Overpopulation is a bitch

[Stego]

Yet? We're certainly seeing some effects. You want to what, wait until it's dire enough? When will we know when that is?

I'm not going to lie - quality of life is my major concern. I can't think of a single aspect of quality of life that would not be improved by having less people around.

How can you not see how this sounds? Do you not know of the overpopulation movement that led to Eugenics talk in the early 20th century that ultimately led to the pogroms of WWII? You are advocating the severe curtailment of humanity and that does not seem high handed to you?

[Fez]

You're just mean. People want to have their organic, environmentally-friendly, locally-grown fresh food right around the corner while still living in a city. And while bitching about sprawl and wanting people to live in more urban area so as to reduce fuel consumption.

Plus, there are too many Wal-Mart loving hicks around if you get out into flyover country or live outside a sophisticated urban area. Know what I mean?

The idea of doming settlements on Mars when we've got plenty of currently uninhabitable space on this planet in the form of deserts, tundra, and various wastes is just bizarre. If we can't make those spaces habitable yet on Earth, why spend resources on Mars where the problem of transportation alone increases the costs of settling uninhabitable lands exponentially?

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?

[Kouran]

I fail to even see what the problem is with over-population. Scarcity is probably the best driving force for technological growth and societal change. See Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel".

Oh and given the drive of some companies I doubt food production will ever be a limiting factor to human population. Monsanto estimates that by 2020 they will have developed corn that will double the per acre yield while lowering pesticide consumption. Apply this same dynamic across the major cereal groups and I fail to see how we cant feed the planet for the forseeable future.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Doing that's a good idea too. However the population we currently have is already causing what is potentially catostrophic climate change,

I would guess that the costs in terms of energy and resources to colonize Mars would dwarf what it would require to keep the same number of people here on Earth. In other words, I think colonizing Mars on a practical level would be even worse for the environments here on Earth.

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.

Really? I don't think the part about "space" has been proven at all, and given the comments above correctly pointing to declining birth rates in developed countries, it is entire possible that we'll have plenty of "space" into the indefinite future. In terms of resources, I suppose mining the rest of the Solar system rather than settling it with an alleged "overflow" population would make a lot more sense when we get to that point in however many hundreds or thousands of years.

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.

First, if we are that horrible at long-range planning, then the extremely long-range planning you advocate here is doomed to failure anyway by your own theory. But second, the idea that because we may need something eventually means we should start acquiring it now is crazy, and suggests incredible inefficiencies.

Real technological innovation usually is due to incentives, so all I'm saying is that governments should be providing those incentives.

The problems you're talking about are due to natural constraints, right? Then why not rely on nature to provide the proper incentives in due course, rather than the government?

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?

If there is a product or process that really will generate tons of efficiencies, and truly will benefit humanity, then GE, Boeing, Northrup, etc., have plenty of incentives to do that shit on their own, without us bankrolling them.

[Stego]

But the "off the deep end" idiocy of so many of the "solutions" to it are barely worth discussing (mandatory sterilization, for instance; if you think about that for even a few moments you can see how that idea would be simultaneously evil and impractical - if we don't have the reliable distribution network to get food aid to the Sudan, for instance, how are we supposed to mass-sterilize people in the numbers needed to actually make a difference? And that's not even getting into the issue of who exactly is going to decide who gets sterilized and who won't? I don't need to remind anyone here of the sordid history of forced-sterilization campaigns...).

Thanks for posting sense. It brought my blood pressure down.

Yeah, America has an over-population problem. Take into consideration the resources the planet has, and then the demand on them simply by the US. It's way more than they should need to get by. With a high birth rate, the country is only going to continue to grow, which means problems for the rest of us. It's not going to change any time soon. Even a simple thing like water is going to become hard to acquire.

Although, the US isn't the worst for exceeding their demands on the planet.

ETA: Eh, I find it concerning how many are willing to overlook this. I probably should step away before becoming irrational.

You already are irrational. What you describe is overconsumption and it is brought to us courtesy of a consumer culture steeped in capitalism. All we need do is live in a responsible manner. Go outside, Americans. Take a look at your neighbors. Are we starving form a lack of food?

This topic is knee-jerk ignorance.

It'd be pretty reprehensible if I were talking about whacking people instead of just controlling the birthrate.

