Overpopulation is a bitch

[Eurytus]

Sure, but if we "ran out of water" would people die of thirst, or desalinate their own water?

We could feed the entire world right now and people still die of hunger.

So I don't see thirst being a whole lot different.

[Kouran]

That is because you have only read GG&S and not Collapse, which takes the other side of things. Basically, there are two key points:

1) Food production will never be able to keep up with population growth, because population increases exponentially and crop yields do not.

2) The current ratio of resources to population is only sustainable because non-First-World countries consume so much less at the moment.

Yes, currently there is a surplus, and uneven distribution. However, even if you correct that, it may stop starvation but it will absolutely not be enough to let everyone in the world have the same standard of living as we have in the West. To maintain that, either there has to be massive inequality (as now), a lower standard for everyone, or fewer people to share the resources amongst. That's just the maths.

Min all of those options are fine by me. Enforced scarcity will force humanity to grow and change. A truely static world is one of bland grey apathetic death. If enough people need food then they will get it by force if need be.

The true driver of change has always and will continue to be conflict, be that conflict over ideas, food water or just greed.

[Galactus]

Food production will never be able to keep up with population growth, because population increases exponentially and crop yields do not.

Ah good ol' Malthus. And he's wrong, on both counts, incidentally.

[Guest Raidne]

I am happy to observe that recent reports of Raidne's imminent disappearance from the board were premature.

The incompatibility fixed itself - I some particular ad, I think, was causing problems? Not sure. At any rate, I'm cutting WAY back still. Way.

Y'know, demographic transitions are really, really interesting. Turns out, a rise in GDP/women getting education will lower the birthrate faster and more drastically than everything from the one child policy to forced sterelization.

So, yeah, i'm with Solo - this malthusian crap is just capitalisms way of being racist.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I don't believe in Mathusian levels of population explosion, and I haven't morphed into RhaegarTar.

I think what you say is totally the way to go. But it's really hard, if not just as ethically distasteful, to try and "import" women's rights. You can do what you can to help, but it's not fair to force a western version down somebody's throat, either. Take a look at SATC 2 for a great (unintentional) feel for what that often looks like to other cultures.

Do people study what causes population explosions? Anyone know anything about that? It's probably war, more than anything else, right? So as long as we risk major wars, we're possibly on the brink of another population explosion. All it takes is a few Mussolinis.

Small regional wars over scarcity of water have very little to do with global population issues.

You have the wrong idea about this. There is a reason that riparian rights is a whole area of law unto itself. Hotly contested law. "War" is being fought all the time - just in the courtroom like civilized people.

Also, have you not seen Chinatown? ;)

One more than they planned to before the subsidy. :P

Ha! What I meant is that you want to encourge women to pursue a career to lower the birth rate, but then many women intend to do this and get sidetracked by child care once they realize it's so hard to manage a career and kids. So, maybe, if you subsidize childcare for one (or mandate shared parental leave, but I won't go there again) women who are inclined to have children are motivated to go back to work.

Trust me, women who don't want any children are NOT having any anyway, even if you paid them to, much less just subsidized their day care.

I don't see how either political party could sell a repeal of the child tax credit. Not only is it an outright increase in taxes, it's also regressive: as Stego pointed out, it hits the poor a lot harder than the rich.

And that's a fair point also. It really is a tough call - how to do this without punishing the children, or having racial or social class implications that are undesirable?

[jurble]

Do people study what causes population explosions? Anyone know anything about that? It's probably war, more than anything else, right? So as long as we risk major wars, we're possibly on the brink of another population explosion. All it takes is a few Mussolinis.

The massive population gains of the 20th century were almost entirely due to falling infant and maternal mortality rates. Whereas before, 6 children were born and 4 died, in the 20th century, all six children survived. The lag between birth-rates and death-rates reaching an equilibrium was the cause of the population explosion. In developed, and in some developing nations, we now see a drop in birthrates corresponding to the drop in death-rates. And economic prosperity causes higher birth-rates. War and depression both lead to drops in birth-rates. Winning a war (and the subsequent economic boom) can lead to an increase e.g. the baby boom.

[Galactus]

The massive population gains of the 20th century were almost entirely due to falling infant and maternal mortality rates. Whereas before, 6 children were born and 4 died, in the 20th century, all six children survived. The lag between birth-rates and death-rates reaching an equilibrium was the cause of the population explosion. In developed, and in some developing nations, we now see a drop in birthrates corresponding to the drop in death-rates. And economic prosperity causes higher birth-rates. War and depression both lead to drops in birth-rates. Winning a war (and the subsequent economic boom) can lead to an increase e.g. the baby boom.

There are a bunch of other factors too, eg. birthrate is largely determined by the age of female marriage (men don't matter) marry early: More kids.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Do people study what causes population explosions? Anyone know anything about that?

Beating Germany in wars. Particularly cold winters. The cable and/or internet going down.

[Swordfish]

One more than they planned to before the subsidy. :P

More seriously, I don't see how either political party could sell a repeal of the child tax credit. Not only is it an outright increase in taxes, it's also regressive: as Stego pointed out, it hits the poor a lot harder than the rich.

