Can we talk about world population?

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

The only part of your rant that honestly matters to the world is energy and food. The rest of it is local to our country, or more local to a subset of our country.

And here's where our version of capitalism makes it really hard to do something in an alternate way- money drives both the waste of food and energy. And if you are on the CO2 global warming side, it drives our hurt to that, too.

Between the food industry- who has no reason to not waste, as farmers get some payment for not selling stuff- and the oil industry- who also have not reason to not waste- as there's a lot of money in US grounds- We are not going to see much movement replanting the heart of the US to be more sustainable, nor are we going to see much government investment into alternate energy- including burning waste.

For both, it's easy to manipulate public fears to have our tax dollars prevent investment. Nobody wants to hear that coal is really nasty stuff- far more dangerous than nuclear in terms of radiation, and worse than waste burning in terms of air quality. Yet that goes on. It's easy to make people so afraid of burning garbage that they are willing to put big holes in the ground, inject water, which does result in a lot of odd waste water- all to burn "clean" natural gas.

We are happy to ignore the fact that we have so much food that we waste so much of it, but it's threatening our food supply if we don't carpet farm soy and corn. Thank you Monsanto and CO.

Thankfully, we've been able to salvage some kind of humanity our of our capitalism- as we have some regulations that protect people. Yet, as much as people think it will self correct, or is good for us- there's never been a solid moral balance on the US version of capitalism. If there was- there would be more research on food and energy- and how we go about protecting the rest of the world in means that we can. Or public health items that we can help but not force onto the rest of the world.

This recent thing about the pacific trade is really ironic- we pretend that we want to protect our shores and workers, when in fact- it's all about protecting our dollars. It's been that way before the revolution got started in the 18th century. The human rights thing just goes along for the ride- we will always protect our investments worldwide over actually caring about human rights. See- oil supply, small goods supply, much of our food that's imported, etc.

Not sure if that moral guide will ever be righted here. Not that it is in other parts of the world, either.

Would all you social planner types just leave me alone?

In reply to alfadriver:

And water. Water is key to health and food. If we in the west don't want all out war in the developing world that would spill over to us as well we need to help them got good, clean, safe and plentiful water. IMHO Water is the single biggest issue the world faces right now.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

No, not water. The only other country who could benefit by our less using of water is Mexico.

Other than that, there's no realistic way to move enough of it around the world.

Our water issues are contained 99% within our borders.

It's far more likely that we will be inundated with people seeking water than invaded. We can't ship the Great Lakes to Africa and solve some kind of water problem there.

We can help figure out water solutions for other countries- but we can't save our water and ship it places.

In reply to alfadriver:

I'm not talking about our water alone. YEs we have our own issues, but the world population is growing. That population needs water and in many places there isn’t' much fresh water. Many of the coastal countries in Africa have very little fresh water, but are right next to the sea. It may take a population migration, but water is a huge issue for the world, not just the US.

Look at this map of water shortage

Now look at this one showing the rate of usage to supply.

Water is already a huge issue and 50-75-100 years down the line it's going to be a critical issue if we dont' resolve it. People are worried about war or disease affecting the state of civilization. If you don't have water you are berkeleyed no matter what.

tuna55 wrote: Would all you social planner types just leave me alone?

Series Q, what are we planning for you?

A question was posed. There are some facts a) the population is getting bigger, B) there isn't enough waters so the discussion is how can we deal with that. We're having a back and fourth conversation over what can/can't/could/couldn't/should/shouldn't be done. I haven't seen anyone promoting gun control or forced abortions or banning cars and mandating air bags to control people yet.

tuna55 wrote: Would all you social planner types just leave me alone?

Cool, will you stop taking the tax benefits for having children?

tuna55 wrote: Would all you social planner types just leave me alone?

The answer to this: despite our consumption, the US population is actually decreasing somewhat. So social planning is not really required, although a drop in consumption would be a good thing.

