Population Control, anyone?

[chris4243]

That's great news. How did they discover that the earth is able to sustain a population of 7 billion? Please show me the figures.

Please note that the only analysis on the table so far--(see Ecological Footprint )--says we are 20% over the sustainable amount. What is your source that says otherwise?

Here's a study straight from the University of Wishful Thinking that says there is no population problem.

 

[Umaro]

It still astounds me how much at least American society actively fights even voluntary population reduction measures. I never intend to have children, and spent months trying to get a vasectomy to ensure that. Not only did all the doctors refuse, but every person told me what a fool I was and how I should have children because they're prescious and sweet and the bestest thing ever. Shouldn't these people be encouraging those like me to avoid having children? Why do we push people to have them, or have more of them? Even if there wasn't a population problem (there is), we'd still just be flat out better off with less people. Imagine if America only had a population of 100,000,000 instead of 3.5 times that. Your day to day life would not change in the slightest, except maybe less traffic to deal with, and we'd use substantially less resources. It's not like those extra people are making society that much better. Why wouldn't a voluntary reduction be the foremost choice for future planning people make? I just can't follow a reason not to, especially now that opinions with the young are as they are. Use that $1000 tax break that people get per child, and give it to the childless to become sterilized. I guarantee you plenty of people would sign up for it, and you'd be saving taxpayer dollars on aid as well.

 

[doubtingmerle]

All the contries can try 1 child per person like China,force teens and everyone else to get sterilized after they get pregnant once,since that went really well for China(not)

Well, yes there have been a lot of problems with the China policy, and yes we can learn from it. Nobody said this would be easy.

China adopted the one-child policy as a temporary 5-year measure, but they have kept it for 25 years because, in spite of the problems, it is still understood to be better than the alternative, mass starvation and overpopulation.

Do you think China would have been better off with mass starvation?

If your that concern,u can get fixed and try to incourage friends. I guess.

If volunteer efforts are adequate, then I am all in favor of education and volunteer efforts to control population. If that works, fine.

But if volunteer efforts are not adequate, and we face the choice of either mandatory actions or mass starvation, which would you choose?

Personly I don't worry about such stuff,because every thing seems fine where I live.

Uh huh.

And what would you have said if you were living in New Orleans on August 27, 2005?

Hurricane? I don't see no hurricane. Floods? I don't see no floods. I see levies. Looks pretty dry around here to me. I don't worry about such stuff, because everything seems fine where I live.
​

 

[doubtingmerle]

What happens when some people ignore the child restriction and have as many children as they wish, and pass on their genes and values to them? For that matter, how do you plan convincing people to restrict everyone's reproduction?

I understand there are huge problems.

I propose:
1. Detailed study of the issue.
2. If it is agreed that population reduction is the best policy, try voluntary measures and education.
3. If that is not adequate--and it almost certainly would not reduce the birth rate to 1 child per couple--then do something mandatory. The best I can think of is mandatory strerilization of both parents after childbirth. If a consenting adult chooses sterilization before ever having a child, perhaps he could be issued a paper that could be sold on the open market to allow somebody else to have a second child. If we can find a better plan, I would love to hear it.

 

[earagun]

There are now 7 billion of us on planet earth. (see 7 billion people fuel concern over world resources - SFGate ).

Some day we will reach the limit of how many people can live on this planet, yes? We cannot continue to add people indefinately, can we?

There are a limited amount of renewable resources on earth. The problem is that, when we run low on resources, we can continue for a while in an "overshoot" condition, in which we draw down on available reserves at rates greater than what could be sustained. It can be argued that we are already in overshoot, that it would would require 1.3 planets the size of the earth to maintain the demand of our current population on the renewable resources of this planet. (see Ecological Footprint)

Let's assume we have 50 years to bring our population down to the point that it requires only 1.0 planets to maintain our population. That means we need to reduce our population to 7 / 1.3, or 5.4 billion. Suppose we were to take the huge worldwide step of requiring every couple to have on the average 1 child. Then each successive generation will be 1/2 the size of the previous generation. How long will that take to fix the problem?

Let's simplify and do a quick calculation. Assume there are currently 2 billion people over 50 (call them "generation 1"), 2 billion between 25 and 50 ("generation 2"), and 3 billion people between 0 and 25 ("generation 3"). Now assume that in 25 years, everybody over 50 will die, everybody in generation 2 lives on, and everybody under 25 lives on and will have their 1 and only allowed child on their 25th birthday. Then, 25 years from now, there will be 2 billion people of generation 2, 3 billion of generation 3, and 1.5 billion of the new generation 4, for a total of 6.5 billion people on earth.

