Can we talk about world population?

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

I am not the slightest bit offended.

You don't seem too happy that I have a different viewpoint than you.

Would you be less offended if I just agreed with you? I can do that.

SVreX wrote:

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

I am not the slightest bit offended. You don't seem too happy that I have a different viewpoint than you. Would you be less offended if I just agreed with you? I can do that.

No, we are all trying to understand why you seem to be trying to put words in our mouths.

SVreX wrote: 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.

If you want to continue to have a family of 30 to pick the fields so be it. I would prefer to elevate the standard of living and spend resources elsewhere or get more efficient farming methods.

Everyone gets to procreate. Government shouldn't be able to restrict the will of people if that's what they want. What they can do is provide education as to why it's an issue or just not subsidize larger families. If it means that Billy Bob doesn't get a 27th brother I'm sure he will be just fine. If Billy Bob really wants extra help on the farm, show off his wealth or have another companion, maybe we incentivize adoption more. As we already touched base on, there is no shortage of those kids looking for families.

Child mortality isn't really a good argument either. If you can elevate medical care and get 2 kids for ever 2.1 kids that are made instead of 2 kids for every 10...isn't that still just 2 consumers in the world? Just because we could have 10 kids doesn't mean we should

No one is dying if Dad get's snipped before kid #5 is made.

I'm saying let's go for quality instead of quantity. 14 billion poor people living in the slums sounds less fun than 7 million living the good life. Should have had this talk 70 years ago for all I say!

There used to be so many buffalo that the earth would shake when they moved.

The solution... to the buffalo problem... wasn't that hard.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: step back and look at the entire discussion.

You mean your entire half?

The reason you are not understanding Eric is that he and I are agreeing (shocking, yes I understand).

The title is about world population.

The problem is about population in other parts of the world.

But many of the "solutions" have to do with things like eliminating the US child tax deduction, or blaming US people for procreating (How 'bout them Duggars?), or using less water in California.

I don't get how those in any way shape or form begin to address the question of world population. As US citizens, we simply don't get to impose some of our opinions on other nations.

No one has called for an International Summit on population (some have made passing comments about helping people in other countries adopt our ideas). Maybe that is an idea.

And so, Eric and I agree. It's a complex problem, that includes some unintended consequences (including some benefits), and the US doesn't get to decide.

You have said many things. I don't think you've made any posts that did not include "suggestions" that would ONLY impact the US, even though the US is not the problem.

So, I have listened, but honestly you have confused me. The question at hand is "Is the issue of world population a problem", to which I have said yes, and so have you.

But you have offered ideas that make no sense.

I am at least trying to suggest that maybe we need to engage the people who are impacted the most by the problem, try to understand the problem from their perspective, and work with them for a solution.

No amount of US tax manipulation or high US water prices will help.

SVreX wrote:

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?

So what they really need are the resources to make or buy a drill, and the education to use it more than the random benevolence of a guy with a drill that goes away. While educating on drill use, maybe throw in some education on infection control, waste management, etc., and maybe they wouldn't need 14 babies in hopes of two surviving.

Time for the next thread

SVreX wrote: No amount of US tax manipulation or high US water prices will help.

Like you said, the US can't just go running around digging wells, providing education or run around promoting their own agenda in other countries as they wish....oh wait....yeah they do.

And it WOULD help the problem. Why not lead by example? What better place to start than at home? If other countries are looking forward to a sleeping 10 in a filing cabinet, so be it. Come to the US and see what we're doing right.

Enyar wrote: If you want to continue to have a family of 30 to pick the fields so be it. I would prefer to elevate the standard of living and spend resources elsewhere or get more efficient farming methods.

You are offering 1st world solutions to 3rd world problems.

When I lived in the Dominican Republic, I hosted many US people who came for short term work camps.

They didn't understand why we did some of the things we did.

They would say things like, "Why do they spend so much time and energy mixing cement on the ground by hand? We should elevate them and give them a cement mixer- it's much more efficient".

One of them actually did. It took about 3 months before it was collecting rust under a banana tree.

Because what they failed to understand was that manual labor was a locally available resource. Hauling water, mixing on the ground with a shovel, hand making blocks were all resources the locals had.

Mechanics to fix mixers, vehicles to haul wet cement, gas to put in the mixers and vehicles, pumps, reliable electricity etc. were not locally available resources.

Buying a mixer put money in the pocket of the US manufacturer of the mixer. It did not create a more efficient system, because it failed to recognize what the locally available resources were.

