I sort of figured this topic would get a thread here, but it hasn't happened yet.
I've posted many times that overpopulation is the only real problem the human race has, since basically all of our other problems stem from it. But lately I've been thinking of some of the responses to that thought, and I thought I'd put forth some discussion fodder.
First, I need to make a distinction between actual people and theoretical people. This is in response to a number of comments from people with big families, such as "I've got 5 kids, which ones am I supposed to kill?"
Once a person is born, then they fall into the category of actual people. To me, the reason why we have to limit population growth is that it's morally imperative that we preserve enough resources to provide for actual people on a sustainable basis. The whole point is to provide for actual people, not to kill them. So the question of whether to kill people in order to acheive a sustainable population is ridiculous, because it's a contradiction in terms.
The other category of people I call "theoretical people." Think of "Every Sperm is Sacred" and you should get the point. We can't possibly sustain every theoretically possible combination of egg and sperm. I should hope that's obvious enough.
Theoretical people also fall into two categories: Those that are wanted (a twinkle in the eye, so to speak) and those that are unwanted. For anyone that wants children, there are theoretical children in their future whom they hope will become actual. And I think that's a subject in itself, so I'm just going to let it slide for a moment.
I hope to impress on people the fact that I view this as a moral issue. I'm reasonably certain that my lifespan will end before the problem of population makes life unbearable to me. But I'm also reasonably certain that population growth is going to have a dramatic affect on my children's lives, and my grandchildren, eventually leading to intolerable conditions for everybody, including YOUR children and grandchildren. And yes, I care about them even though I address them generically. I care about humanity. So this moral issue is not merely selfish (on behalf of my own children)
(Let me take an aside here. I've been looking for a bible quote, and I can't find it. New Testament, one of the Gospels, I think. Something to the extent that even evil people love their own children. Let me know if you recognize it.)
Everybody dies. You don't have to kill anyone on purpose to result in lowered population. But being born is a different story. We can control that, we're just not doing a very good job of it, in large part because there are oganizations that are promoting increased population. I was really incensed a few months ago when the Russian Government called for families to have more than two children, for economic reasons. (That's for one example designed to point out that the Roman Catholic Church isn't the only culprit). There are lots of reasons why people and groups of people are in favor of increased childbirth, from "life is sacred" to "we need a younger demographic for economic reasons" with lots of others not mentioned.
Neither of the two arguments I listed above holds any water, because neither is sustainable. If life is sacred then we should be working toward a sustainable population, because the alternative is the destruction of life, not preservation. Likewise, increased population consumes the very resources that economics depends on. It may create economic growth in the near term, but at what cost?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Honestly can you blame Russia?
They have negative population growth. It's not just for the purpose of economic growth, it's in the hope that their nation won't simply cease to exist due to lack of people. I read recently that the Ukraine is projected to lose 40% of their population through emigration and lack of births. Can you really blame people for wanting to insure the sustainability of their nation? To guarantee their right to exist?
I ask you though, why is Russia experiencing a negative population growth? If it is because the people can't afford to have more than one or two kids, then is it really unfair for the state to offer to subsidize the rearing of more kids? Why should only rich nations with excesses of food be allowed unfettered population growth?
I've no problem with the US hitting 300 million. I have no problem with the fact that many of those new millions are immigrants. My problem is that as the nation grows, as infrastructure gets older, as domestic problems are left unaddressed, we're creating a giant mess for our children. The question I want answered isn't "is 300 million too many?" it's "What are we doing to make sure the 350 millionth child is born into a healthy, stable America?"
300 million are here, are they aren't going anywhere. Let's work on making sure every kid from here on out is born into an America where their biggest fear will be deciding what they want to be when they grow up.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
We need to start sending out colony ships to other solar systems. Why haven't they invented near-lightspeed travel yet? And I've got a great idea for this device that allows for instant communication across any distance. I just can't think of a cool name for it.
.....
When peak oil hits, (see link for doomsday site with surprisingly good referencing and scientific support) the worldwide depression will result in another world war, probably involving nukes, (see current events in North Korea, Iran) which will result (sadly) in a drop in the worlwide population.
I do not see any feasible solution to the problem.
Q : How many divisions do you need to deal with the ten Panzer divisions that just came across your border?
A : No worries, the market will take care of it.
No worries, the market will magically come up with a solution for oil!