Repeat the same assumption 25 years later. Generation 2 then dies, the 3 billion people of generation 3 and 1.5 billion of generation 4 live on, and generation 5 is added with .75 billion. Now we have reached 5.3 billion, just under our 5.4 billion limit.

The problem is worse. Most of our agriculture depends of oil and natural gas, much of which will be gone in 50 years. If much of the green revolution is lost, because we no longer have the petroleum to fuel it, must we cut down much more than the back-of-the-envelope calculation here?

Enforcing an average of no more than one child per couple is a huge undertaking, but the calculations show something like that may be necessarily. The alternative is a huge die-off, as we would then depend on a rising death rate to bring population down to manageable levels.

Should we be asking our governments to study this problem in detail, and if we really need to reduce to 1 child or less per family for the next 50 years, to begin a program to enforce that?

It must be scary for a person who doesn't know how the story ends, and every wild imagination could be a part of the story, while there will be pestilences and famines world wide, the earth doesn't end because of over-population, in fact you will be happy to know millions of people will be put to death in the future, freeing up plenty of food for you and your loved ones to enjoy to the finish.

 

[doubtingmerle]

th

I wasn't 'speculating' that the Third World is undergoing industrialization. It is a fact.

It is?

As I mentioned before, much of the Third World has struggled for the last decade, and most of the world has made little if any economic progress in the last 5 years.

People like to claim that the wealth of America will eventually trickle down to the Third World, and all will be well. That has not happened. The poorest 90% of the world are getting a raw deal, and many of them are going backwards economically. Few people in the world are experiencing significant economic improvement, other than the richest 1%.

The wealth has not trickled down. The poor look up and see more of a tinkle down than a trickle down.

Now that the world is apparently past the peak of conventional oil production, how are any of these economies going to find the energy they need to build modern industrial societies?

So no, we are not going to grow our way out of this problem. We cannot just wait for Third World countries to reach economic prosperity, and expect that will solve the problem.

 

[Umaro]

I understand there are huge problems.

I propose:
1. Detailed study of the issue.
2. If it is agreed that population reduction is the best policy, try voluntary measures and education.
3. If that is not adequate--and it almost certainly would not reduce the birth rate to 1 child per couple--then do something mandatory. The best I can think of is mandatory strerilization of both parents after childbirth. If a consenting adult chooses sterilization before ever having a child, perhaps he could be issued a paper that could be sold on the open market to allow somebody else to have a second child. If we can find a better plan, I would love to hear it.

I think at the very, very least, we should all stop subsidizing having a child. Also, I totally agree with letting me sell my reproductive slot, though I'd settle for a free snip.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

th

It is?

As I mentioned before, much of the Third World has struggled for the last decade, and most of the world has made little if any economic progress in the last 5 years.

People like to claim that the wealth of America will eventually trickle down to the Third World, and all will be well. That has not happened. The poorest 90% of the world are getting a raw deal, and many of them are going backwards economically. Few people in the world are experiencing significant economic improvement, other than the richest 1%.

The wealth has not trickled down. The poor look up and see more of a tinkle down than a trickle down.

Now that the world is apparently past the peak of conventional oil production, how are any of these economies going to find the energy they need to build modern industrial societies?

So no, we are not going to grow our way out of this problem. We cannot just wait for Third World countries to reach economic prosperity, and expect that will solve the problem.

The Third World hasn't advanced yet because it is still held down by Western hegemony. But the U.S. Empire is in its death throes at this point. The unipolar world is on the verge of collapse, if it isn't over already.

People will be forced to cut back on wasteful resource consumption at some point. Whether they choose to plan ahead wisely or just wait 'til the last drop of oil runs out and the environment is wrecked, we shall see.

The population is not the problem. The idea of forced sterilization and abortion is absurd. Fascist China is not a good model to work off of, sorry.

 

[AceHero]

All the contries can try 1 child per person like China,force teens and everyone else to get sterilized after they get pregnant once,since that went really well for China(not)If your that concern,u can get fixed and try to incourage friends. I guess.Personly I don't worry about such stuff,because every thing seems fine where I live.

That's the problem. Since we're not currently affected we feel the world must be okay. And that will cause big problems in the future.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

China's not the only place to engage in such practices. They happened right here in the good ol' US of A.

Victims speak out about North Carolina sterilization program, which targeted women, young girls and blacks

Elaine Riddick was 13 years old when she got pregnant after being raped by a neighbor in Winfall, N.C., in 1967. The state ordered that immediately after giving birth, she should be sterilized. Doctors cut and tied off her fallopian tubes.

“I have to carry these scars with me. I have to live with this for the rest of my life,” she said.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Defensor Fidei,

If you had to choose between billions of people dying of starvation, or mandatory population control, which would you choose? I would choose mandatory population control. Which would you choose?