It also put about 30 people out of a job.

When labor is a locally available resource, reducing labor is inefficient.

Same applies to farming techniques.

SVrex, I think you are now deliberately not listening, I’ve said time and time again that this is a global issue, i pointed out to Eric that when I said 'We' I was refereeing to all developed 1st word nations. While I've used the US as an EXAMPLE, not an absolute, on a couple of occasions I've specifically talked about what can be done to help on a global level. I've posted information both on actual water shortage around the world and the delta between water use and water replenishment, again globally. I haven't suggested telling people what to do, I've suggested some countries trying to help other countries.

I give up, this was a great thread for discussion, but it's become a purposeful troll fest.

I'm signing off from this thread.

oldtin wrote:

SVreX wrote:

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?

So what they really need are the resources to make or buy a drill, and the education to use it more than the random benevolence of a guy with a drill that goes away. While educating on drill use, maybe throw in some education on infection control, waste management, etc., and maybe they wouldn't need 14 babies in hopes of two surviving. Time for the next thread

This has been done.

Local people own, run, and maintain the rigs. Training and health awareness are ongoing.

Local economies still don't have money to put gas in the tank, so money comes from people like me.

Your post was insulting. I simply tried to answer in a concise manner (with a touch of sarcasm I hoped you would get).

In reply to Enyar:

We already do lead by example. Have been for a long time.

I'm sure that much of the world wants to live like us- where we can turn a faucet on and have water, plug in a light and have it work, turn on a furnace and have heat, not worry about the water quality after I flush, or not really worry about starving to death (there are plenty who have a tough time with the next meal).

The problem is that the sexy good parts of being the first world are more obvious than the nagging details it takes to support our system.

If we were going to export something just to export it for good- we should export our waste water treatment+plumbing- which allows us to recycle water as it goes down a river (where the fresh water is taken and the waste water is so clean that it's put back).

Then the waste management thinking.

Then the air quality thinking.

I don't see us as a good source of alternative energy- as other countries are putting more into that. I expect that China is hitting a critical point in terms of urban management- as they've taken our traffic and made it worse by a few orders of magnitude. They have taken the EU emission rules, and actually have made them more difficult.

BUT. All of that will increase survival rates. Oops.

The hard part is to reach an economic status where the need of population growth wanes enough to take care of itself. See the US, Europe, and apparently Brazil (thanks whoever posted that). For states in the US who have population problems, we will take the young families here in Michigan. We need them.

In the mean time, all we can do as individuals is to minimize our impacts locally, and make some kind of financial support overseas.

SVreX wrote:

Enyar wrote: If you want to continue to have a family of 30 to pick the fields so be it. I would prefer to elevate the standard of living and spend resources elsewhere or get more efficient farming methods.

You are offering 1st world solutions to 3rd world problems. When I lived in the Dominican Republic, I hosted many US people who came for short term work camps. They didn't understand why we did some of the things we did. They would say things like, "Why do they spend so much time and energy mixing cement on the ground by hand? We should elevate them and give them a cement mixer- it's much more efficient". One of them actually did. It took about 3 months before it was collecting rust under a banana tree. Because what they failed to understand was that manual labor was a locally available resource. Hauling water, mixing on the ground with a shovel, hand making blocks were all resources the locals had. Mechanics to fix mixers, vehicles to haul wet cement, gas to put in the mixers and vehicles, pumps, etc. were not locally available resources. Buying a mixer put money in the pocket of the US manufacturer of the mixer. It did not create a more efficient system, because it failed to recognize what the locally available resources were. It also put about 30 people out of a job. When labor is a locally available resource, reducing labor is inefficient. Same applies to farming techniques.

This is true.

So what you're saying is 3rd world countries will always be 3rd world, we need more people to hand mix concrete and none of those guys/gals would ever be good cement mixer mechanics, drivers or manufacturers?

When labor is in so much supply that hand made bricks is the best way...you probably have an over population problem. That doesn't create any real chaos, just a lower SOL and lower wages. The problem arises when the brick makers decide they aren't making a living wage...demand $15 a hour and then are out of luck when some concrete manufacturer realizes they can get bricks from china for cheaper.

In reply to Enyar:

No, I'm saying the gap is big. It takes time for a 3rd world country to grow, and 1st world solutions can sometimes contribute to the problem, or create much bigger ones.

Shovels and hand made blocks are a big step up from thatched roof houses. It is a growing local economy.