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
HA. The Market will crash and burn. It will be disaster-ous.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: We need to start sending out colony ships to other solar systems. Why haven't they invented near-lightspeed travel yet? And I've got a great idea for this device that allows for instant communication across any distance. I just can't think of a cool name for it.
.....
When peak oil hits, (see link for doomsday site with surprisingly good referencing and scientific support) the worldwide depression will result in another world war, probably involving nukes, (see current events in North Korea, Iran) which will result (sadly) in a drop in the worlwide population.
I do not see any feasible solution to the problem.
Doubtful. By the time this eventuality comes about, the western world, or more likely, all current first world powers won't be as heavily tied to oil. There are billions of gallons of oil out there, some in reserves yet to be tapped, some in reserves yet to be discovered. Before we get to the point of running out, we'll have invented our way out of it, or at least to a point where domestic supply, however limited it might be, will be be enough, when combined with other sources. We'll be fine.
This war won't be fought by North America, or Europe. This is a war that will be fought in Asia and Africa, because by the time we're really in a pickle, those are the nations that will be still be helplessly tied to oil, at a time when their only suppliers, the Middle East, will be running low. Most likely scenario, and even this is a wreckless guess: China invades Russia. Russia is on the decline no matter how you look at it, which is where their negative population growth comes into play. In maybe 30-50 years when oil scares start to play out, Russia will still have vast Siberian oil reserves, whose total isn't accurately guessed at.
When this comes about, empowered China will strike at weakened Russia, and the world will likely watch and do nothing to help them. Tom Clancy had no idea what he was talking about. One of these days Africa is going to pull itself out of the muck, by bits and pieces, and they'll modernize, and come to find a world that's left them behind, and with few table scraps for them remaining. They'll arm themselves, and Americans and Russians (if they are still around) will gleefully sell them weapons, and they'll march off to the Middle East for their spot in line for the spigot.
Absent altruistic charity from the west, there may be a war in the future. But it won't be nuclear, and likely, it won't even happen.
Edit to add: On further reflection (five minutes later), there IS a possibility that the US would intervene in defense of Europe. It depends on what happens economically and politically in the next five decades.
If Russia should join the EU, that would change things greatly. Quite frankly I think the EU, despite recent roadblocks, is headed for a more unified government. Unlike NATO's opt out clause, an attack on an EU membered Russia would be vigorously responded to.
But the larger issue would be, how important is China to the world economy? The problem I have always had with OSC's writings in the Shadow series about the future is the constant description of the US as China's lapdog. This assumes that the relationship between our nations will continue at the same pace for a cenetury or so, which I think is ridiculous to assume, and I think so for the following reasons:
1. India's population is growing faster than China's, and we have far, far better relations with India than China. We shift thousands more high tech jobs to India than China, there's no reason to assume India won't start trying to undercut China's low cost labor jobs as well.
2. Eventually the yuan is going to have to float, they'll succumb to WTO and US pressure and they'll crack down on patent theft and they'll agree to let their currency float. At that point, the trade deficit will implode and drop like a rock, as their goods will be nowhere near as cost effective to buy against a more evened dollar.
3. Southeast Asia/South America is onto the game. Businesses are already shifting more business to Vietnam, Laos, and the like, instead of China. Even more likely in the near future is the shifting of business to low cost labor in South America. Why? Because every time the price of oil spikes, the cost of transporting all those cheap goods from across the Pacific skyrockets as well. The end result is, it's far, far cheaper to transport goods from South America than from China, to say nothing of the fact that there aren't tariffs down there thanks to CAFTA. China right now I think has it almost as good as they are ever going to get it, which I think is part of why they are trying to milk it for all it's worth now, so that when it ends, they can try and stand with the big boys.
It's ironic too, that they are the ones driving the insatiable new growth in demand for oil, which spikes the price of oil, which raises transportation costs, which makes the cost of doing business with them for America much higher. Oh, and add to this the fact that at some point in the future Congress is going to (if they don't already, and if they do, it's going up) start making importers pay the cost of inspecting the cargo for smuggled materials. Less than 1% of incoming cargo is inspected, that's going to change, and the fee for doing it ISN'T coming out of the taxpayers' pockets, it will come out of the pockets of business (who will then pass the cost on to the customer). But that too works against China, though they may not see it. Overland transportation from South America (or, more closely watched regulatory control from a nation we are friendlier with, trust more, and have our teeth sunk into more) means less cost to businesses to work with them, which means even lower prices for customers, which hurts China again.
The future is hard to predict, but I think assuming that the USA and China are joined at the hip for life, and that it's China's game to call, is jumping the gun by a longshot.