If you would choose billions of people dying of starvation over mandatory birth control, please tell us why you think that is better.

The Third World hasn't advanced yet because it is still held down by Western hegemony. But the U.S. Empire is in its death throes at this point. The unipolar world is on the verge of collapse, if it isn't over already.

Ah, I see, so much of the Third World really isn't undergoing industrial advancement at a significant rate. So why did you write earlier, I wasn't 'speculating' that the Third World is undergoing industrialization. It is a fact."

Were you for arguing that this is a fact before you were against arguing it as a fact?

Since much of the Third World appears to be stuck in poverty, it is wishful thinking to say that their birthrates will shortly lower significantly due to economic advancement. One does hope this will happen, but it is all wishful thinking at this point. It is not something we can rely on to fix our problem.

People will be forced to cut back on wasteful resource consumption at some point. Whether they choose to plan ahead wisely or just wait 'til the last drop of oil runs out and the environment is wrecked, we shall see.

The population is not the problem.

Well, the problem is the overall consumption, which could be obtained by multiplying the total population by the consumption per person. And yes, one could reduce that product by reducing either factor. I think we need to reduce both factors.

Reducing the consumption per person works only to a certain point. If population gets too large, it is no longer effective to continue to make up for this by reducing the consumption per person.

Would it be better to have 10 billion people on earth in poverty, or 5 billion people on earth at middle class standards of living. I prefer the later. Do you prefer the first? Why?

The idea of forced sterilization and abortion is absurd.

The idea of forced belching in public is absurd also.

But nobody said anything about forced belching in public or forced abortion. So why start a list of absurd things that nobody mentioned?

Speaking of absurd things, allowing billions of people to die of starvation is also absurd. If it could have been avoided, it would be absurd to ignore the problem.

If you had to choose between billions of people dying of starvation, and some form of mandatory birth control, which would you choose?

Fascist China is not a good model to work off of, sorry.

Killer vampire bats are also not a good model to work off of, sorry.

Oh wait. Nobody here suggested that killer vampire bats were a good model, or that fascist China was a good model. So why make up things that nobody suggested and bring them into this thread?

 

[AlexBP]

Now that the world is apparently past the peak of conventional oil production, how are any of these economies going to find the energy they need to build modern industrial societies?

A great deal of your argument in this thread is fallacious. Let me just address the part concerning fuel first. All predictions about "peak oil" are based on the assumption that liquid oil in the ground is the only oil in existence. In fact there are many other sources of oil, from tar sands to shale to liquid coal. In addition, many of the world's oil fields have turned out to have vastly more oil than was originally estimated. So the actual amount of oil out there is enormously larger than the figures that you'll see getting tossed around in the news. Furthermore, if oil and other fossil fuels actually did run out, we already have the technology necessary to deal with that. We have solar panels, windmills, hydro-electric power, biofuels, tidal power, and the possibility of many other forms of high-tech renewable energy that may become possible in the future. There is no danger of running out of usable energy.

A similar thing is true for farmland, metals, or any other non-renewable resource that you care to bring up. Do you know that less farmland is cultivated worldwide now than was 50 years ago? That's because of better technology. People used to worry that the world would run out of copper and thus we wouldn't be able to string up any more data lines. Then someone invented fiber optics cable, and suddenly the worldwide copper shortage wasn't a problem anymore.

All of the predictions and estimates and studies that you're tossing around are based on the assumption that there won't be any new technologies and that we'll have to continue using the exact same items that we use right now. That assumption is incorrect; new technologies are constantly being invented, and the pace at which they're invented keeps speeding up. Whenever there's a possible shortage of anything, attention gets focused in that area until a substitute is invented. That's why the human race as a whole has never run out of anything. Not food, not fuel, not nickel or copper or tin and nyobium. Some areas have experienced local shortages due to bad governance, but there's never actually been too little of anything to go around.

Of course, for the past few centuries we've heard a steady stream of secular liberals telling us that they know when the world will run out of food or something else or starvation or whatever will kick in. Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb assured us that billions would die of starvation in the 70's. He was wrong. The Club of Rome famously predicted the exact dates on which we'd run out of gold, copper, oil, mercury, nickel and more during the 80's. They were wrong. James Kuenstler assured us that we'd be out of oil in 2005. He was wrong. But all of this routine being wrong hasn't in any way caused the secular liberals to doubt that they're always right and that anyone who disagrees with them should be forced to obey them, as indicated by what you said here:

I propose:
1. Detailed study of the issue.
2. If it is agreed that population reduction is the best policy, try voluntary measures and education.
3. If that is not adequate--and it almost certainly would not reduce the birth rate to 1 child per couple--then do something mandatory. The best I can think of is mandatory strerilization of both parents after childbirth. If a consenting adult chooses sterilization before ever having a child, perhaps he could be issued a paper that could be sold on the open market to allow somebody else to have a second child. If we can find a better plan, I would love to hear it.