In some ways MUCH better than the US. The entire telecommumications infrastructure is satellite based. No wire strung at all.

There are food ministries that no longer import food to local places of need. They are not stupid. They know how to grow food. They can't afford to buy seed. Food ministries give them money instead. That way, it feeds them AND creates a local economy.

Problem solving requires involvement of people who understand why things are the way they are, not just different ideas that are "better".

SVreX wrote: In reply to Enyar: No, I'm saying the gap is big. It takes time for a 3rd world country to grow, and 1st world solutions can sometimes contribute to the problem, or create much bigger ones. Shovels and hand made blocks are a big step up from thatched roof houses. It is a growing local economy. In some ways MUCH better than the US. The entire telecommumications infrastructure is satellite based. No wire strung at all. There are food ministries that no longer import food to local places of need. They are not stupid. They know how to grow food. They can't afford to buy seed. Food ministries give them money instead. That way, it feeds them AND creates a local economy. Problem solving requires involvement of people who understand why things are the way they are, not just different ideas that are "better".

Can't argue with that. Maybe people should get together and discuss these things on a message board.

SVreX wrote: In some ways MUCH better than the US. The entire telecommumications infrastructure is satellite based. No wire strung at all.

Some countries have "leapfrogged" ahead in telecoms but I wouldn't use this as an example...satellite communication is slow and madly expensive. It could make sense as a small-scale makeshift communication system but it could never scale up to serve everyone.

Countries that have had modern cellular infrastructure put in first would be a good example (some places in South America have done this). Putting in VoIP instead of POTS could be a great idea.

Edit: I think the best "clean-slate" communication system would be FTTH + 4G data with VoIP.

Enyar wrote: When labor is in so much supply that hand made bricks is the best way...you probably have an over population problem.

You are making assumptions.

It's not an overpopulation problem. It's an under development problem.

There are not enough people buying bricks to warrant the cost of investing in a brick manufacturing facility. Plus, it's an island, with limited aggregate resources. If you built a manufacturing facility you would not be able to export your product- too heavy, low price point, and aggregate qualities that would not be acceptable in many other countries.

If you buy from an existing overseas facility, you will deal with import costs, import taxes, and you will shift the revenues to overseas locations instead of keeping them local, so people can spend them locally and help the economy grow.

What's wrong with hand made bricks? People have been making good bricks for tens of thousands of years.

Enyar wrote: Can't argue with that. Maybe people should get together and discuss these things on a message board.

Touche!

Pretty sure that comment deserved an emogee- you really should have stuck your tongue out at me on that one.

jumping in here late (TL;DR) so sorry if this has already been posted...

but I've seen somewhere that the current population exceeds the total population for the history of the world …. wow

SVreX wrote:

Enyar wrote: When labor is in so much supply that hand made bricks is the best way...you probably have an over population problem.

You are making assumptions. It's not an overpopulation problem. It's an under development problem. There are not enough people buying bricks to warrant the cost of investing in a brick manufacturing facility. Plus, it's an island, with limited aggregate resources. If you built a manufacturing facility you would not be able to export your product- too heavy, low price point, and aggregate qualities that would not be acceptable in many other countries. If you buy from an existing overseas facility, you will deal with import costs, import taxes, and you will shift the revenues to overseas locations instead of keeping them local, so people can spend them locally and help the economy grow. What's wrong with hand made bricks? People have been making good bricks for tens of thousands of years.

Not a thing wrong with hand made bricks. They are called 'artisan bricks' up here nowadays, recycled Colonial era brick is in big demand in some areas but nowhere near the demand for mass produced machine made brick. The point: truly handmade brick is a stepping stone to a better life for the community as a whole.

In the countries where the brick you mention is handmade, what's the standard of living? Not very good, I'd assume. First off: there is no shame in being poor. At some point people get tired of being poor and work to improve their situations; that's where progress comes from.

All I've said is that this is much easier to accomplish when working with a 7 billion population with a 50% poverty rate instead of a 14 billion with the same or an even higher poverty rate.

Stalin: 'One death is a tragedy, one million a statistic'. Evil sonofabitch and that was part of his rationale for the purges. It does illustrate that large numbers are sometimes hard to grasp, they seem to be almost artificial. So let's move the scale of this discussion down a bit.