Controlling the birth rate is reprehensible.

[Lummel]

I'd like to eat locally grown food, picked at maximum ripeness, use solar and wind power, and eat meat once in awhile (although not at the portions we do now, because that's unhealthy and kind of gross - BK's pizza burger, anyone?). These things are not possible with even the population the United States has right now.

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.

The only resources that we are absolutely running out of are fossil fuels, but if your idea of quality of life is to eat fresh, locally produced food and some meat once in a while then fossil fuels aren't all that relevent to you, 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.

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

I'm thinking of Fred Pearce, who was interviewed on the Daily Show, about his book The Coming Population Crash: And Our Planet's Surprising Future.

Birthrates are falling in developing countries too. There's a correlation between the education of women and the birthrate. If you want world population growth to slow, stabilise or diminish your best bet is to teach girls to read and write.

[Eponine]

Controlling the birth rate is reprehensible.

Except that you (Raidne, not Stego) could personally choose to control your birth rate and not have kids and then you'd personally have more steak :)

[Stego]

Scarcity is probably the best driving force for technological growth and societal change. See Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel".

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.

[drawkcabi]

To tell you the truth, over population has become less and less of a worry of mine as I've grown older and more pessimistic as I see much worse problems on the horizon, all that will have an effect of decreasing our population.

New diseses are popping up, older ones are resurging, antibiotics are losing their effectiveness. There are more wars around the corner. More natural disasters. Global Warming is going to have a major hand in increasing the likeliness of all of the above plus other dangers we haven't even realized yet.

Also, as long as the obesity epidemic continues to grow worse, men will become less fertile and less interested/capable of producing offspring.

In the end it may be immigration that saves this country by providing us with the most healthy and viable people to sustain our government, military, infrastructure, economy, etc.

[Guest Raidne]

Every year I buy half a cow that is raised and butchered less than an hour from my house...

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.

As far as I can tell, this is just not an interesting subject to people, and all we want to talk about is how overpopulation is not a problem. I understand this is the fashionable thing to say, but check out the Wiki page. Take another look.

Also, I haven't even read his post, but it would it really suprise anyone to find out that Stego is a major supporter of letting overpopulation run its course until scarcity drives everyone to armed (preferably weaponless) conflict? :lol: I'm pretty sure that's the same brand of batshit he brought us last week.

ETA: Disease and global warming are problems greatly exacerbated by the size of the population. Obesity can be traced to the industrialization of agriculture, started because it's necessary to feed the size of the population.

This is the thing: it stopped being a dire issue, I agree (thank you feminism!). But somehow we've lost the truth that reducing population would still ameliorate a lot of our other problems, or greatly contribute to the solution. It's still a great idea!

[Fez]

I would guess that the costs in terms of energy and resources to colonize Mars would dwarf what it would require to keep the same number of people here on Earth. In other words, I think colonizing Mars on a practical level would be even worse for the environments here on Earth.

Well I don't think so, but that's just my opion, as the above is yours. I don't think anyone could say with certainity how cheapily we could end up doing it yet, so that's why research and money spent on it is needed.

Really? I don't think the part about "space" has been proven at all, and given the comments above correctly pointing to declining birth rates in developed countries, it is entire possible that we'll have plenty of "space" into the indefinite future. In terms of resources, I suppose mining the rest of the Solar system rather than settling it with an alleged "overflow" population would make a lot more sense when we get to that point in however many hundreds or thousands of years.

I'm not sure that trend will continue though. The theory goes that first civilizations are low developed, high birthrate, then high developed, high birthrate, and finally high developed, low birthrate. That is, it takes a little while but eventually development (due to the usual causes, like education and opportunities for women) causes birth-rates to drop. However as I recall, the more recently developing countries aren't following the usual trend-lines; usually due to religion. Israel, with its Orthodox Jews, the more developed Muslim contries (particularly outside the middle east), and the developed christian countries in Africa; aren't showing signs of slowing down. Nearly 1/3rd of all Catholics will be African by 2050 I remember reading. Which suggests that while birth rates are way down in some developed countries, I'm not sure its a universial statement to make.