Unfortunately, you're behind the curve by a few decades. Most people have finally gotten bored by hearing all the predictions about how we'll run out of things and die in the next few years, and have just decided to tune it all out. If you were around in the 70's you'd have found plenty of listeners for your message. Nowadays, as you can see, you're not going to find many. Like Miniver Cheevy, you were born too late.

 

[chris4243]

Do people realize that barring faster-than-light travel at ever increasing speeds, sustained exponential population growth is impossible?

 

[Defensor Fidei]

Defensor Fidei,

If you had to choose between billions of people dying of starvation, or mandatory population control, which would you choose? I would choose mandatory population control. Which would you choose?

If you would choose billions of people dying of starvation over mandatory birth control, please tell us why you think that is better.

Do you think it is better that everyone is forced to amputate their arms and legs, or that the earth will explode tomorrow? Which would you choose?

If you would choose exploding earth, explain why that is better.

See how silly it looks when one gets caught up in fantasy scenarios and ridiculous false dilemmas.

Ah, I see, so much of the Third World really isn't undergoing industrial advancement at a significant rate. So why did you write earlier, I wasn't 'speculating' that the Third World is undergoing industrialization. It is a fact."

No, I never denied that the Third World is undergoing industrialization, and it would be foolish to do so.

Obviously "the Third World" consists of a very large portion of the world and is not a monolith.

Were you for arguing that this is a fact before you were against arguing it as a fact?

Since much of the Third World appears to be stuck in poverty, it is wishful thinking to say that their birthrates will shortly lower significantly due to economic advancement. One does hope this will happen, but it is all wishful thinking at this point. It is not something we can rely on to fix our problem.

National Geographic recently did a special report on the population reaching 7 Billion, and it included a nice chart showing how industrial population boom process occurs. I suggest you check it out.

As they point out, the number of children women are having worldwide is falling.

Here's one chart just for Brazil, which has experienced a dramatic drop in birthrates with increases in access to education, electricity, and television shows.

And once again, Europe, Russia, the United States, Japan, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, etc. are either barely at replacement levels or experiencing negative birth rates. This spells problems of underpopulation, as there aren't enough young people to fill jobs and handle the burdens of a very large old population.

Well, the problem is the overall consumption, which could be obtained by multiplying the total population by the consumption per person. And yes, one could reduce that product by reducing either factor. I think we need to reduce both factors.

Well one is the obviously responsible choice, and one is the 'blame the non-whites' option.

Reducing the consumption per person works only to a certain point. If population gets too large, it is no longer effective to continue to make up for this by reducing the consumption per person.

Would it be better to have 10 billion people on earth in poverty, or 5 billion people on earth at middle class standards of living. I prefer the later. Do you prefer the first? Why?

Being forced to be sterilized or have an abortion automatically reduces one to the standard of living of a slave. No free or moral society would ever do such a thing.

Despite having less than a quarter of the population, the USA consumes almost three times as much oil as does China, and eight times as much as India or Russia do. Clearly the U.S. has a consumption problem.

The idea of forced belching in public is absurd also.

But nobody said anything about forced belching in public or forced abortion. So why start a list of absurd things that nobody mentioned?

Speaking of absurd things, allowing billions of people to die of starvation is also absurd. If it could have been avoided, it would be absurd to ignore the problem.

Once again, I am not addressing fantasy/sci-fi scenarios here.

Oh wait. Nobody here suggested that killer vampire bats were a good model, or that fascist China was a good model. So why make up things that nobody suggested and bring them into this thread?

China seems to have taken your advice to heart. As was pointed, U.S. states like North Carolina used to engage in such practices, but it grew somewhat out of fashion in the post-civil rights era.

 

[doubtingmerle]

A great deal of your argument in this thread is fallacious. Let me just address the part concerning fuel first. All predictions about "peak oil" are based on the assumption that liquid oil in the ground is the only oil in existence.

Huh?

Please show me one person that asserts that " liquid oil in the ground is the only oil in existence. "

Where in the heck are you getting this stuff?

In fact there are many other sources of oil, from tar sands to shale to liquid coal.

Peak Oil writers have dealt with the issue of tar sands, shale oil, and coal to liquids in great detail. What makes you think they don't know about this???

Where in the heck are you getting this stuff?

In addition, many of the world's oil fields have turned out to have vastly more oil than was originally estimated. So the actual amount of oil out there is enormously larger than the figures that you'll see getting tossed around in the news.