[ October 17, 2006, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:When this comes about, empowered China will strike at weakened Russia, and the world will likely watch and do nothing to help them. Tom Clancy had no idea what he was talking about. One of these days Africa is going to pull itself out of the muck, by bits and pieces, and they'll modernize, and come to find a world that's left them behind, and with few table scraps for them remaining. They'll arm themselves, and Americans and Russians (if they are still around) will gleefully sell them weapons, and they'll march off to the Middle East for their spot in line for the spigot.
Uh. While I don't think it's unlikely we'll see Chinese expansion over the next century -- particularly with 60 million extra men -- who in Africa, exactly, do you think is going to work up the political influence, military strength, and national unity to have a sustainable nation? Much less a conquering one?
Africa's worst times are yet to come. Increasing drought and disease and population, particularly when combined with a disappearing over-30 population, is going to lead to a very bad future for the continent.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Doubtful. By the time this eventuality comes about, the western world, or more likely, all current first world powers won't be as heavily tied to oil. There are billions of gallons of oil out there, some in reserves yet to be tapped, some in reserves yet to be discovered. Before we get to the point of running out, we'll have invented our way out of it, or at least to a point where domestic supply, however limited it might be, will be be enough, when combined with other sources. We'll be fine.
We might be fine for energy, but what about plastic?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why should only rich nations with excesses of food be allowed unfettered population growth?
I think this is an odd statement. The countries experiencing significant population growth are not rich. In fact population growth correlates negatively with a country's wealth. Europe (West and East), the U.S., Japan, Australia and New Zealand are all experiencing significantly lower population growth than Africa, India, and (I believe) SE Asia.
The reason people aren't having large families is not because they can't afford to; it's because they don't want to. Living in industrialized nations where they aren't dependant on offspring for farm labor and have relatively easy access to birth control, they have a choice. And since life's easier without children and other dependants, most people are choosing to have fewer and fewer children.
<edit>Here's a wiki on world population growth.</edit>
[ October 17, 2006, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lalo -
Who knows what will happen in the next fifty years? Much of Subsaharan Africa is starting to achieve one of the key ingredients to a stable nation capable of building on its resources, and that is a stable democracy. Once stable democracies flourish in subsaharan Africa, they'll be rewarded with debt forgiveness from the west, followed by another round of loans. A smart World Bank and US would tie this to an increase in microloans, and would force them to use the money for infrastructure improvements.
Remember just fifty years ago, much of Africa was still fighting off the vestiges of colonialism, who's to say that in the next fifty they won't be successful nation states? Despite the drought, there is a wealth of resources in Africa, which can be capitalized on, and used to drag themselves out of the perpetual state of poverty and internal war. They are the last continent that is primarily third world. That puts them last in line for resources used in the advanced world, other than what they have at their own disposal. In fifty-sixty years, they are going to emerge as more developed nations, what I guess you'd call second world countries, and they'll want their go at the world's share of resources, and I think that will mean war in the future. I don't think I'll be around to see it, but I think it's likely.
They DO have hard times ahead, but they are in a much better position now than they were a couple decades ago to handle it. The African Union is starting to maintain some semblence of continental cohesion, they're working together. They are combining military and economic assets. Infrastructure and education will solve half their problems, and once they have that, and some political stability (which I think is VASTLY underappreciated across the continent), the money WILL flow into those nations from the first world, who is always eager to cash in on new investment opportunities.
twinky -
Domestic supply, to say nothing of Canada and Mexico, will take care of that. Like I said, by the time we're near a crunch, we'll have invented our way out of the issue. But that still leaves a fair amount of domestic supply to handle our needs for plastic. I wouldn't be surprised to see synthetic oil cover that need, or oil made from coal (odd as that sounds). But wells in Texas and California still produce oil, just vastly smaller amounts of it. We have deep sea wells, and if push comes to shove some day, ANWR will be tapped for it, if global warming hasn't melted the permafrost, making a pipeline unsustainable. How much oil is tied up in shale and tar sands? The higher the price of oil goes, the more cost effective all that hard to get to oil becomes. The goal is to have cars that use zero gasoline, and I think that is greatly possible in a half century to 75 years. Once we do that, oil will almost be entirely used for commercial and not consumer needs.
