Can we talk about world population?

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.

This.

We live about 20 miles from Lake Michigan. My cousins had their cousins in from Australia. The Aussie's were aghast at the amount of water that we wasted--for instance, my aunt left the water on in the sink to heat up while opening the fridge to grab something. They said it was insane the way we waste water. Well, I don't necessarily disagree, but my cousin came up with a great line: Or maybe you guys shouldn't live in the middle of the freaking desert!

You can't destroy water. It isn't going away; when I use it at my house it eventually ends up either back in Lake Michigan, in the air to be rained later, or else in the des-plaines river which will eventually end up in the Gulf of Mexico, later to be evaporated and brought back north to Illinois in the form of rain.

Cone_Junkie wrote: 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.

Don't worry, once I'm benevolent Dictator of the Universe I will tax all religions the same as any other for profit business so you wont need to worry about that one.

Seriously though. Do you not register any vehicles?

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

I register my three vehicles and get to write off the registration dues.

[sarcasm]But why do I have to subsidize someone else's car addiction? I think 3 cars is more than enough for everybody and propose a limit on how many you can use on YOUR tax write off.[/sarcasm]

Cone_Junkie wrote: In reply to Adrian_Thompson: I register my three vehicles and get to write off the registration dues. [sarcasm]But why do I have to subsidize someone else's car addiction? I think 3 cars is more than enough for everybody and propose a limit on how many you can use on YOUR tax write off.[/sarcasm]

You can only drive one car at a time so only a single fee for all the vehicles you own. Ditto single insurance policy. But, gas will be $10 a gal to promote alternative transport

Reunite Pangea - then everyone can be first-world - voila - no more third world concerns.

Regarding having elitist views - yup. So what? How often has it happened that the educated folk have advanced the knowledge of science to the benefit of everyone - even though the uneducated had to be dragged along kicking and screaming until they got it - or just be ok with the uneducated fighting and killing themselves off for the scraps.

tuna55 wrote:

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.

It's a weak influence, I admit, but there's nothing foolish about it. If people know that kid #3 will cost them even more than 1 & 2 did, that's another factor in the "against" column.

mtn wrote: You can't destroy water. It isn't going away; when I use it at my house it eventually ends up either back in Lake Michigan, in the air to be rained later, or else in the des-plaines river which will eventually end up in the Gulf of Mexico, later to be evaporated and brought back north to Illinois in the form of rain.

Technically, you're correct, but practically, you can lock up water in a form that's very energy-intensive and high-waste to extract: it's called sea water. You're also assuming the rain will always be there - ask California how that worked out.

While you guys are arguing about water, I donate money every month to ministries that have been invited into many of those drought regions (by the LOCALS) for the purpose of digging wells.

I have no idea what in the heck is supposed to be accomplished with a bunch of developed world know-it-alls arguing on the internet.

When I lived overseas, I built wells. I still build wells. Been doing it for over 30 years.

But some of you would rather argue with each other about water, and then tell me I am wrong for addressing the problem. WTF??

Shut up, and go build a well!

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.

Maybe there are some blocked posts I'm not seeing but I can't quite tell where you're getting this us vs them thing. No one is proposing a mass kill off. We're just saying let's slow this train before it derails.

As far as consumption, I wish there was an easy way to see how I compare to 1st world citizen/the world. Compared to other US citizens I bet I'm doing damn good.

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'm all for subsidizing things that are for a greater good. Education, research, home ownership. Large families isn't one of them.

Curmudgeon wrote: 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.

+1

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.

This is key! That's why I'm saying raise taxes on water, fuel, food. These are not cheap items to produce, they shouldn't be cheap to consume. If you dont want to spend $1 a gallon on water, move somewhere where it isn't such a hot commodity.

GameboyRMH wrote:

mtn wrote: You can't destroy water. It isn't going away; when I use it at my house it eventually ends up either back in Lake Michigan, in the air to be rained later, or else in the des-plaines river which will eventually end up in the Gulf of Mexico, later to be evaporated and brought back north to Illinois in the form of rain.

Technically, you're correct, but practically, you can lock up water in a form that's very energy-intensive and high-waste to extract: it's called sea water. You're also assuming the rain will always be there - ask California how that worked out.

Not only do you have the potential to get fresh water stuck in an area where it's tough to extract, you also can lose the areas where it is easy to extra. See depleted aquifers and the related saltwater intrusion/sinkholes that come with it.

My in-laws have tried to justify multiple kids saving money due to the "helping" and "hand me down" factors.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: 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.

Yeah, we evil Westerners are the source of all the world's problems, what with our high standard of living etc. On a more serious note, as people's standard of living rises their desire to have forty kids so a few will survive to adulthood will diminish. That's why the size of the average US family has fallen.