Additionally, I have some pretty serious doubts that such a measure would have any impact on people deciding whether they are going to have children or not.

You have the wrong idea about this. There is a reason that riparian rights is a whole area of law unto itself. Hotly contested law. "War" is being fought all the time - just in the courtroom like civilized people.

Also, have you not seen Chinatown? ;)

Well, courtroom battles aren't exactly the types of things that were being referred to by the poster. She was referring to actual wars. Court battles don't exactly advance the point she was trying to make.

I have not, much to my embarrassment seen Chinatown.... I have no idea why.

*scurries away in shame*

[Tyrellius]

Regarding water,before anyone says stillsuit, it doesnt seem possible. :tantrum:

Back to the drawing board to get all women into skin tight black leather.

[Swordfish]

Do you see any major pushes to control the precious resource of salt water that compare to the pushes to control the resource of fresh water?

I don't understand the question.

[The Mance]

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

Right. Its a common misconception that the pursuit of technological advances ever leads to anything enduringly useful. Just look at how long its been since anyone's used a wheel.

[Swordfish]

Your initial assertion that water was the most prevalent resource on Earth felt to me like a statement that water scarcity is a non-issue (or you were just trying to pick a fight). So my above question was trying to underscore how the fact that there are shit tons of salt water does not, to me, suggest that we don't need to worry about water scarcity.

I disagreed with your assertion that it's more serious than the fossil fuels issue because 'we can't replace water'. Which is false. We KNOW how to replace all the water we could ever want already, and we will likely discover more ways to reclaim water going forward.

The question of water scarcity is really a question of energy and logistics. Produce enough clean energy and you don't have much of a water problem, at least as far as availability of potable water. So framing your point around water as if it's not a renewable resource is not accurate.

It's not CURRENTLY a CHEAPLY renewable resource, at least not on a large scale, but that isn't the point you were trying to make.

Right. Its a common misconception that the pursuit of technological advances ever leads to anything enduringly useful. Just look at how long its been since anyone's used a wheel.

:rolleyes:

Context. It matters.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

I think the whole premise of population control is disgusting. Here we have a people constituting 12% of the world population, yet accounts for 60% of private consumption spending. We in the developed world consume more meat and fish, use more fossil fuels, emit more carbon dioxide, consume more water per day etc, than the rest of the world - and vastly so. Now we want to stop more people from being born so that we can continue this unsustainable lifestyle? Please.

I can accept that we don't want to give up the luxuries of our lives. I also know that some of the so-called luxuries include clean water, heating of our houses and medical benefits, things that are worth preserving. I do believe that the only realistic way of solving these problems is advancements of technology and the natural decline in birth rates that comes with increasingly available contraceptions and better education.

But whenever mandatory pupulation control is suggested as a solution to these problems, I get sick. That's not how we solve a problem that WE created, folks! If everyone lived as us, we'd need four Earth-sized planets to feed us all. Suggesting we need to reduce the population by 3/4 is about as smart as suggesting you amputate a few limbs if you're starving. After all that's less energy needed, right?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If everyone lived as us, we'd need four Earth-sized planets to feed us all

[citation needed]

[Guest Raidne]

I was actually mostly thinking about reducing the number of hyper-consuming Americans when I wrote the OP. There are more pressing problems in other countries, but it's worth thinking about. Or, alternativel, how would you go about reducing American consumption? On this note, I cannot stop thinking about Texas. You can do whatever you want as an individual, but with people in 100 F airconditiong to 65 F it's not going to make a big difference. They'll split off with their refineries and deep sea shipping channel and tell everyone else to fuck themselves first.

No offense to the not insignificant # of cool, responsible living in Texas.

[jurble]

I was actually mostly thinking about reducing the number of hyper-consuming Americans when I wrote the OP. There are more pressing problems in other countries, but it's worth thinking about. Or, alternativel, how would you go about reducing American consumption? On this note, I cannot stop thinking about Texas. You can do whatever you want as an individual, but with people in 100 F airconditiong to 65 F it's not going to make a big difference. They'll split off with their refineries and deep sea shipping channel and tell everyone else to fuck themselves first.

No offense to the not insignificant # of cool, responsible living in Texas.

Relevant:

http://i.imgur.com/JtgTv.jpg

[Guest Raidne]

Bwahahahaha. Nice.

[delete this account pls]

I think this thread is Raidne's way of telling us she's like two steps away from grabbing a high powered rifle, climbing a bell tower and giving a little demonstration of her own personal solution to this problem.

[TrueMetis]

I think people underestimate the amount of resources we have available to us. And if you beef is you can't get fresh fucking tomatoes, why don't you just grow your own? It's not like it's that difficult.

Population growth is flattening out and we haven't even gotten close to the amount we could sustain with current technologies let alone advancements that are coming. The universe has infinite resources all we gotta do is figure out how to get to them.

[jurble]

The universe has infinite resources all we gotta do is figure out how to get to them.

Rockets.