First, if we are that horrible at long-range planning, then the extremely long-range planning you advocate here is doomed to failure anyway by your own theory. But second, the idea that because we may need something eventually means we should start acquiring it now is crazy, and suggests incredible inefficiencies.

Well that's why I'm saying we need to give this greater attention than usual, to make sure we actual can plan. And the idea is that if we don't start acquiring now, we may never be able to so although it may seem early, its really not.

The problems you're talking about are due to natural constraints, right? Then why not rely on nature to provide the proper incentives in due course, rather than the government?

If there is a product or process that really will generate tons of efficiencies, and truly will benefit humanity, then GE, Boeing, Northrup, etc., have plenty of incentives to do that shit on their own, without us bankrolling them.

Its a matter of scale. Just like providing electricity to rural areas in the '30s or cell phone service in rural areas today (I still don't get any at my Dad's house), its just too big a job for private companies. The only profit to be had is selling to the federal government; so the federal government should make it known that its interested in buying.

And to move a little more towards the original topic, Eugenics is a terrible, terrible idea.

[Guest Raidne]

You can't imagine what space colonization does to facilitate his Big Government dreams. Sure, sure, we know from science fiction that the colonized areas break away and become libertarian havens of awesomeness, but ever check out Earth in those scenarios? They've got the UN running things on par with the Left Behind series.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

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.

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.

[Lummel]

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.

As far as I can tell, this is just not an interesting subject to people, and all we want to talk about is how overpopulation is not a problem. I understand this is the fashionable thing to say, but check out the Wiki page. Take another look.

We haven't tried, but on the other hand the way we live, we eat and the way our food is produced is different to how the majority of the world's population lives and how we have lived historically. If what you want is your current level of consumption plus locally produced foods plus more people repeating that same level and pattern of consumption then no, the modern american way of life with (locally produced) bells on is not sustainable for the world's population.

[Stego]

Self Edit. :D

[Fez]

You can't imagine what space colonization does to facilitate his Big Government dreams. Sure, sure, we know from science fiction that the colonized areas break away and become libertarian havens of awesomeness, but ever check out Earth in those scenarios? They've got the UN running things on par with the Left Behind series.

Its true. The only way we'll ever get my dream of a one-world government is if we can find some aliens to fight.

[Stego]

self edit. :D

[kuroishi]

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.

Why would we? And why should we?

As far as I can tell, this is just not an interesting subject to people, and all we want to talk about is how overpopulation is not a problem. I understand this is the fashionable thing to say, but check out the Wiki page. Take another look.

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...

As for the wiki page, it does a good job of proving that some insist that overpopulation is a problem while others say that it's not the case.

Also, I haven't even read his post, but it would it really suprise anyone to find out that Stego is a major supporter of letting overpopulation run its course until scarcity drives everyone to armed (preferably weaponless) conflict? :lol: I'm pretty sure that's the same brand of batshit he brought us last week.

Not commenting on posts you haven't read by people I guess you've put on your Ignore List would be a good idea.

[drawkcabi]

ETA: Disease and global warming are problems greatly exacerbated by the size of the population. Obesity can be traced to the industrialization of agriculture, started because it's necessary to feed the size of the population.

This is the thing: it stopped being a dire issue, I agree (thank you feminism!). But somehow we've lost the truth that reducing population would still ameliorate a lot of our other problems, or greatly contribute to the solution. It's still a great idea!

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? Putting the germ in people's mind that having less children is a good thing but still always allow the choice to ultimately always be in the hands of the people?

What I'm saying is that no matter what, nature has a way of evening things out. It will be messier, no doubt, but I don't think any amount of discussion of the benefits of smaller population are going to stop a majority of people from doing whatever the hell they want. I'm all for sexual education programs, more educating and promoting of contraceptive use, all trying to stem the amount of teen pregnancies, but once you start talking about stemming the amount of pregnancies in general, people get touchy.

The only way to get a smaller population in a controled way is to institute government mandated programs that interfere with individual freedoms, which is very wrong.

[TerraPrime]

The idea of doming settlements on Mars when we've got plenty of currently uninhabitable space on this planet in the form of deserts, tundra, and various wastes is just bizarre. If we can't make those spaces habitable yet on Earth, why spend resources on Mars where the problem of transportation alone increases the costs of settling uninhabitable lands exponentially?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.