bugs me that these conversations always have two constants: -The ball of rock we live on is more valuable than us.

Ultimately, it is, and has to be. Without a sustainably nice planet to live on, population is going to decline regardless. It will just be a lot more unpleasant that way, and a lot more final.

-The fear of an overpopulated earth is enough to cause people to calmly talk about massive waves of death as a good thing.

I haven't seen that argument other than the neutral observation that part of it is that humanity is less and less inclined in treating war as sport. Not the kind of war where deaths in individual battles is measured in the thousands, anyway.

More and more people (myself included) are taking the conscious decision to not have kids. It's not for everyone of course but it's better than some of the reasons people have for having kids.

NOHOME wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: It's a pretty simple math problem. If 1% are Einsteins, 10 million extra people means 100,000 more Einsteins. You think they all do nothing of value? What a pessimistic view.

The problem with this math is that Mother Nature is a stone cold bitch and has a sense of humor to boot. So, for every Einstein she is going to deliver one of these charismatic charmers as part of the package. Oddly enough they all seem to advocate population controls of some sort.

And unlike the potential Einsteins, the potential Maos are more likely to become actual Maos when resources are spread thinner.

trucke wrote:

Swank Force One wrote:

SVreX wrote: Since we are talking about world population, why would we think that WE get to choose, or that OUR solutions are best? We are a puny minority. I have lived with people who will never understand why Americans kill their babies, hoard resources, or many other things. If the world gets to choose about it's cultural priorities related to the population debate, it's very possible the cultural mindset on the issue many people would choose to eliminate is OURS. In other words, there are places where people believe the world would be a better place without our elitist, bourgeois, ethnocentric thinking that says we have too many people on the planet.

Who is "WE" in this case? I think i missed something.

If that's the case, then i really don't understand why "we" shouldn't think that our solutions are the best, or why "we" shouldn't have a say in what happens.

Because otherwise... we just leave it to fate and let nature sort it out?

In reply to Swank Force One:

STFU SHEEP.....

I tend to think that overpopulation isn't a sustainable problem. Too many humans too close together invariably results in less humans. My selfish tendency means that I strive to make sure that me and mine are not the ones being eliminated.

I do like the idea of sending some people off into space, like to Mars. I'm afraid the people who are interested in going don't sit on the same list as the people I am most interested in sending.

z31maniac wrote: No, don't bring facts into this. We need to rely on rampant conjecture and speculation about the potential of smart people being born.

The "rampant conjecture" is is about 50 years worth of pedagological research.

Why do liberals try to end intellectual discussions when they run out of material by substituting name calling?

Let's see... Try "Pedagogia do Oprimido" (Pedagogy of the Oppressed in English) by Paulo Freire for a starting point. It was originally written in Portugeuse, but there are English translations you can find.

If you'd like to call someone names, you will have to target thinkers much greater than me. I am not qualified to make this stuff up.

But thanks for thinking of me.

The problem with mining asteroids for minerals to build spaceships with is where the berkeley are we supposed to go?

Unless a some hot sexy blue alien with three titties pops down and gives us a clue on teleportation or FTL travel we're stuck with the fact that we can’t go anywhere.

Even Alpha Centauri is 4.5 light years away. Just say that we could travel at 1,000,000 mph and ignore hitting bits of dust that would shatter us at that speed and radiation that would cook us faster than a microwave dinner. It would still take close to 2 centuries to get there, only to find there’s bugger all worth putting a deposit on and turning around to come home.

Nope, we’re going to have to figure it out down here unless someone has the phone # for the Flying Spaghetti Monsters personal line.

Yep nobody's going anywhere until someone figures out a way to make a mockery of the laws of physics as we know them.

Generation ships won't work either, since we can't handle the long-term planning and slight sacrifice needed to fix such relatively quickly solved problems as global warming.

Earlier it was mentioned that the planet can support 14 billion people. Yeah, but at what level of development? The problem we have now at 6.whatever billion (many estimates put it over 7 billion) is a huge percentage of that number are unemployed, disenfranchised and pissed off. That's the ones who keep things in turmoil.

We are also looking (long range) at water, oil etc shortages. Not to mention deforestation and pollution. Sure we can fix these problems, we are smart enough but when the problems keep growing exponentially as a direct result of a population doing the same? The scale will keep changing, we as a species can only build solutions just so fast.

To me, the solution is to freeze the population number where it is. Give us as a species a chance to catch up to the problems we've already created in all these various places; put the vast majority of us to work in jobs which not only provide for daily sustenance but help us eradicate the rampant hopelessness which is the true root of our hatred for each other. That doesn't involve killing off anyone, just birth control which as mentioned earlier is NOT murder.