Well yes, some oil fields have produced more than expected, but some have produced far less. And there are serious reasons for believing that OPEC nations have exagerated their claimed oil reserves, so we may have far less oil than the total which comes from adding up the claims of individual nations.

Furthermore, if oil and other fossil fuels actually did run out, we already have the technology necessary to deal with that. We have solar panels, windmills, hydro-electric power, biofuels, tidal power, and the possibility of many other forms of high-tech renewable energy that may become possible in the future. There is no danger of running out of usable energy.

Again, all of these have been discussed in detail by peak oil writers. There is no danger of running out of usable energy, but there is a danger of not being able to get concentrated, available energy in the huge, cheap quantities we are used to. And there are serious concerns about how we could run suburbia on without the cheap energy supplies we are used to.

A similar thing is true for farmland, metals, or any other non-renewable resource that you care to bring up. Do you know that less farmland is cultivated worldwide now than was 50 years ago? That's because of better technology.

I understand that farmland efficiency has grown significantly due to the green revolution. I am also aware that we are severely depleting topsoil levels, that there are serious concerns about phosporous availability for fertilizer, and that farming requires huge quantities of oil and natural gas. When these supplies become more expensive, it will be difficult to maintain the green revolution.

People used to worry that the world would run out of copper and thus we wouldn't be able to string up any more data lines. Then someone invented fiber optics cable, and suddenly the worldwide copper shortage wasn't a problem anymore.

Uh, apparently you haven't bought copper wire lately. There is still a lot of copper wire in use, and it is very expensive.We used to be able to find high quality copper ore near the surface out West. Now it is hard to find. That is why we have miners in deep mines in Chile bringing up low quality copper ore. Now we go to great expense to get the copper to meet the world's needs.

All of the predictions and estimates and studies that you're tossing around are based on the assumption that there won't be any new technologies and that we'll have to continue using the exact same items that we use right now.
That assumption is incorrect; new technologies are constantly being invented, and the pace at which they're invented keeps speeding up. Whenever there's a possible shortage of anything, attention gets focused in that area until a substitute is invented.

Uh, what is the basis for your claim that the pace of new technologies is accelerating? In terms of patents, things seem to be declining. Other than computers and electronics, there have been few changes in the last 30 years. Wind turbines, cars, and factories are very much like they were in 1981 (except, of course, the advances in electronics and computers).

That's why the human race as a whole has never run out of anything. Not food, not fuel, not nickel or copper or tin and nyobium. Some areas have experienced local shortages due to bad governance, but there's never actually been too little of anything to go around.

The problem is not that we will run out of oil or copper or phosphorus or anything else. The problem is that we will run out of the cheap, readily available supplies, and be forced to live with less. Living on the fumes that are left will be far different from the days when we could poke a hole in Texas and get all the oil we wanted.

Of course, for the past few centuries we've heard a steady stream of secular liberals telling us that they know when the world will run out of food or something else or starvation or whatever will kick in. Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb assured us that billions would die of starvation in the 70's. He was wrong. The Club of Rome famously predicted the exact dates on which we'd run out of gold, copper, oil, mercury, nickel and more during the 80's. They were wrong.

And there have been other predictions about space travel and rosy claims about new technology that have also failed. Why do you mention only the gloomy predictions that failed, and not the rosy ones that failed?

Or as Yogi Berra is reported to have said, "It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future."

That does nothing to change the fact that there are serious reasons to believe that world economic growth will stop, and will head into a period of long economic decline.

James Kuenstler assured us that we'd be out of oil in 2005. He was wrong.

Where did Kunstler say that? Are you just making this up?

I have his book, "The Long Emergency" written in 2005. He predicted that after peak, oil production would decline at 2% to 6% per year. I don't think he predicted a year as the actual peak. It takes a long, long time to run out of oil, if supplies continue but decline at 2% per year.

So no, he was not predicting that we would be out of oil in 2005.

But for the record, we did reach the peak in conventional oil production in 2005.

But all of this routine being wrong hasn't in any way caused the secular liberals to doubt that they're always right and that anyone who disagrees with them should be forced to obey them, as indicated by what you said here:

I propose:
1. Detailed study of the issue.
2. If it is agreed that population reduction is the best policy, try voluntary measures and education.
3. If that is not adequate--and it almost certainly would not reduce the birth rate to 1 child per couple--then do something mandatory. The best I can think of is mandatory strerilization of both parents after childbirth. If a consenting adult chooses sterilization before ever having a child, perhaps he could be issued a paper that could be sold on the open market to allow somebody else to have a second child. If we can find a better plan, I would love to hear it.​

Huh? Did you even read what I wrote?