Senoj -
Yeah I knew that as I was typing it. Rich nations ARE having less kids. But the main point of that sentence was to parry what Glenn said about Russia's incentives for children plan. Fact is that they aren't having kids because they can't afford it. Russia isn't America, and there isn't the same myriad array of personal choices that we have here when it comes to our personal lives. If the people want kids, and the government wants to oblige them, who are we to tell them no? We certainly don't tell rich nations they have to have less kids, it's personal choice, and we have it here, they don't there.
It won't be easy, but we'll have enough.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I for one don't believe overpopulation is the problem. I think misuse of Earth's resources and poorly run or corrupt governments are the cause of lack of resources. Part of this belief comes from my religious beliefs as an LDS person, as reflected in this scripture:
"For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves. Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment (Doctrine & Covenants 104:17,18)"
Of course, if you're not LDS, then that scripture won't mean much to you. I don't include this to start a religious argument, just to make a point about why I think we have resource problems. Limiting populations is like using aspirin to ease symptoms of a larger problem. It may help reduce resource problems, but it's not the cause.
There are a thousand different ways our resources can be used better, from waste in wealthy countries, the incomprehensible amount of resources spent on non-nutritious things such as tobacco, alcohol (the amount of grain used just in the US on beer is staggering), greedy wealthy individuals, corrupt governments, oppression, etc. There is no easy solution, but I don't think overpopulation is the problem. The earth has a tremendous amount of resources, they are just being used incorrectly.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
We can MAKE oil out of our waste. And it will soon be economically feasible. (we've had multiple threads on this.)
That being said, we're not going to be dependant on it much longer as more and more environmentalists come to realize that Nuclear is the best and cleanest we've got. We'll bury the spent fuel for now till we come up with a way to squeeze more engery out of it. And we will. Electric cars are just around the corner and they will take advantage of this. (we've had a thread on this as well)
Rich nations are shrinking in population. The US is the third most populous nation in the world, yet we have vast empty spaces in the land betwee the coasts. Our native population is shrinking slightly and we are being overwhelmed with immigration. I don't have a problem with the immigration, I have a problem with the natives not boinking. If you're preggers and don't want to be, choose adoption. There are plenty of straight and gay couples who would want your baby.
Japan is shrinking, Russia is shrinking, Europe is shrinking.
Population isn't the boogyman you think it is. In fact, caucasians and japanese need to worry about their own extinction.
Pix
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Population growth is one of many things that worries me about the next 50 years. Too many people + not enough resources == recipe for disaster.
Aren't wars the typical method that humans use to thin the herd?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
America's native population is producing at 2.09, which is just shy of the rate needed to sustain a population.
That means that every extra person added to our population is an immigrant.
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
The US has stable and sustainable population growth, a little less than 1 percent a year--that is not worrisome at all.
If US corporations had ONLY 1 percent of growth a year there'd be mass layoffs and restructurings and major CEO payhikes. Sustainability is anathema to the current drive for higher margins, We've already seen the boom bust curve in action with the major bankruptcies of the past few years. More are on their way, it's inevitable, and more worrisome to me than a steady growth rate over the last ninety years
In the immediate timeframe, what's most annoying to me is the vile fearmongering the media is promoting with this landmark. Om CNN (AC360) last night they were calling it (in scare tactic fashion), "300,000,000: Melting pot or Meltdown!?" The melting pot being the classic positive view of American heritage of heterogeneity and the Meltdown meaning "THE MEXICANS ARE COMING! THE MEXICANS ARE COMING!"
Though the program did offer one truly terrific laugh, the head of the racist "English First" movement is so repulsive to look at I doubt anyone could take him seriously as he promoted nonsense statistics.
As for population in the rest of the world, don't we need wars so that we can plant new forests and interbreed properly to maintain a healthy genepool?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I never worry about overpopulation. The concern about it was triggered by Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb in 1968. He famously wrote, "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Obviously, that did not happen, nor did almost every prediction he made in his book. For decades, he predicted massive world famine, massive shortages in resources, and a sharp decline in the average life expectancy, among other things. None of those predictions have come true.
He famously put his money where his mouth was and bet the economist Julian Simon that the market prices of 5 metals (picked by Ehrlich himself, a biologist) would skyrocket because they would become so scarce. Ehrlich was so wrong that he would have lost even if the prices hadn't been adjusted for inflation.
Simon was inspired to propose the bet when Ehrlich wrote, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Whoops.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
A friend of mine got mad when I said I didn't want more than 1 or 2 kids. She said us Caucasians are facing extinction. I said, "who cares". Its called the Human race for a reason. At least the immigrants aren't killing us with war and disease like what we did to the real native population.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We aren't going extinct, we're just staying the same.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
That depends on who you mean by "we."
