Population Control, anyone?

doubtingmerle · Dec 7, 2011

Soothfish said:
Then use your gigantic brain to invent a high yield renewable energy source.

Create an energy source? Unless someone repealed the first law of thermodynamics and forgot to tell me, that is never going to happen.

So when our best sources of high-density fossil fuels are gone, we will be left with doing our best to concentrate diluted energy sources like solar radiation and winds into something we can use.

Soothfish · Dec 7, 2011

doubtingmerle said:
Create an energy source? Unless someone repealed the first law of thermodynamics and forgot to tell me, that is never going to happen.

You can't be serious...

doubtingmerle said:
So when our best sources of high-density fossil fuels are gone, we will be left with doing our best to concentrate diluted energy sources like solar radiation and winds into something we can use.

So you can't even IMAGINE technology that doesn't exist yet but you claim to be smart enough to know the fate of the world as a result of population dynamics? Yea right...

doubtingmerle · Dec 8, 2011

Soothfish said:
You can't be serious...

Yes, I am serious. The First Law of Thermodynamics has not been repealed.

So you can't even IMAGINE technology that doesn't exist yet but you claim to be smart enough to know the fate of the world as a result of population dynamics? Yea right...

I never said anything about not being able to imagine technology that did not exist yet.

I am saying that any future technology will need to work within the confines of the energy that is available. Nobody can create energy. Nobody can invent energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that. The best one can hope to do is find a way to convert some existing source of energy into a form that is useful to humans.

Soothfish · Dec 8, 2011

doubtingmerle said:
Yes, I am serious. The First Law of Thermodynamics has not been repealed.

An energy source is not the same thing as energy itself. An example of an energy source would be oil, natural gas, mechanical devices, etc. They do not create or destroy energy but we can use energy from them. This is pretty obvious which is why I was hoping that you were joking or would at least realize your mistake.

doubtingmerle said:
I never said anything about not being able to imagine technology that did not exist yet.

I am saying that any future technology will need to work within the confines of the energy that is available. Nobody can create energy. Nobody can invent energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that. The best one can hope to do is find a way to convert some existing source of energy into a form that is useful to humans.

You still seem to think I was talking about creating energy from nothing. Why would you even suspect that?

doubtingmerle · Dec 8, 2011

Soothfish said:
An energy source is not the same thing as energy itself. An example of an energy source would be oil, natural gas, mechanical devices, etc. They do not create or destroy energy but we can use energy from them.

A mechanical device cannot be a source of energy. It can convert energy from one form to another, but it cannot create energy.

As I said, once the cheap supplies of fossil fuels are gone, we will be forced to make devices to utilize the other forms of energy around, such as wind or solar power, which are extremely diffuse compared to the fossil fuels that we are used to. Building machines to efficiently harness this energy is much more expensive than harnessing fossil fuels. (Okay, there is also nuclear energy, but that has its own set of problems.) Will we be able to continue our energy-intensive lifestyle without fossil fuels? If we are forced to cut way back on energy usage, will the earth still be able to support 7 billion people? Those are the questions this thread is concerned about.

Soothfish · Dec 8, 2011

doubtingmerle said:
A mechanical device cannot be a source of energy. It can convert energy from one form to another, but it cannot create energy.

As I said, once the cheap supplies of fossil fuels are gone, we will be forced to make devices to utilize the other forms of energy around, such as wind or solar power, which are extremely diffuse compared to the fossil fuels that we are used to. Building machines to efficiently harness this energy is much more expensive than harnessing fossil fuels. (Okay, there is also nuclear energy, but that has its own set of problems.) Will we be able to continue our energy-intensive lifestyle without fossil fuels? If we are forced to cut way back on energy usage, will the earth still be able to support 7 billion people? Those are the questions this thread is concerned about.

No. There are other possibilities such as cold fusion and advanced chemical power cells. Unfortunately, anti-matter will be science fiction for a very very long time but it is probably the best energy source.

We would probably already have these technologies if it weren't for the corruption and idiocy that we see on a daily basis. Not just in the governments and banks but also among the average people.

If you want to "save the world", then fight the corruption that stales progress. Blaming children for existing is only going to make everything worse. That would even serve to stale progress even more because you would get even more mentally unstable and abused children who were treated as a liabilities and as resource-hogging parasites throughout their lives.

doubtingmerle · Dec 8, 2011

Soothfish said:
No. There are other possibilities such as cold fusion and advanced chemical power cells.