I said to study the issue and see if it will be agreed that population reduction is needed. In no sense did I say that I am right, and that we must force others to agree with me.

Pardon me for asking, but where in the heck are you coming up with this stuff? The stuff you write about peak oil writers and about me has nothing to do with what we actually write.

Where in the heck are you coming up with this stuff?

I said nothing about forcing people to obey me. I suggested this as the best suggestion I could make. I then said I would love to hear if somebody has a better plan.

How in the heck do you get from, " If we can find a better plan, I would love to hear it" to never doubting that I am right and forcing everybody to follow me?

Huh?

Where in the heck are you coming up with this stuff??????

 

[doubtingmerle]

James Kuenstler assured us that we'd be out of oil in 2005. He was wrong.

Since you pick Kunstler as your example, it would be helpful to read what he actually predicted in 2005. Looking back, he was quite accurate in his predictions of what would happen. He wrote:

Looked at closely, the peak would resemble a kind of bumpy plateau because the price and demand data would all appear to wobble inconclusively for a while, perhaps for several years...The global peak period itself will be a period of both confusion and denial. Then, as the inexorable facts of the world peak assert themselves, and the global production line turns down while the demand line continues to rise, all the major systems that depend on oil--including manufacturing, trade, transportation, agriculture, and the financial markets that serve them--will begin to destabilize (including the oil industry itself). The peak will set into motion feedback loops of strange behavior as the boundaries among politics, economics, and collective paranoia dissolve, especially in relation to global markets and supply chains, which depend on a modicum of reliable expectations and transcultural trust. ...Eventually, economic growth as conventionally understood in industrial societies will cease, or continue in only a few places at the expense of other places. On the bumpy plateau, global oil production rates may seem strangely at once robust and flat--robust because at peak the total barrels will never manage to go beyond a certain ceiling. Global production will never again increase. After oscillating at peak a few years, production rates will inexorably drop, and then the question becomes: how steep the drop?​

(James Kunstler, The Long Emergency, p. 67)

OK? So he actually quite accurrately predicted the economic turmoil that would ensue after the peak (which we now see happened in 2005 for conventional oil). And he said this would be followed by a long period of declining oil production, declining at 2% to 6% per year.

So no, he was not predicting that we would be out of oil in 2005. Instead he predicted what we actually saw.

So perhaps you should take him off your list of doom predicters who were not good at predicting.

 

[AlexBP]

Well yes, some oil fields have produced more than expected, but some have produced far less.

Can you actually name the oil fields that have produced far less than expected and back up your claims with a reliable citation?

Uh, what is the basis for your claim that the pace of new technologies is accelerating? In terms of patents, things seem to be declining.

Oh really? Try looking at this chart:

That would certainly seem to contradict your claim that "in terms of patents, things seem to be declining", wouldn't you say?

Other than computers and electronics, there have been few changes in the last 30 years. Wind turbines, cars, and factories are very much like they were in 1981 (except, of course, the advances in electronics and computers).

Obviously there have been a great many technological changes over the past thirty years in a great many fields ranging in addition to computers and electronics. Just look at the great advances in treating cancer and other diseases in medicine, the great strides in genetics, in superconductors, solar panels, bio-engineering, and as many other fields as anyone would car to list. For the three things you mention, windmill efficiency is substantially higher now than 30 years ago and there have been numerous advances in automobiles (airbags, to name just one). I'm not an expert on factories so I won't comment there, but given how often you're wrong, I highly doubt that you're right about that particular case.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you had to choose between billions of people dying of starvation, or mandatory population control, which would you choose? I would choose mandatory population control. Which would you choose?

If you would choose billions of people dying of starvation over mandatory birth control, please tell us why you think that is better.

Do you think it is better that everyone is forced to amputate their arms and legs, or that the earth will explode tomorrow? Which would you choose?

If you would choose exploding earth, explain why that is better.

See how silly it looks when one gets caught up in fantasy scenarios and ridiculous false dilemmas.

HUh? Have I said anything at all that would suggest that I would choose an exploding earth? Hello? Then why do you ask me to explain why I would think an exploding earth is better? Hello?

Let's review how we got here. I listed a link to a study that showed population was in overshoot, that we are using renewable resources at a rate which is 20% above the earth's capacity to renew those resources. (I mistakenly had said 30%, but I was confusing that link with another source that estimates the overshoot is higher.) You have suggested that we could just have richer people consume less. I agree that this would definately help, and may even be enough to resolve the problem for now. But as long as the population continues to increase, eventually asking Bill Gates to eat rice and beans instead of steaks is not going to solve the problem. The carrying capacity of the earth is not infinite. The population rate continues to grow. And due to a phenomenon known as population momentum, once we reach overshoot, even if we reduce to an average of 2 children per pair of people, the population rate would continue to rise for a while.