We as a human race are increasing.
We as currently constituted Americans are staying the same.
We as caucasions (I've assumed, possibly fallaciously, that you're white like me, to crib from John Howard Griffin) are declining.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: A friend of mine got mad when I said I didn't want more than 1 or 2 kids. She said us Caucasians are facing extinction. I said, "who cares". Its called the Human race for a reason. At least the immigrants aren't killing us with war and disease like what we did to the real native population.
I read an article with a similar tenor recently, although it focused on the Muslim-Judeo/Christian divide. It's point was that if the Islamic subcultures in Sudan, Yemen, UAE, Pakistan and India continue producing children at more than twice the rate of Western Europe and the US, we (meaning proponents of Western-style liberalism) will lose the war of ideas to orthodox Muslim fundamentalism. Also, that the birth rates of Muslim immigrants in many Western European countries is high enough that they will constitute significant voting blocs in in France, Germany and England within 25 years; voting blocs which will likely push for acceptance of government mandated shar'ia rather than traditional liberal government. I think the argument is flawed inasmuch as ideas are not genetically encoded into who we are, but the trend still makes me uneasy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So Catholic priests, who are required to stay celibate, must surely have died out a thousand years ago, then. Are ideas genetic, now? If Western liberalism is a good idea, people will embrace it independently of their skin colour.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: That depends on who you mean by "we."
We as a human race are increasing.
We as currently constituted Americans are staying the same.
We as caucasions (I've assumed, possibly fallaciously, that you're white like me, to crib from John Howard Griffin) are declining.
We as Americans are steadily increasing, hence the point of this thread. Immigration I count as increasing, once they have kids, those kids are usually more American than anything else, thanks in part to those schools that Irami likes to throw verbal stones at.
What is the American birth rate of Caucasians, independent of other races?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Population growth is one of many things that worries me about the next 50 years. Too many people + not enough resources == recipe for disaster.
Aren't wars the typical method that humans use to thin the herd?
Naw there are plenty of other methods. Famine, disease, natural disasters.
I really think its more question of agricultural progression. I can't believe that Utah grows as much as it does. With innovation and hard work you can grow food just about ANYWHERE. Theres so much space in the world that is pretty much just ignored because there is not the neccesity to try and farm it.
If we put as much effort into developing farming techniques as we do on weaponry we would be able to grow so much more on barren soil. The world is not a crowded place IMO. War is just a much quicker solution then developing more effective agricultural techniques.
When the entire world is packed like India or China THEN I will concede that population control needs to be implemented.
The US is FAR from reaching this point right now.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So Catholic priests, who are required to stay celibate, must surely have died out a thousand years ago, then. Are ideas genetic, now?
Hunh, seems like I already said that.
quote:I think the argument is flawed inasmuch as ideas are not genetically encoded into who we are
Oh yeah, I did.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:U.S. Population hits 300 MM
...and they're ALL driving down the I-95 at 6pm...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:U.S. Population hits 300 MM
...and they're ALL driving down the I-95 at 6pm...
More like heading south bound on I-15 at 5:00. They also ALL slow down to see a police car with their lights on for ANY reason thus making the slowage worse.
I going to have to endure it again in just 30 minutes. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Honestly can you blame Russia?
As I said, I picked that example rather than, say, the Roman Catholic Church or, as has also been mentioned, The Church of JCoLDS. Or Islam, or just about any other religion.
The point was merely that there are organizations that promote increased childbirth.
quote:Before we get to the point of running out, we'll have invented our way out of it, or at least to a point where domestic supply, however limited it might be, will be be enough, when combined with other sources. We'll be fine.
I regard this as unjustified optimism. We have show repeatedly that we respond too late, rather than being proactive. The demand for oil is higher than it's ever been, despite warnings of peak oil for over 30 years. We haven't invented our way out of it due to a lack of will. And we won't invent or conserve our way out of it unless something truly horrific snaps us out of our torpor.
quote:Aren't wars the typical method that humans use to thin the herd?
Naw there are plenty of other methods. Famine, disease, natural disasters.
Unfortumately, all of those mentioned tend to have the effect of increasing population in the long run. There was a baby boom after the Irish famine, WWII, etc.
quote:With innovation and hard work you can grow food just about ANYWHERE. Theres so much space in the world that is pretty much just ignored because there is not the neccesity to try and farm it.