Let's say that instead of a planet of 7.whatever billion, you are on a spaceship which can only support 1,000 people. That's it; even with recycling everything it's good for 1,000 people. Let's say that the population is now 1,100. Now there's a major problem; the population now is 10% over what the ship will handle but that means EVERYONE will go on short rations for EVERYTHING. Let's say the population continues to rise; it now threatens the ENTIRE ship crew's survival.

What should be done? Whatever your answer is, multiply these numbers by 7,000,000 and apply that to one Earth.

SVreX wrote:

oldtin wrote:

SVreX wrote:

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?

So what they really need are the resources to make or buy a drill, and the education to use it more than the random benevolence of a guy with a drill that goes away. While educating on drill use, maybe throw in some education on infection control, waste management, etc., and maybe they wouldn't need 14 babies in hopes of two surviving. Time for the next thread

This has been done. Local people own, run, and maintain the rigs. Training and health awareness are ongoing. Local economies still don't have money to put gas in the tank, so money comes from people like me. Your post was insulting. I simply tried to answer in a concise manner (with a touch of sarcasm I hoped you would get).

All the discussion over water, breeding rights and third world development. Sorry folks, all window dressing. We have lived through the "golden age" of antibiotics and are on the downward side of modern medicine. For over a decade now there haven't been any significant breakthroughs in antibiotic drugs but the bugs are getting better/smarter/faster all the time. There are already things resistant to our LAST LINE antibiotic.

You know what that means? You catch it and we can't help you. Done, your immune system is on it's own (sort of like Ebola actually but Ebola is a virus and less lethal than many bacteria).

Take a look at what the plague did to Europe. Then what smallpox did to the native Americans. There is something coming and all of our science won't be able to do berkeley all to stop it. Like I said before, my hope is that the survivors don't fall too far and can keep some level of modern civilization going.

HOLY WALL OF TEXT BATMAN

I agree with most if not all of what you're saying. The problem is that to address the future issues we need to start thinking and implementing proactively, not reactively. "Good enough" is never good enough, need to do better now because in the future you will need to do even better than today's best. And you won't be able to do that unless you do better now.

BTW - Craploads of wind turbines around here in urban areas. Me likey.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: There have been all sorts of pandemics through the centuries, possibly the worst being the Black death that supposedly killed between 75-200 million people, up to half the population in some countries. None of those have led to a total collapse of society.

It did cause a collapse of society. It made workers a lot more valuable, so they could place higher values on their work and it ended the serf system. No longer could the nobles get incredibly cheap labor just for the price of already owning the land they were born on...

I'm jumping back into this a bit late too. We've moved pretty far from topic. But, I do have a few comments regarding 3rd world countries. In my job, we deal a lot with some of these places, including Africa and South America. In my past job too, which is more or less an extension of my current one, South Africa was one of our largest markets.

The only real way to have change there and in other places like it is a total overhaul of their government and enforcement systems. The place is SOOOOOOO corrupt it makes our government look like preschoolers. It doesn't matter how much aid you give to these people, most of it ends up in the hands of the government or regional warlords. Poverty is absolutely nothing like what we call poverty, and those in charge prefer it that way as they keep getting richer. So we can throw around all the ideas to help with population, water, etc., but that is so far down on these peoples priority list most would laugh you out of the country. They simply want to eat, and survive the day without getting killed in many cases. People that complain so much about our system so need to get out and travel to some of these other countries.

We do quite a bit in Brazil too. While not technically as bad as South Africa, it is bad enough. We still have to hire guards to transport items to the customer. And we won't talk about the taxes charged for services the residents will never see.

We've also been to Papua New Guinea. They still have cannibals and when you land, you are warned not to leave the airport as the major city there is in total control of gangs.

My point here, is that you have to solve one problem before any of these other ideas can remotely be put into play, and that is corruption of the governments. Without that, poverty is a given. Everything else is just window dressing for the rest of us.

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.

Sure you can destroy water. You can pull it up out of the water table. It doesn't necessarily go back into the water table if it evaporates and heads off to somewhere else. If you live in a place that is predominantly low-lying like Florida, this results in salt water from the ocean refilling the water table. Ooops.

Another thing that destroys water is growing plants. The process of photosynthesis separates the hydrogen from the oxygen, destroying the water and the CO2 to create sugars, with pure oxygen as a waste product.

Be nice if we could get addicted to plant life that thrived in seawater, so we wouldn't need to waste freshwater on growing food.

Just listened to a very interesting podcast from NPRs Fresh Air June 8th. "The race to feed the world". The author has really done his homework and I reccomend giving it a listen.