Now what would you do if that happened? What would you do if there were more people than the earth could sustainably handle, and if population was continuing to rise, and if voluntary efforts and education did not resolve it? You have told us that you would not recommend any means of mandatory population control under any circumstances. And yet it is a very real possibility that, if not now, then someday, there will be too many people on this world, and billions may eventually need to starve unless we reduce population. And your words earlier infer, if faced with that choice, that you would choose mass starvation.

But you could clarify if you chose to. If faced with the choice, would you or would you not choose mass starvation, as your earlier words imply?

No, I never denied that the Third World is undergoing industrialization, and it would be foolish to do so.

Yes, there is some industrialization going on in the Third World. The point is that much of the Third World is not experiencing significant economic improvement, and probably will never approach anywhere near a lower middle class American lifestyle. So we cannot say the birth rates will resolve when they reach that level of physical comfort. The population will long have gone into overshoot before then.

As they point out, the number of children women are having worldwide is falling.

Here's one chart just for Brazil, which has experienced a dramatic drop in birthrates with increases in access to education, electricity, and television shows.

Yes, I know that the birth rate has fallen from the high in 1960, but population continues to increase, and has increased by 1 billion people in the last 12 years.

And I have said that if education and voluntary measures work, then I am all for that. Have you missed that? Should I repeat it again for your benefit? I suggested mandatory population control only if voluntary efforts do not work, and if we clearly would see billions of deaths by starvation if we did nothing. It is suggested as a possible last resort to stop the starvation of billions if needed.

And once again, Europe, Russia, the United States, Japan, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, etc. are either barely at replacement levels or experiencing negative birth rates. This spells problems of underpopulation, as there aren't enough young people to fill jobs and handle the burdens of a very large old population.

Ah so we need to have more babies so we have somebody to employ?

Pardon for asking, but why wouldn't we just hire the unemployed instead of making babies?

Being forced to be sterilized or have an abortion automatically reduces one to the standard of living of a slave. No free or moral society would ever do such a thing.

Being forced to wear green with purple polka dots in public reduces one to the standard of living of a slave. No free or moral society would ever do such a thing.

Oh wait, nobody said anything about forcing people to wear green with purple polka dots or to have abortions, so why bring it up?

Despite having less than a quarter of the population, the USA consumes almost three times as much oil as does China, and eight times as much as India or Russia do. Clearly the U.S. has a consumption problem.

That is a big problem. I agree.

What would you do to make the U.S. consume less?

Once again, I am not addressing fantasy/sci-fi scenarios here.

Once again, if population continues to rise, then overpopulation is a very real threat. It is not fantasy/sci-fi.

If faced with the prospect of mass starvation due to overpopulation, and if voluntary efforts are not enough, then what would you do? Your words infer that you would rather let billions die of starvation rather than have mandatory birth control.

China seems to have taken your advice to heart. As was pointed, U.S. states like North Carolina used to engage in such practices, but it grew somewhat out of fashion in the post-civil rights era.

LOL! The Chinese read my words, and decided to take my advice to heart?!?

And no, the incident in North Carolina had nothing to do with a mandatory population control in an emergency to save the lives of billions of people who would otherwise die of starvation. Apples and Oranges.

 

[AlexBP]

Let's review how we got here. I listed a link to a study that showed population was in overshoot, that we are using renewable resources at a rate which is 20% above the earth's capacity to renew those resources. (I mistakenly had said 30%, but I was confusing that link with another source that estimates the overshoot is higher.) You have suggested that we could just have richer people consume less. I agree that this would definately help, and may even be enough to resolve the problem for now. But as long as the population continues to increase, eventually asking Bill Gates to eat rice and beans instead of steaks is not going to solve the problem. The carrying capacity of the earth is not infinite. The population rate continues to grow.

But as has already been pointed out, the population rate is not continuing to grow. At the moment the population itself is growing, but the the rate at which it's growing is decreasing. (Or, as we calculus teachers would say it, the second derivative of the world's population is negative. If this trend continues, and all indications are that it will, the world's population will soon reach a maximum and then begin to decline. While you keep saying that you want someone to do study of the issue, you are apparently unaware that the issue has already been studied and the consensus conclusion is that we're not in any danger of overpopulation because the population will soon reach a maximum and then decline. For example, from this report by the United Nations on world population:

In these projections, world population peaks at 9.22 billion in 2075.
​

That knocks the legs right out from under your argument. There's no reason to believe that the world's population will continue to increase indefinitely. Hence your demand--excuse me, your suggestion--that we need to commit the worst crimes against humanity in history because of the ever-increasing world population is not likely to convince anyone except yourself.