Not true at all. With fertilizer (which is primarily from natural gas and oil) you can grow food in places where you can pump water. That's a house of cards waiting to collapse when the fuel runs out. As for space in the world that's ignored, well, that's not true either. Look at the destruction of the rainforest, and farming in deserts, primarily because farmland is being destroyed to create housing. For each acre destroyed, a greater number has to be converted to farmland, since the land is less fertile.
quote:For decades, he (Erlich) predicted massive world famine, massive shortages in resources, and a sharp decline in the average life expectancy, among other things. None of those predictions have come true.
The time scale is obviously off, but the prediction is inevitable. You simply cannot support an infinite number of people in a finite world.
Also, Erlich's predictions were instrumental in the making birth control more widely available (especially oral contraception). All the countries that now promote childbirth for economic reasons would still be experiencing unmanageable growth if birth control were not available. All that demonstrates is that "doomsday" predictions are about the only way we can convince people to make the necessary changes, without actually experiencing a major catastrophe.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I find it funny how often people say "Oh, it'll all work itself out. We'll just invent new technologies and everything will be ok."
And then people argue that the world population growth isn't actually happening, or that it's not a problem if it is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The book Collapse by Jared Diamond of Guns, Germs, and Steel fame deals with overpopulation quite a bit. It's a fascinating read.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
But Launchy, it always has worked out, largely due to new technologies. So many doomsayers have been proven wrong thoughly and empirically--Thomas Malthus, Paul Erlich, the Club of Rome. The main flaw these 3 futurists have in common is their fundamental underestimation of the rate of technological change.
I used to be a bit of a Malthusian pessimist when I was younger, but now I lean toward becoming a Cornucopian in the long term, if 2 assumptions prove true:
1)More fairness and equitable sharing of income in the future, rather than the concentrations of wealth that, like the weather, everyone comments on but no one does anything about. 2)That humans manage to get off of Earth and establish viable colonies elsewhere.
[ October 18, 2006, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I regard this as unjustified optimism. We have show repeatedly that we respond too late, rather than being proactive. The demand for oil is higher than it's ever been, despite warnings of peak oil for over 30 years. We haven't invented our way out of it due to a lack of will. And we won't invent or conserve our way out of it unless something truly horrific snaps us out of our torpor.
What do you think this past summer was, and last summer? Oil trading within a stone's throw of $100 a barrel? It's scaring the hell out of a lot of people, and that fear, combined with government subsidies is causing BILLIONS of dollars not of government money, but venture capitalist and the typical money changers to become involved in the process of looking towards what's next. To be sure, there is money to be made in oil, but the oil market is excedingly volatile. Just as many people made a fortune as lost one when oil ballooned then flopped back down to just under $60 a barrel recently.
That point you're talking about is NOW, I believe. It's a softer version of what everyone has assumed we'd need, but it's here. Billions are being spent on renewable energies, car companies are investing billions in hybrids, plug in hybrids, electric cars, new battery capacities and Hydrogen, and other people are working on better ways to turn hydrogen into a liquid form more efficiently.
New nuclear plant designs are all ready to go, that drastically cut the half life of spent fuel (Talk to Tatiana about it, she's very knowledgable). New designs for wind powered plants are coming around, that are both more efficient, and leave a much smaller environmental (and visual) footprint. PVCs are gaining in efficiency, and are getting both smaller, and are capturing more energy at the same time, to say nothing of how advances in nanotechnology could solve a host of problems we have when it comes to waste and energy.
I think it is VERY justified optimism. I don't think we're there yet, but we're getting damned closer every day, and what matters most is that people are paying attention, people want to solve the problem, people realize that there is money to be made in it, so they are investing the seed money NOW, so they can get their results soon.
You want a good bet on commodities, is Silicon traded on the open market like gold and silver? If it is, buy as much as you can. Between the next generation of processors (until we switch over to synthetic diamonds) and photovoltaic cells, silicon is going to be in such demand that it could command the types of prices that much more rare natural resources do.
All the pieces are coming into place. The people have to want to buy it, and I think it's been proven over the last couple years, between the problems in the Middle East and the price of gas, the scare over potentially running out, and the damage to the environment that people WANT to buy something else, they just can't necessarily afford it. With that in place, business realizes that oil isn't eternal, and that the market it volatile, and there is a place in the economy for alternative energies and the first ones there are going to make money, so they are investing the money. The government (state and federal both) sees both of those things and fronts public money to both subsidize the creation of these business ventures and the purchasing power of the public.