Cold fusion fits under the category of "nuclear" which I mentioned above. Although cold fusion is technically not impossible, the deck is so stacked against us on that one, that it is doubtful if fusion is going to save us.

And what are "advanced chemical power cells"? Are you referring to better batteries? Better batteries will certainly help, but they are not an energy source. In the future we will need an energy source to replace fossil fuels.

We have been studying batteries for years, and still don't have a battery that can economically power a combine across a 40 acre field or haul a 53 foot trailer to the grocery store. Are you sure that will happen in the future?

Blaming children for existing is only going to make everything worse.

Nobody is blaming children for existing.

Nobody is saying children should not be allowed to exist in the future.

I am saying that hundreds of billions of children are welcome to live on earth, as long as they don't all exist at the same time. Is that OK with you?

What can possibly be wrong with letting the future people exist on the earth several billion at a time, instead of jamming them into the earth all at the same time like cattle?

heymikey80 · Dec 8, 2011

Two aspects of the energy issue are important.

First is the efficient capture, transfer, and use of energy. Power cells are extremely important to this side, as are fuel cells, distributed energy production systems, and energy capture devices including solar cells or even thermal wells.

Second is the stored energy source. That includes nuclear, or course, as well as fossil fuels and biological sources of energy. They're essentially natural concentrations of energy.

There are a lot of innovations in this mix. Just a question of ultimate cost: and obviously the cost is going to increase if we don't come up with something that inherently makes the cost go down.

doubtingmerle · Dec 10, 2011

OK, we need to bring this thread to a close.

Yes, of course we should pursue alternatives when we run out of cheap supplies of crude oil or other materials. Isn't that obvious? We all are in favor of finding alternatives when the materials we rely on become too expensive. Absolutely! That is not the question.

The concern here is what we should we do when we have tried all the alternatives we can think of, and it appears that we can no longer live the high-energy lifestyle we are used to? What if we needed to live off the land without the cheap supply of fossil-fuel derived fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides, diesel equipment and other keys to our society? Well, we could certainly live with less. We have done that before. But how many people can the earth support without that supply of energy that we use to produce and distribute our foods?

Seven billion people on horseback is not going to work very well. Anybody got a shovel?

As we have seen, if we need to reduce population to get to sustainable levels, that is a huge task. Just to get back to 1992 levels (5.4 billion) would require about 50 years of a one-child-per-couple policy. So we cannot wait until we run out of options, and then start cutting back. We would need to start some 50 years in advance. Probably we should have started years ago. But it is not too late to do what we can if we really wanted to. Could we ever get people to want to do that?

If we were to follow the one child policy for 50 years, the rest is easy. After 50 years we could go to a sustainable birthrate of 2 children per couple, and population would level off around 2 billion, which some have estimated as the long term carrying capacity. We could of course decide when to switch back to a 2 child policy years from now. But it looks like it could be somewhere around 50 years of a 1 child policy is needed.

Would we ever get people to agree to that if we absolutely need to? It looks doubtful. How would we do it? One method discussed here is to issue everybody a credit for one child, and require them to buy a credit if they have a child without a credit. The worldwide bureaucracy and international cooperation required to facilitate that would be mind-boggling.

An alternate discussed here was mandatory sterilization after childbirth. Obviously that idea hit a raw nerve with some people, but it does offer a simplicity and effectiveness if it was ever truly necessary. The objections I have seen here consist of fanatical scaremongering. I haven't seen any real reason why it shouldn't be done if it was absolutely necessary to save billions. Surprisingly, even those who were most vocal in their scaremongering about mandatory sterilization absolutely refused to state that it would be wrong to adopt a mandatory sterilization policy after childbirth if necessary to prevent mass starvation. All we saw was scaremongering and rants about Nazis and Communists, but we could not find one person to state that if we truly needed to do this to save billions, that it would be morally wrong to do it. Not one.

So we will leave it at that. The decisions are difficult. More study is needed before we could chart a future course. But I think something is needed. Time is short. Hopefully I have given you something to think about. Thanks for listening.

ACougar · Dec 14, 2011

Natural disasters brought on primarily by global warning should be enough to kill off most of us. I think we'll hit 3 billion again before we hit 9 billion.

doubtingmerle said:
OK, we need to bring this thread to a close.