I recently read a book 'Slaves in the Family' by Edward Ball (fascinating reading, btw) in which he traces his family lineage from the early 1600's to the present day to see if he could trace the slaves owned by his forebears before the Civil War. In it, he mentions more than once the size of the families; his most prolific forebear had something like seventeen children, at least 5 of which died immediately after birth and another sizeable percentage before age 5, I can't reference it right now but I believe only 4 or 5 made it to adulthood. Those offspring went on to have similar size families with about the same chance of making it. In contrast, the writer's father had 2 children, both boys, both of whom made it to adulthood.

In reply to SVreX:

Dude, no one is telling you you are wrong for building wells. You want to give money to build more wells? That's fine and amiable. I don't know why you are so upset by people discussing potential solutions to problems. No one here is imposing actions on others. No one here is standing in a town square in some dry village in Africa telling everyone they've got move to a city and stop having sex. We are here discussing philosophical ways that a developing problem might/could/maybe/maybe not solved over the next few decades or generations. What is so offensive about That? Thankfully we haven't degenerated to our usual slings and arrows of political name calling and baiting. Other than you getting upset at all of us and myself and Erich getting frustrated with each other although we basically agree this is one of the most polite non-automotive or music discussions in a long time. Margie hasn’t even had to threaten us yet!

Really, what is so offensive to you about a conversation?

So poor, uneducated folks don't realize there's water under the ground or don't know how to dig a hole?

GameboyRMH wrote: ... you can lock up water in a form that's very energy-intensive and high-waste to extract: it's called sea water.

90% of atmospheric water comes from the sea. Evaporation is a pretty cheap process.

But if you want to process additional water beyond the natural evaporative process, it becomes pricey (for now).

Pretty sure California's problem is about over-development and poor land management techniques, not the big guy in the sky deciding to send a little less sky-water.

Glaciers lock up potable water. But they are melting anyway.

SVreX wrote: Glaciers lock up potable water. But they are melting anyway.

There are serious studies looking at towing ice down from the arctic to arid areas to supply fresh water as the ice cap is melting anyway. Yes another short term fix and probably not energy feasible, but if it is, it may be a stop gap until (for example) California either sorts out it's usage or build renewable energy desalination plants.

SVreX wrote: While you guys are arguing about water, I donate money every month to ministries that have been invited into many of those drought regions (by the LOCALS) for the purpose of digging wells. I have no idea what in the heck is supposed to be accomplished with a bunch of developed world know-it-alls arguing on the internet. When I lived overseas, I built wells. I still build wells. Been doing it for over 30 years. But some of you would rather argue with each other about water, and then tell me I am wrong for addressing the problem. WTF?? Shut up, and go build a well!

This problem is NOT fixable by 'building more wells'. Sure it's a start, but the aquifers need to be replenished as they are drawn down and, well, look at California's current state of water affairs to see what a large population all sucking on the same aquifer can lead to. And we should export this problem worldwide? Again, not a world I want to leave to my great grandkids.

Another problem with the growing population: treating waste. Disposing of poop is already a big problem that isn't as simple as the 'night soil' of the Pacific Rim countries. Poop contains a high concentration of various nasty things the human body does not want, same for urine. In some areas, there are higher than normal concentrations of various hormones etc in both groundwater and streams, etc which are thought to be a result of birth control pills and similar drugs. That has some scientists wondering if that might not account for various amphibians, etc experiencing die offs. A USGS page noting the presence of these hormones and their degradation in the environment: http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/hormones_degrade.html It's still unclear if they degrade before affecting wildlife. The point: it ain't just us out here depending on this planet. If we get to that 14 or 28 billion mark, what's going to be left for the critters? Where will they live? Or should we just kill off the ones except for those that we really like (cats, dogs etc) and keep near us?

SVreX wrote: While you guys are arguing about water, I donate money every month to ministries that have been invited into many of those drought regions (by the LOCALS) for the purpose of digging wells. I have no idea what in the heck is supposed to be accomplished with a bunch of developed world know-it-alls arguing on the internet. When I lived overseas, I built wells. I still build wells. Been doing it for over 30 years. But some of you would rather argue with each other about water, and then tell me I am wrong for addressing the problem. WTF?? Shut up, and go build a well!

For someone who is so anti us vs them...you seem to be quite elitist yourself.

Great job digging holes. Keep doing that while we continue to have a discussion about current issues. For all we know, one of your Einsteins is reading this thread, learns about a problem and goes on to fix it. Certainly nothing wrong with that.

< Works in desalinization

As I write this inane drivel, I'm sitting here with a chemo needle stuck in my arm. That causes me to ask this question: quality of life includes medical treatment. Are there enough resources to be able to look after 14 or 28 billion people's medical needs? I have to seriously wonder.