Now they need time. Time to research, to bring down costs, to train people, to get the message out, for the next big breakthrough, for all those things that have to happen before a fundamental shift in the infrastructure of a nation can take place.
I don't think it is at all unfounded optimism, I think you're a victim of unjustified pessimism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Equilibrium isn't just a market term. Unsustainable systems will, by nature, inexorably be corrected.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I find it funny how often people say "Oh, it'll all work itself out. We'll just invent new technologies and everything will be ok."
And then people argue that the world population growth isn't actually happening, or that it's not a problem if it is.
To echo Morbo, we DO in fact usuall invent our way out of problems. It tends to be that those same inventions cause a whole new host of problems, but to date, we've figured those out too. Everyone knows the population of the planet is getting bigger. And I really don't agree that it is a problem at the moment. I think that by the time our population hits the point where population controls are SERIOUSLY discussed, we'll have implemented ways to reduce our ecological footprint, and we'll have found ways to get ourselves off planet Earth. Problem with that is, short of biodomes all over Mars, we'd need to start terraforming the planet sooner rather than later. NASA has plans on the books (not anything they hold a press conference over, but they've thought of it). But I agree we're far too shortsighted to start something THAT far in advance.
Here's a question though. It IS a fact that industrialized nations produce far fewer children than developing nations, and that the birth (and death rate) in those developing nations is higher. So why isn't it assumed (or discussed) that when the entire world becomes industrialized in a couple centuries that everyone will start having 2.1 kids or so, and our population will just plain level off? The first world is there.
And I have a question about China and India's birthrates. Firstly, China's one child policy can't be working obviously, or their population would be projected to shrink, not grow. Where are the people having all the kids? Are they professional workers in their massive cities? or are they laborers out in the farm towns? Same question for India. Are the computer programmers and accountants and whatever other professional jobs in India having all the kids, or is it in poor villages?
If wealth brings lower fertility rates, shouldn't our focus NOT be on forcing nations to adopt population restrictions, but rather on making sure everyone has access to good infrastructure, food, healthcare and jobs? Isn't that better for the world anyway? For mankind?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
A question for all of y'all proposing colonization as a solution: You are familiar with the bacteria in the bottle (see p. 24)?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Chilling report. I found it amusing that the author stated the "first oil war is already underway" which I assume he is referring to the war in Iraq.
Exactly how much extra oil have we gotten out of the deal? How much free oil? I don't think there is enough oil in Iraq to repay all that we've spent thus far, and will spend in the future on this war, to say nothing of the millions of gallons of fuel that have been used during it's prosecution. Saying this is a war for oil shows a lack of understanding of the situation, and common sense. Were we to undertake such a venture, I would have been much more approving of a plan to allocate half a trillion dollars for the purchasing of oil. Hell, Russia would probably sell us half of Siberia for that (considering what we paid for Alaska ).
I also like what he has to say about rail systems and the transport of food. Those are things I haven't considered yet, because I doubt they will be a problem in my lifetime, but they should be addressed, and soon.
The report is alarmist, it's bleak, it's scary...but I think that you could make a dozen arguments other than "we're all going to die someday!" that relate to the here and now, rather than some sci-fi movie future (which isn't to say I don't buy the idea on its merits, but others won't).
I wish that sort of call to action would be taken to heart in my own country.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So stop talking about it as though it's a limited resource.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That technology looks amazing. Quite frankly though, I think it's more important as a waste disposal and recycling plant (no pollution! gets rid of waste products! Hooray!) than as a source of oil. The commercial sized plant in Carthage will produce 500 barrels of oil per day.
That's a drop, a very, very tiny drop, in the proverbial bucket. It IS still a limited resource. Short of these type of plants dotting the landscape all over the world, thermal depolymerization is one of a dozen or more things that will all have to be done in concert to make a heavily reduced oil economy work. That will never suffice if we still use as much as we do today, but it will make sure that commercial applications survive and flourish, while at the same time will help to clean up our world. The government should invest more in helping companies build more of these plants, and in making sure they continue to run, though it looks like the plants might break even, but it looks like the make or break factor is what they have to pay for the things they are converting. These are waste materials, and they'll be big business in the future, but sewage shouldn't cost money, and the turkey waste products shouldn't be used for livestock feed (as in Europe). But this is a new technology, I'd like to see it explored more, and I'd like to see the market for waste products to become a multi-billion dollar industry.