Where the problem comes in is in the Third World countries where not only is the world population increasing at an alarming rate, it's also rapidly adding to the 'have nots' of the world. That is the true source of the unrest and problems the world faces; satisfied people with full bellies don't start wars or become terrorists, generally speaking (and yes I realize there's already outliers). So if any social engineering needs to take place it's there, IMHO.

z31maniac wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Would all you social planner types just leave me alone?

Cool, will you stop taking the tax benefits for having children?

Go to a Fair tax and you got a deal!

Do you guys really believe that people have (more) children for the tax write-off?

Trust me, having kids costs a HELL of a lot more than the little trinkets saved at tax time.

Cone_Junkie wrote: Do you guys really believe that people have (more) children for the tax write-off?

Certainly not, but people might not have kids for the lack of a tax write-off.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Cone_Junkie wrote: Do you guys really believe that people have (more) children for the tax write-off?

Certainly not, but people might not have kids for the lack of a tax write-off.

That's seriously foolish thinking.

No matter how you say it, several of you are still saying the same thing..."The world has a terrible problem, there are just too many of THOSE people. WE'RE doing good, but THOSE people need to do it more like us. If they don't, it's THEIR fault, and we won't be able to have as much stuff as we do. We need fewer of THOSE people".

It's kind of amazing to me how some of you can't seem to see how offensive that is.

Whether you like it or not, there are still many cultures that measure their worth by the size of their family, not by the size of their retirement accounts.

It's elitist. It's ethnocentric. It's BS.

So, if you are concerned and would like to do something about it, cut your personal consumption by 25%, encourage your friends to do the same, and then begin an honest dialogue (with open ears, and a generally closed mouth) with someone different than yourself.

I have.

Cone_Junkie wrote: Do you guys really believe that people have (more) children for the tax write-off? Trust me, having kids costs a HELL of a lot more than the little trinkets saved at tax time.

Not at all, but I still shouldn't be forced to subsidize your desire to be a parent.

No more, no less.

SVreX, do you not see that the population explosion is happening in areas where it's least sustainable? Check out the water map for a good summary of that. So we either can jack up water supplies or cut population growth to fix that. It's not a matter of 'us vs them' as you keep harping on, it's an 'we are all in this together' thing.

14 billion people sharing this ball of mud? Where the hell are the resources going to come from? Water at least is recycled by the planet, food can be grown but what about the other stuff? And what is an acceptable standard of living for all those people? How are they going to pull their weight, help with society? Or will we have half of the population in desperate poverty, much as we do now?

The answer: that's unsustainable. Remember, that 14 billion will swell at some point to 28 billion. What then? Is it 'Soylent Green' for real then?

That's not the kind of world I want to leave for my great grandkids.

I love this chart. If you extrapolate it far enough on its current curve, the day will come when we create today's population in a single day.

Since we KNOW that wont be happening, you have to ask what will stop it?

SVreX wrote: No matter how you say it, several of you are still saying the same thing..."The world has a terrible problem, there are just too many of THOSE people. WE'RE doing good, but THOSE people need to do it more like us. If they don't, it's THEIR fault, and we won't be able to have as much stuff as we do. We need fewer of THOSE people". It's kind of amazing to me how some of you can't seem to see how offensive that is. Whether you like it or not, there are still many cultures that measure their worth by the size of their family, not by the size of their retirement accounts. It's elitist. It's ethnocentric. It's BS. So, if you are concerned and would like to do something about it, cut your personal consumption by 25%, encourage your friends to do the same, and then begin an honest dialogue (with open ears, and a generally closed mouth) with someone different than yourself. I have.

If that's directed at me I'd love to know where I'm going wrong. I've outlined what I see as both global and local problems. I've suggested both what I think we need to do locally to get our own house in order and also what we (first world nations) can do to assist developing nations to get access to clean and plentiful water, do get access to drugs, to food and to education. No where have I said they need to stop borking and having babies. I've said that I think the world can sustain a whole berkeley load more people, but that we all need to think globablly and stop being so 'us' centric.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

I very much get it. But what's a realistic solution from the Great Lakes to virtually anywhere in the world? Including California?

The solution for the US is to have people move back to where the water is, else pay a whole lot for it.