Yes, of course we should pursue alternatives when we run out of cheap supplies of crude oil or other materials. Isn't that obvious? We all are in favor of finding alternatives when the materials we rely on become too expensive. Absolutely! That is not the question.

The concern here is what we should we do when we have tried all the alternatives we can think of, and it appears that we can no longer live the high-energy lifestyle we are used to? What if we needed to live off the land without the cheap supply of fossil-fuel derived fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides, diesel equipment and other keys to our society? Well, we could certainly live with less. We have done that before. But how many people can the earth support without that supply of energy that we use to produce and distribute our foods?

Seven billion people on horseback is not going to work very well. Anybody got a shovel?

As we have seen, if we need to reduce population to get to sustainable levels, that is a huge task. Just to get back to 1992 levels (5.4 billion) would require about 50 years of a one-child-per-couple policy. So we cannot wait until we run out of options, and then start cutting back. We would need to start some 50 years in advance. Probably we should have started years ago. But it is not too late to do what we can if we really wanted to. Could we ever get people to want to do that?

If we were to follow the one child policy for 50 years, the rest is easy. After 50 years we could go to a sustainable birthrate of 2 children per couple, and population would level off around 2 billion, which some have estimated as the long term carrying capacity. We could of course decide when to switch back to a 2 child policy years from now. But it looks like it could be somewhere around 50 years of a 1 child policy is needed.

Would we ever get people to agree to that if we absolutely need to? It looks doubtful. How would we do it? One method discussed here is to issue everybody a credit for one child, and require them to buy a credit if they have a child without a credit. The worldwide bureaucracy and international cooperation required to facilitate that would be mind-boggling.

An alternate discussed here was mandatory sterilization after childbirth. Obviously that idea hit a raw nerve with some people, but it does offer a simplicity and effectiveness if it was ever truly necessary. The objections I have seen here consist of fanatical scaremongering. I haven't seen any real reason why it shouldn't be done if it was absolutely necessary to save billions. Surprisingly, even those who were most vocal in their scaremongering about mandatory sterilization absolutely refused to state that it would be wrong to adopt a mandatory sterilization policy after childbirth if necessary to prevent mass starvation. All we saw was scaremongering and rants about Nazis and Communists, but we could not find one person to state that if we truly needed to do this to save billions, that it would be morally wrong to do it. Not one.

So we will leave it at that. The decisions are difficult. More study is needed before we could chart a future course. But I think something is needed. Time is short. Hopefully I have given you something to think about. Thanks for listening.

Ave Maria · Dec 16, 2011

I do not believe that the world is overpopulated. Certain parts of the world, like India, are overpopulated but the world in general is not. That said, I am very strongly opposed to population control.

doubtingmerle · Dec 17, 2011

Ave Maria said:
I do not believe that the world is overpopulated. Certain parts of the world, like India, are overpopulated but the world in general is not. That said, I am very strongly opposed to population control.

Ah, but what if the world in the future is overpopulated? Then what? Would you then be in favor of population control?

What if our ability to make food in the future is far less than our ability to make food in the present, as discussed in this thread? Then what? Would it be OK to reduce the population to a level that the future earth can support?

And if it takes 50 years of a one-child birth rate to get the population back to 1992 levels, and we find that we will soon need to be down to 1992 population levels or lower, would you then be in favor of beginning a population control program now?

doubtingmerle · Dec 23, 2011

Here is a link related to this thread. Maybe the suggestion to cut back to 5.4 billion was not nearly enough.

A Severe Decrease in Oil Supply Could Devastate the World Population

heymikey80 · Dec 23, 2011

Hm. Hang on. So the world population would be devastated. World population is thus an effect, not a cause?

doubtingmerle · Dec 24, 2011

heymikey80 said:
Hm. Hang on. So the world population would be devastated. World population is thus an effect, not a cause?

World population over the sustainable limit is the problem.

Years ago people lived off the land with the land producing food from the natural nitrogen, potassium, phosphorous, and other minerals there. The nutrients that were absorbed by plants and animals were returned back to the soil as manure or as the remains of plants and animals. What grew in Iowa stayed in Iowa.

Now we ship grain and grain-fed meats far from Iowa. What about all the nutrients that go with it? They no longer return to the soil. Instead we replace those nutrients with tons of fertilizer created with fossil fuels and distant mineral reserves. Not only do we replace those nutrients, but we replace them far faster than what nature would have. This allows us to grow huge crops that could not have been done a century ago.