 

[AlexBP]

Since much of the Third World appears to be stuck in poverty, it is wishful thinking to say that their birthrates will shortly lower significantly due to economic advancement. One does hope this will happen, but it is all wishful thinking at this point. It is not something we can rely on to fix our problem.

Once again, you seem to be utterly unaware of the basic facts in this debate. I'd highly recommend reading this article and getting some actual facts to correct your ignorance. Here's the key point:

During the last 50 years, fertility rates have fallen all over the world. From Africa to Asia, South America to Eastern Europe, from Third World jungles to the wealthy desert petro-kingdoms, every country in every region is experiencing declines in fertility. In 1979, the world’s fertility rate was 6.0; today it’s 2.6. Industrialized nations have been the hardest hit. America’s 2.06 is one of the highest fertility rates in the First World. Only Israel (2.75) and New Zealand (2.10) are more fertile.
​

So there it is in so many words. Fertility rates have fallen all over the world. True, they have fallen to the lowest levels on average in wealthy countries, but they have also fallen in poor countries, and in countries whose wealth is near the world's average. They have fallen and are falling everywhere. Therefore your continued (untrue) insistence that there are large areas of the third world that are not becoming more prosperous would mean nothing even if it were true. Prosperity generally correlates with low fertility rates, but is not necessary for the fertility rate to fall. Even if there were a large part of the world completely left behind by the world's economic growth, fertility rates would still fall in that region until they hit the replacement rate and then sank below it.

As I and others have already mentioned already, the problem that the world faces right now is not overpopulation but rather underpopulation. You keep saying that you want the government to "study the issue". Governments around the world are currently studying the issue of population growth. They're just not studying it to see how to rape the population en masse*, but rather to see how they can encourage childbirth. Quoting from the same article as above:

The Japanese government has been trying to stoke fertility since the early 1970s. In 1972, when Japan’s fertility rate was still above replacement, the government introduced a monthly per-child subsidy for parents. Over the years, the government tinkered with the subsidy, altering the amount and raising the age allowance. None of which made much difference: The fertility rate fell at a steady pace. In 1990, the government formed a committee charged with “Creating a sound environment for bearing and rearing children,” the fruit of which was a Childcare Leave Act aimed at helping working mothers.

In 2003, Japan passed the “Law for Basic Measures to Cope with a Declining Fertility Society,” followed two years later by the “Law for Measures to Support the Development of the Next Generation.” To get a sense of how daft the Japanese bureaucrats and politicians are, one of the new provisions required businesses to create—but not implement—abstract “plans” for raising the fertility level of their workers.
​

Governments in other countries are doing similar things. In Signapore, for instance:

In an attempt to boost fertility rates among the elites, the government began offering big tax breaks to highly educated women who had three or more children. A matchmaking service was created by the government for university graduates to encourage young professional men and women to get married. None of it worked. Educated women still shunned motherhood. Even worse, Singapore realized that lower-class women had stopped having babies, too. The government dissolved the Family Planning and Population Board. “Two Is Enough” was replaced by “Have Three Or More Children If You Can,” a slogan broadcast on TV and radio and pushed in print ads and on billboards. Posters abounded proclaiming the joy and fulfillment of family life.

Tax-incentives were given to families with more than three children, as were school admissions preferences. Unpaid maternity leave for government workers was increased from one year to four years.

In 2000, the government announced a series of new initiatives. The first was the “Baby Bonus” program, which paid families for having children: $9,000 for the second child and $18,000 for the third. The tax code was modified to give a hefty break to mothers under the age of 31 who had a second child. The government created “Child Development Accounts,” which function like a 401(k) for kids, with the government matching parents’ savings dollar-for-dollar. Mothers were granted 12 weeks of paid maternity leave with each birth.

The government offered better, larger housing for families with children and made it easier for young married couples to buy a home. They even embarked on a program to find grandparents housing close to their grandchildren, to help ease the burden of childcare. At the same time, the government did its best to undo the disincentives it had created a few years earlier. The $10,000 bonus for sterilization was scrapped. Officials were reluctant to ban abortion outright, but launched a public campaign against it. Women with fewer than three children who sought either sterilization or an abortion were required to attend counseling before any procedure would be performed.

Singapore had become a pro-natalist utopia, where aggressive government intervention was married to a willingness to talk frankly about demographic failure and uphold traditionalist mores.
​

So you say that you want governments to research population issues and reach a consensus. Governments have researched population issues and many have reached a consensus that we need a lot more babies and we need them fast.


* Yes, I'm aware you're using the euphanism "sterilization" but I say that forced violation of a person's sex organs is rape and I'm not going to bother tiptoeing around it.