Overpopulation is a bitch

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I agree with you, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not advocating eugenics but more education on the benefits of smaller population?

Actually she's advocating eugenics....

I'm thinking about it because it came about it another thread about government authority, and we were talking about whether we would support mandatory limits on children if the need arose.

First, hasn't the need already arisen? Anyone want to comment on that? That is not something I'm prepared to talk about intelligently, nor can I even convincingly make anything up.

[drawkcabi]

Actually she's advocating eugenics....

If that is the case than I agree that eugeinics is wrong.

Re: space coolonization. It has been a dream of mine since I knew what space was. I think it would be great for all the reasons cited here and more. The offspring and by products of technological innovations made for the space program that will benefit everybody. The jobs that will be created in old fields and in newly created ones. And, one which I think is underestimated by everyone, the effect on our national/international psyche of being able to do such a thing.

But right now I think the will of the people is bogged down in "We can't do it," and imho, changing that will be a harder obstacle than actually creating a self-sustained colony on Mars.

[Kouran]

It's also the greatest force for inhumanity and genocide. Just keep that part in mind. (I also reference the great Diamond.)

That said, we are a long way form scarcity. Our surplus is embarrassing in historical terms.

Granted Stego.

However the point remains that in the pressence of scarcity humanity learns to adapt, change and thrive. It is to this model we should be driving the world, even if the scarcity in question is artifically created.

[Guest Raidne]

First, mandatory limits, to me, means something other than a voluntary program. It means a tax, or an incentive program where doing the other is practically like a tax.

But that is completely missing the point. The point is that if and when we end up with a serious population problem, how do we want to solve it? Population limits? Big government? Let the wealthy buy it all? Or armed conflict?

I didn't put it in there, but the prevailing answer seems to be "we will not have a serious population problem."

Talk about fighting the hypo. You guys lose.

Let me address some things I missed:

I thought that recent trends show developed countries having less and less kids.

Yes, population growth is slowing. It is not reversing, except in some regional areas (that is true, right?).

Monsanto estimates that by 2020 they will have developed corn that will double the per acre yield while lowering pesticide consumption.

This is precisely the horror story I am talking about.

...what you need to do is to return to a way of life similar to that which existed before our civilisation became based on coal and oil.

This is not possible at present population levels. It is for me, probably, but not for society at large.

You'll need to show why this is preferable. Locally grown and/or organic produce has not been shown to be healthier or more beneficial.

I do? What do you eat? Produce picked at the height of ripeness tastes better. Are you okay with that, or do you need me to find some kind of scientific study attesting to its flavor profile and mouthfeel? I can probably do this, if it's really not self-evident to you.

Or you could take a trip to Napa Valley and eat some tomato salad in August and see what I mean for yourself.

You keep insisting that overpopulation is going to be a problem. People find arguments to show you that in their opinion, and according to several studies it's not going to be the case. I don't understand how that means that they are not interested in the subject...

Let me put it this way, I am interested in whether it's a problem in terms of where it's a problem, and where it's not, and really any level of detail beyond the general expounded by anyone who knows anything. You can take a look at the terraforming conversation as a good example of what informed discussion would actually look like.

And so I'd like to ask Terra:

Raidne is right that we can feed the world's population because we rely on non-sustainable agriculture practices. It is NOT sustainable to have acres and acres of corn and soybean. It only works because we burn a lot of fossil fuel to make it work. Soil erosion, depletion of water table, discharge of agricultural waste, application of pesticide at a large scale - these are all part of the price we pay for cheap, abundant food.

However, while I agree with the identification of the problem, I don't see the size of population as the cause for this problem. Rather, as someone else already pointed out, it's the consumption model that is the issue. If we simply cut the amount of soft-drinks that contain HFCS by 90%, we wouldn't need nearly as many acres of agriculture. But we like our Mountain Dews and our Sunny Ds, and so we grow corn to make corn syrup to go into them.

No, it's not the size of the population, it's what we're doing, that is the problem.

Is that true? If we, say, stopped making HFCS altogether, would that solve the problem?

Or to put another way, are you saying we can feed the world's population without relying mostly on corn and soybeans to do so?

Or to put it another way, I'd like to hear more about that. :)

[Guest Raidne]

Also, has this really always been a topic on par with abortion and the Middle East? I really had no earthly idea. I just thought if I put "bitch" in the title people would post more.

Lastly, I'd say we have a surplus of highly processed food that makes us sick; cheap, disposable consumer goods; chemically-produced building products that make us sick...essentially we live in a cheap, disposable world with a surplus of cheap, disposable plastic shit.