Also on a selfish note: even with the current population of 7.whatever billion, it still isn't that difficult to find a relatively unspoiled place to get away from all those jerks for a while. I'd like to keep that; there's no really good reason to turn everything into a subdivision or condos or fields or whatever just so we can have 14 or 28 billion people on the planet.

SVreX wrote: While you guys are arguing about water, I donate money every month to ministries that have been invited into many of those drought regions (by the LOCALS) for the purpose of digging wells. I have no idea what in the heck is supposed to be accomplished with a bunch of developed world know-it-alls arguing on the internet. When I lived overseas, I built wells. I still build wells. Been doing it for over 30 years. But some of you would rather argue with each other about water, and then tell me I am wrong for addressing the problem. WTF?? Shut up, and go build a well!

Building wells helps in the short term, but if there's no long-term solution other than to keep digging more and more wells, the needs of the country's population for water will eventually surpass the water supply (groundwater at first, and then eventually all water supplies - if they can afford to have any others).

Arguing on the Internet only entertains us but having similar arguments in places where it matters might result in a decent long-term solution. Without one, more and bigger short-term solutions will be needed over time until nobody can help anymore.

Easy folks...

I'm getting out of this thread

Enyar wrote: Maybe there are some blocked posts I'm not seeing but I can't quite tell where you're getting this us vs them thing. No one is proposing a mass kill off. We're just saying let's slow this train before it derails.

I understand that my life experiences are different than yours, and I don't expect you to understand. I will attempt one more time, because I'd really like you to.

I understand the population has grown. I understand where it has grown, and where drought, poverty, and other cultural issues have made it a greater challenge.

I remember when it was half the size it is, and people were arguing about unsustainable growth of the population. Yeah, well....

I understand you are saying no mass kill-off, but I really don't think you realize how much what you are saying can be interpreted as EXACTLY that.

So, if you were alive and making decisions 70 years ago or so, how would you have presented this? Which people would you tell should slow down? Who doesn't get to procreate?

Without a crystal ball, you have no idea what the future will be. But more importantly, there are MANY cultures in the world who measure their value in family size. In fact, there are many cultures in the world whose ACTUAL PHYSICAL wealth is directly proportional to their family size- more pickers= more wealth. There are subsistence farmers who would literally die without the ability to have many children.

There are also cultures where the child mortality rate is very high. The US rate is 7:1000, but the world average is 46:1000. Nigeria is 117:1000. Angola is 167:1000. Telling them they can only have 2 children is pretty much the same thing as telling them they can have 0 (in their minds).

And child limits easily become civil liberties nightmares, especially for women.

Plus, the vast majority of them have a nearly invisible carbon footprint. They simply aren't causing the problem- our consumption is.

So when you say, "It's OK, I don't want to kill anyone off. I just want you to wear a condom and use a little common sense", you ARE telling some of them they might as well die, because they will.

So look forward. Forget about the historical population growth. Today, as dictator of the world, how would you handle it? What are your solutions? Who are you going to tell that they may have no more children?

If you are going to put limitations on ANY people group, you should get there involvement in the decision-making.

And a great percentage of them will not agree with you.

oldtin wrote: So poor, uneducated folks don't realize there's water under the ground or don't know how to dig a hole?

Ever try to dig a 100' hole with a shovel?

Curmudgeon wrote: The point: it ain't just us out here depending on this planet. If we get to that 14 or 28 billion mark, what's going to be left for the critters? Where will they live? Or should we just kill off the ones except for those that we really like (cats, dogs etc) and keep near us?

Invasive species. It's what they do.

SVreX wrote:

Enyar wrote: Maybe there are some blocked posts I'm not seeing but I can't quite tell where you're getting this us vs them thing. No one is proposing a mass kill off. We're just saying let's slow this train before it derails.

So when you say, "It's OK, I don't want to kill anyone off. I just want you to wear a condom and use a little common sense", you ARE telling some of them they might as well die, because they will. So look forward. Forget about the historical population growth. Today, as dictator of the world, how would you handle it? What are your solutions? Who are you going to tell that they may have no more children?

See, this is where I think you have your blinkers on to what we are saying. No one has said people have to stop having kids right now. Everyone is saying we need to help developing nations. Many in this thread have specifically sited not just water, but health, availability of medical treatment and drugs, food and education. We've already discussed how in this country and more recently in Brazil once those things were present the natural consequence of those improvement was for families to cut back from 5-6 children surviving to adult hood to having around two, basically all of who service to be adults and procreate themselves. We've specifically said that AIDS is a huge issue killing millions.

People on both side of the political spectrum in this thread have said we need to do things to help and mitigate the situation. No one is expecting an undiscovered Einstein in central Africa to stop having kids now while the rest of the world works on sorting out their problems 50 years down the line.

step back and look at the entire discussion.