When we were living sustainably, there were less than 2 billion people on earth. Now there are 7 billion people. That growth to 7 billion people was a direct effect of all that extra food supply due to fossil fuels.

When the cheap supply of fossil fuels and other minerals are gone, then what? Where we get the fertilizer and food we need?

And no, we cannot simply use the Nazi scaremongering posts on this thread to fertilize our fields.

heymikey80 · Dec 24, 2011

I think it's one of the earliest urban legends, but the legend that the Club of Rome thought Long Island would be buried in 60 feet of horse manure would be instructive at this point.

As long as humans don't prevent the process of free enterprise relieving the general human condition with better and better strategies, technologies, results -- that process will go on.

The growth of population is due both to relief of that human condition through technology, and sustaining the human condition through technology.

And high technological cultures do not, it seems, grow the world population quickly. In fact old technology farming conventions do.

But sure, put a halt to that, regulate the flexibility out of free enterprise and just try to suppress human nature with laws. Try it. It has led to catastrophe after catastrophe in human history, but sure, go ahead. No telling what catastrophe will be up next on the docket.

Lizabth · Dec 24, 2011

We've had doomsayers re: pop growth for a long while. Somehow, the human race always seems to avoid the doomsayers' predictions.

There's really nothing you can do about the future, on such a level. You simply don't know what it holds. Relax.

Lizabth · Dec 24, 2011

BTW. I am in farm country. The farmers manure over their fields regularly. I try not to hang out the wash on those days.

doubtingmerle · Dec 24, 2011

heymikey80 said:
I think it's one of the earliest urban legends, but the legend that the Club of Rome thought Long Island would be buried in 60 feet of horse manure would be instructive at this point.

Interesting. As the Club of Rome was founded in 1968, and horse transportation was out of date in 1968, I doubt if the Club of Rome warned about the dangers of horse manure in the cities. Are you sure you got your horse manure assertion correct?

In the 60's some people did not realize the wonderful benefits that cheap fertilizers would have on the future, so they predicted famines. But then we won the lottery, so to speak. Nitrogen rich fertilizers derived from natural gas dramatically increased food output. Having "won the lottery" we left the human family grow, and greatly increased our standard of living. But our "lottery winnings" are rapidly depleting. Then what? Can you see how it is faulty reasoning to say we "won the lottery" in the 60s, therefore there will be no problem now? For when our lottery winnings are gone, we must now find a way to support our greatly expanded family without that benefit. If we don't win a new lottery, then what?

As long as humans don't prevent the process of free enterprise relieving the general human condition with better and better strategies, technologies, results -- that process will go on.

Uh, but technology relies on fossil fuels to power the machines. That is the problem. When the cheap supplies of fossil fuels are gone, will we be able to maintain the same technologies without them?

If you have no fuel to put in your gasoline powered car, then that fancy technology goes to waste, doesn't it?

The growth of population is due both to relief of that human condition through technology, and sustaining the human condition through technology.

And fertilizer. You seem to have forgotten the fertilizer.

How are we going to feed billions of people when we no longer have cheap supplies of fertilizer? Are we going to feed them "technology"?

But sure, put a halt to that, regulate the flexibility out of free enterprise and just try to suppress human nature with laws. Try it. It has led to catastrophe after catastrophe in human history, but sure, go ahead. No telling what catastrophe will be up next on the docket.

I see. So suppressing human nature with laws is bad? And we should never, ever have any laws? Just let people do whatever they want, and all will turn out well?

Oh dear sir, some laws are good. Some laws are necessary.

Can you agree with me that some laws are good? If you can agree that some laws are good, then we cannot simply say that since all laws are bad, that therefore this law is bad. Not all laws are bad.

Oh, and we have tried society without laws. That doesn't work so well, does it?

doubtingmerle · Dec 24, 2011

Lizabth said:
BTW. I am in farm country. The farmers manure over their fields regularly. I try not to hang out the wash on those days.

Of course. Some manure returns to the ground.

But much of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium we add to our soil ends up in food that is shipped far from the original soil or waste materials that are not returned to the land. It is that nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that need to be replaced with fertilizers that are becoming increasingly expensive.

Population Control, anyone?

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

I'll think about it.

U.S. Army Retired

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

I'll think about it.

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Marburgian- Lutheran

Marburgian- Lutheran

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Similar threads