That solves nothing for the rest of the world. I can't save water for Australia or South Africa. Nor can you. That's my point. It's more likely to me that people in the Middle East will move to Central Africa- where water is pretty plentiful. We can export our usage and treatment technology- but given the nature of our capitalism, that will require something in return. It's far more likely that European countries will step up an offer solutions than we will.

People need water in such high amounts that you can't ship it- it's not like oil. Unless you have some vision of a big pipe from Lake Erie to Africa.

NOHOME wrote: I love this chart. If you extrapolate it far enough on its current curve, the day will come when we create today's population in a single day. Since we KNOW that wont be happening, you have to ask what will stop it?

Totally off topic, but you have to love a graph that claims to start at the year 1, the on the date axis there is space and data points to the left of year 0 so it actually starts at a point BCE

There is one bright spot in all this. A couple of years ago on NPR I heard an article about falling birth rates in Brazil THAT I ASSUME will happen in other place. 50 years ago Brazil was developing, it was a strong Catholic country and families where having 6-7 children. Then as the country became more prosperous, people became more educated and women started entering the work force in greater numbers the birth rate fell to basically be in line with other developed counties of around 2 children per family.

Assuming (and as I highlighted above I do assume that) other developing countries will follow a similar trajectory then this will help slow the population growth naturally without us evil Westerners imposing ourselves on others, they will make those decisions for themselves.

alfadriver wrote: ...But what's a realistic solution from the Great Lakes to virtually anywhere in the world? Including California? The solution for the US is to have people move back to where the water is, else pay a whole lot for it....

Just to clarify this (talked about in the CA water thread previously): The California population does NOT have a water supply issue realistically. California agriculture DOES have a water supply issue they use ~80% of the "used" (not allowed to flow for environmental reasons) water in CA.

That problem could be helped a bit by moving most of the agriculture to the coastal areas that are now mostly populated (and displaced agriculture), but it would not solve it.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to Adrian_Thompson: I very much get it. But what's a realistic solution from the Great Lakes to virtually anywhere in the world? Including California? The solution for the US is to have people move back to where the water is, else pay a whole lot for it. That solves nothing for the rest of the world. I can't save water for Australia or South Africa. Nor can you. That's my point. It's more likely to me that people in the Middle East will move to Central Africa- where water is pretty plentiful. We can export our usage and treatment technology- but given the nature of our capitalism, that will require something in return. It's far more likely that European countries will step up an offer solutions than we will. People need water in such high amounts that you can't ship it- it's not like oil. Unless you have some vision of a big pipe from Lake Erie to Africa.

Eric I give up, you seem to be arguing in violent agreement with me. I have said that both desalination and migration will probably be necessary. Hundreds of millions of people live within a couple of hundred miles of the coast of Africa yet have massive water shortages. We can help them with technology. Ditto Australia, but they should be able to help themselves. Other have the opportunity to move (I won’t tell them they need to for fear of offending SVreX) either on their own or with help to regions with water, weather that is natural or desalinated). I also thought that when I was using the collective pronoun 'We' I was referring to first world developed nations, not just the US.

I got. Get GM to build everyone a corvette but design the battery cable to randomly disconnect. Some percentage will become trapped and die thus reducing water demand and all the new car building will provide jobs and booat the economy.

P.S. I've said before when people wake up to what an awesome state Michigan is we should welcome them in with open arms and double their tax rate for being late comers while doing away with tax on those of us smart enough to have been here already.

Please note for those with deficient comedy genes this post is 64.7% humorous.

z31maniac wrote:

Cone_Junkie wrote: Do you guys really believe that people have (more) children for the tax write-off? Trust me, having kids costs a HELL of a lot more than the little trinkets saved at tax time.

Not at all, but I still shouldn't be forced to subsidize your desire to be a parent. No more, no less.

I shouldn't be forced to subsidize your desire to give money to your church, or register all your vehicles, or buy a house, or run a business, or whatever other tax write off that every other person uses that I don't.

We don't get to cherry pick where our tax money goes any more than we get to cherry pick what we get taxed on.