The other thing: that 14 billion? You think the what, 25% of us (or ~ 1.5 billion) who live at or below the poverty line and lash out in their hopelessness is a problem? With that 14 billion, that percentage will rise. (At 25% of 14 billion, that's over 3 billion. Better hope the planet's economies can keep up. Me, I seriously doubt it.) Makes what we face now look like nothin'. (Doubt my numbers? This is sorta upbeat, but it seems that in 2012 22% of the world population lives in extreme poverty, defined as less than $1.25 per day US. http://data.worldbank.org/news/world-development-indicators-2012-now-available The summary does not go into the numbers in less than extreme poverty, that's a sorta slippery number to find right now. If you raise that $1.25 to $2.50 per day, according to some sources 50% of the planet is living in poverty. That's 3 billion people in poverty RIGHT NOW.)

Albert Einstein was born in 1879. There's no hard figures for world population at that time, but the world population didn't hit 2 billion until 1927. He was by no means the only smart person born in that time frame, he just happens to be one of the most famous. So claiming we need to jack up the population rate to help produce more Einsteins is disingenuous. It's not the gross number of births which drive the production of geniuses, it's more luck of the draw genetically speaking. By the way, don't forget he never spoke until age 3 and the reason he was in the patent office is he was considered by many to be practically unemployable. http://www.biography.com/people/albert-einstein-9285408

The point is, it's not how may potential Einsteins are born but rather what's done with them that is important. The advances in science since his death build on his ideas; there's some damn smart people out there right now.

SVreX wrote:

z31maniac wrote: No, don't bring facts into this. We need to rely on rampant conjecture and speculation about the potential of smart people being born.

The "rampant conjecture" is is about 50 years worth of pedagological research. Why do liberals try to end intellectual discussions when they run out of material by substituting name calling? Let's see... Try "Pedagogia do Oprimido" (Pedagogy of the Oppressed in English) by Paulo Freire for a starting point. It was originally written in Portugeuse, but there are English translations you can find. If you'd like to call someone names, you will have to target thinkers much greater than me. I am not qualified to make this stuff up. But thanks for thinking of me.

Do we know Z31 has liberal views or are you name calling yourself?

Side note, since we have 3 times the people as we did 60 years ago, how come all of those new Einsteins didn't fix our problems yet? Seems like the numbskulls are outweighing the Einsteins.

I don't consider "liberal" a name. I consider it a reasonable political position, and find it sad that so many liberals reject it as an insult.

In reply to Enyar:

So, you are saying that there has not been any technological advancement in 60 years?

Which of the 60% of the population would you have liked to eliminate, since they failed to contribute?

I'm not sure where the 14 billion number came from. I have always heard that the earth can support about a billion of us, at least without using oil to make and distribute our food.

Enyar wrote:

SVreX wrote:

z31maniac wrote: No, don't bring facts into this. We need to rely on rampant conjecture and speculation about the potential of smart people being born.

The "rampant conjecture" is is about 50 years worth of pedagological research. Why do liberals try to end intellectual discussions when they run out of material by substituting name calling? Let's see... Try "Pedagogia do Oprimido" (Pedagogy of the Oppressed in English) by Paulo Freire for a starting point. It was originally written in Portugeuse, but there are English translations you can find. If you'd like to call someone names, you will have to target thinkers much greater than me. I am not qualified to make this stuff up. But thanks for thinking of me.

Do we know Z31 has liberal views or are you name calling yourself? Side note, since we have 3 times the people as we did 60 years ago, how come all of those new Einsteins didn't fix our problems yet? Seems like the numbskulls are outweighing the Einsteins.

That's a result of the population growing faster than our ability to fix our problems and is why I advocate a population freeze. It's a damn sight better than the problems which will come if we don't. I forget which SF writer said this 'the nuclear and biological horrors which followed were not political or religious, more like beggars fighting over the last scraps of bread'.

Oil should really be a transitional energy source...I'm worried that in the future people will think that burning it for fuel was about as smart as setting nuclear fuel on fire to power steam engines.

Enyar wrote: I'm not too worried about the world ceasing to exist. I'm worried about the world ceasing to exist as we know it. See my type enjoys fishing, diving, camping and exploring. Basically I need the environment for my hobbies. If the world keeps moving towards a world of concrete jungle/video games for enjoyment....what's the point. It comes down to being selfish. I would just be pissed if all these years of hard work/saving for the future ended up being a future of lameness.

The world will cease to exist as you know it.

Because, you're perspective is already that of an elitist 1%er. Don't get upset- mine too.

What you are saying is "I like having vast amounts of wild areas for my personal pleasure". But that is VASTLY more than 99% of the world enjoys.

Those areas can be protected, and maintained.

But a more equal distribution of their access that is fairer to everyone will mean you have significantly less.

Because you (and I) already consume vastly more than our share. We are greedy, and won't share with others what we already enjoy.

We have less than 5 percent of world population, but we consume 35% of the world’s paper, 25% of the world’s oil, 23% of the coal, 27% of the aluminum, 19% of the copper, and create 50% of the world's waste.

It's not a world population problem. It's a US consumption problem.

If you would like to split it all up and insure that everyone can have what you already enjoy, well, that's not possible.