I said this was about quality of life, right? I'm not the kind of a person who's happy to have a 5,000 sq ft disposable, piece of shit McMansion and an inefficient, gas-guzzling big car. That's not what surplus should look like.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I do? What do you eat? Produce picked at the height of ripeness tastes better. Are you okay with that, or do you need me to find some kind of scientific study attesting to its flavor profile and mouthfeel? I can probably do this, if it's really not self-evident to you.

Or you could take a trip to Napa Valley and eat some tomato salad in August and see what I mean for yourself.

So you think it tastes better. That means its time for eugenics!?!

Tomatoes taste better in California in August = Government forcing people to stop having babies? Can you see where the logic falls apart. You need to show why people not being able to eat locally grown produce at the height of ripeness is demonstrably better (healthwise) than eating imported produce. (FYI: you can't, so don't bother).

You are saying that massive government intervention, which has led to unspeakable evil every time it has been tried, is justified so that everyone left alive will be able to eat fresher apples?

And how about say...oranges, or limes, or mangoes, or bananas, or kiwis? You can't even grow those in your neck of the woods. I assume that you do not eat them because they are not locally grown and at the height of freshness?

[drawkcabi]

Also, has this really always been a topic on par with abortion and the Middle East? I really had no earthly idea. I just thought if I put "bitch" in the title people would post more.

Yes, I think because the minute you bring up "population control" people automoatically think of China or WWII Nazi programs or both. So an instictive replusiveness kicks in toward the idea.

[alguien]

Yes, population growth is slowing. It is not reversing, except in some regional areas (that is true, right?).

Actually if current trends continue, its estimated it will start decreasing by 2040, the first time since the Black Death.

The idea is that as cultures (women especially) become more educated they (generally) have less kids.

[Stego]

Yes, I think because the minute you bring up "population control" people automoatically think of China or WWII Nazi programs or both. So an instictive replusiveness kicks in toward the idea.

It is rational that people reflect on the only times it has ever been attempted in human history. That isn't knee-jerk or irrational in any way. To think that we could or would somehow 'do it better' is the only irrational thought.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I am thrilled that this thread came along and people get to see the OP in all her grandeur.

Hey dude be nice to Raidne. She's my favorite pinko commie bastard around here.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Possible, because:

1. The tundras, volcanoes, and deserts are all claimed territories of one country or another. These countries may not be, or cannot, interested in terraforming their terrain.

If we're going to assume nation-states and territorial integrity, why in the world would the wealthy nations most likely to engage in extraterrestrial terraforming freely transfer the terraformed land to the poor nations? Won't whatever land is terraformed be equally "claimed" by nation-states?

2. We know that the ecosystems on Earth are filled with living organisms, even in the tundras, deserts, and volcanic plains. So any large-scale reformation of the landscape will inevitable cause ecological damage to unique ecosystems.

That's an argument for never developing anything on Earth, and frankly, would apply in spades to the presumably long-lasting, perhaps continuous, process of terraforming an entire planet, including all the new or modified forms of life created.

3. Terraforming Mars will give us that much more forward momentum to terraform other planets, further out of our system.

That's kind of a circular justification, isn't it?

4. Mars, being a different planet than Earth, has its own set of circumstances, e.g. thinner atmosphere so less blockage of UV, perhaps making solar power more efficient, atmospheric methane can be harvested for fuel, etc.

Okay, but that doesn't explain why we need to live there in significant numbers.

Re: the topic

Raidne is right that we can feed the world's population because we rely on non-sustainable agriculture practices. It is NOT sustainable to have acres and acres of corn and soybean. It only works because we burn a lot of fossil fuel to make it work. Soil erosion, depletion of water table, discharge of agricultural waste, application of pesticide at a large scale - these are all part of the price we pay for cheap, abundant food.

However, while I agree with the identification of the problem, I don't see the size of population as the cause for this problem. Rather, as someone else already pointed out, it's the consumption model that is the issue. If we simply cut the amount of soft-drinks that contain HFCS by 90%, we wouldn't need nearly as many acres of agriculture. But we like our Mountain Dews and our Sunny Ds, and so we grow corn to make corn syrup to go into them.

No, it's not the size of the population, it's what we're doing, that is the problem.

I find myself siding a bit with Stego on this. Isn't this a self-correcting problem to some extent? And if we're again going to assume the territorial claims of nation-states, shouldn't this whole issue be a problem handled on the nation-state level? If your particular country cannot feed itself, then your country should have a smaller population or otherwise modify it's behavior. But if other countries don't seem to be having a problem, why is it their problem to solve, and is it really even possible to solve other countries' overpopulation/consumption problems? It seems we're looking for a one size fits all solution, when really, the problem is one that can best be addressed on the national level, by governments that have the legal authority to implement changes within their borders.

Folks talk about the U.S. consuming too many resources. Well, fine. Other countries are free not to sell those resources to the U.S.. But I don't quite understand how Americans eating too many hamburgers deprives other people of food. If they were starving, I don't think they'd be selling us their food.

If it's not really just about food, but generic "resources" in general, I still don't see how the U.S. using those resources is actually depriving other people of anything. If we weren't buying and using those resources, they'd still be sitting in the ground. And the folks selling us those resources would have even less wealth because we wouldn't be buying their resources. So how does it help them if we consume less?

[Ken Stone]

Daycare for a baby in a center is around $200 a week. Right there is a free market solution to the (non-existent) "Overpopulation Problem".

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Oh yeah - if you are trying to curtail your birth rate you are going to pretty much need to dismantle the welfare state, which is very much reliant on young healthy people to look after old people. If old people are outnumbering their kids 2-1 your government is pretty much going to fall apart.

[Stego]

Hey dude be nice to Raidne. She's my favorite pinko commie bastard around here.

She is the farthest thing form a communist possible.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

She is the farthest thing form a communist possible.

Eh...you all look alike to me :commie:

[Swordfish]

Doing that's a good idea too. However the population we currently have is already causing what is potentially catostrophic climate change, I really don't want to see what will happen when we have 30 billion people crowding up the place.

Look, the Earth will eventually run out of space and resources which means unless we want to die off we will eventually have to get off it. Why wait until we're facing the wall right in our faces, when we could start cracking at solving the problems now? I know we don't have a good track record at long-term planning, the discount rate alone means we don't really give a shit about what happens even 20 years down the line, but that's no reason to just throw up our hands and say its all far-fetched, scifi-ish, etc., etc. Real technological innovation usually is due to incentives, so all I'm saying is that governments should be providing those incentives. The US Government does it all the time, there was (or is?) a $50 million prize and a juicy contract waiting for the company (almost certainly GE) that produces a new lightbulb that can fulfill a whole bunch of requirements DoE set; why not do the same thing for Space-based tech? See what Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed, and the rest can come up with?

Someone's \been reading too many steampunk novels.

Or, possibly, not enough.

The likeliehood that any technology we develop today will be in any way relevant in 500 years is(much less for interstellar travel)...... Odd.

It might make sense to start working on the immigration law though, because that could take a REALLY long time to sort out. ;)

I can buy a cow raised and butched less than an hour from my house. Got the guy's card in my wallet right now. I buy my ground beef from him.

Anyway, you guys aren't getting me, really. What I mean is that you could enact all these changes you are talking about, and you're still going to have too many people for it to work. We can't feed the global population with organic produce. Or locally grown-produce.

So what? And either way, that's a REGIONAL and not a GLOBAL problem.

[Stego]

Eh...you all look alike to me :commie:

Government lawyers who espouse eugenics aren't very Marxist. Just tossing that out there.

[Stego]

Someone's \been reading too many steampunk novels.

Or, possibly, not enough.

The likeliehood that any technology we develop today will be in any way relevant in 500 years is(much less for interstellar travel)...... Odd.

It might make sense to start working on the immigration law though, because that could take a REALLY long time to sort out. ;)

I think the "Let's get on some rockets!" crowd is getting unfairly blasted here. It will eventually be required because every sun has an expiration date. It may not be an issue because we may be dead as a species by then or be replaced by Ubermenche or what have you. We don't know.

What I am pretty sure of is that government sponsored scientific research for scientific research's sake is a damn fine thing. The more knowledge we have, the better our options will be when faced with real problems.

[Altherion]

Yes, population growth is slowing. It is not reversing, except in some regional areas (that is true, right?).

Wiki to the rescue. Population growth is currently negative in a substantial part of the world including Russia, Germany, Japan and most of Eastern Europe. The reason it is positive in the remaining Western nations despite the below-replacement fertility rates is immigration. Thus, the only way limits on reproduction can have any meaningful impact is if they are imposed on Africa, the Middle East and parts of Southern Asia. This is not feasible without... how should I put this... let us say significant violation of human rights.

[Crazydog7]

Holy shit I want a thread that goes to 5 pages in three hours.

As per the OP.

Although have you noticed strangely as the population goes up.

1. Children become more important. I mean honestly the amount of child worship in our society borders on mass hysteria.

2. Everyone believes they can become famous? Youtube is the ultimate extension of this.