[ October 18, 2006, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Lyrhawn, you might be interested in a book called The Ingenuity Gap, if you haven't already read it. Its thesis is that the problems facing humanity have been growing in complexity faster than humans have been getting smarter.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyr: That's the point though. This is new technology. It WILL get better, and, hopefully, instead of a municpal sewer facility and land fill, every town, city and metropolis will be turning their waste into oil. What gets buried will be a tiny fraction of what's produced.
Heck, we produce SO MUCH waste that there might come a time when we make so much oil we are investigating re-filling the oil fields instead of tapping them.
Pix
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: [QB] I find it funny how often people say "Oh, it'll all work itself out. We'll just invent new technologies and everything will be ok."
Well is was for those reasons that the conclusion of The Population Bomb turned out to be completely incorrect. It was advancement in agricultural technology that prevented it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:So stop talking about it as though it's a limited resource.
Again I point out that oil represents the storage of hundreds of millions of years of solar energy. We are burning through something like a million years worth of energy every year. There's no way that we can produce oil as fast as the current rate we use it, because the sun doesn't deliver energy any faster than it does.
And since our agriculture depends on both energy and molecules from petroleum in order to work, we can't even produce food without the oil stores that we are using up.
Whether it's the number of people using oil, or the amount of oil each person uses, the overall use keeps going up even as we invent more efficient ways to use it. We've been using oil for about 150 years, but most of it has been used up in the last 30 years or so, since after we started hearing reports about peak oil. (Although back then they said (we will begin running out of oil in 30 to 50 years) Guess what? They were right.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Glenn, please wash off those numbers before you show them to us.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:There's no way that we can produce oil as fast as the current rate we use it, because the sun doesn't deliver energy any faster than it does.
You are, I think, ignoring the efficiency factor. Conversion of solar energy to oil by natural processes is highly inefficient. Conversion by human technology could conceivably go a lot faster. (I'm not saying it does right at this moment, just that it's not impossible.) So while we can't get a million years of energy in one year, we might be able to get a million years of oil production in one year, depending on the conversion factor.
Please note : I do not think this is likely.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::scratches head::
Lyrhawn, did you just encourage people to invest in sand? Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Pix said:
quote:Glenn, please wash off those numbers before you show them to us.
But before that he said:
quote:Heck, we produce SO MUCH waste that there might come a time when we make so much oil we are investigating re-filling the oil fields instead of tapping them.
Then KoM said:
quote:You are, I think, ignoring the efficiency factor.
Pix is ignoring a lot more than I am.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
twinky -
I haven't read it, but I'm glad you mentioned it to me, as I think I'll take a look at it. I don't buy the thesis at face value (but I'm always willing to be convinced). Problems facing humanity these days are, on the whole, self created. We tend to fix past problems with solutions that have built in new problems. Long term solutions need to be either problem free or with easily solvable new problems, otherwise there just might come a time when our own created problems become too large for us to solve in the time allotted.
Pix -
I don't think there will ever come a time when we produce enough waste to refill oil fields with oil. Why? Because the level of waste increases as we multiply, but as we multiply, our demand for oil skyrockets. The articles you linked above are impressive, but a LOT of work has to be done before this can be a proven viable alternative. Oil IS a finite resource. What if the reports from Carthage of odor issues are true of all those plants? What city will want one anywhere NEAR population centers? It'd cause housing values to nosedive. So they'd have to group them all some place out of the view or noses of humans, and who knows what sorts of environmental problems that might cause? I certainly don't. Regardless, the US produces 12 BILLION TONS of waste every year between commercial and private sources. The Carthage plant can take in about 300 tons of stuff a day. If all plants were like that, and they ran 365 days a year, it would still take 109,000 processing plants to take care of all the US waste, and the yields of oil depend entirely on what is being put into them (sewer sludge being the least efficient). Even if we increase efficiency half again as much as it is, that is still an unbelievable amount of processing plants to build. At 20 Million a pop, it'd cost like 2 trillion dollars to build all those plants.
I think it's an amazing technology, but I think it's reckless to say it's our salvation. I love the idea of having one of these in every city instead of landfills. But I don't think we'll EVER have enough of them to get rid of all the waste, or to create enough oil to meet current demand. But I'm not knocking by any means the technology, I think it is fantastic, but I'm always skeptical of one ultimate solution (look at fusion power). And I wonder about where these facilities would go, and how willing we'd be to put up with their drawbacks. Things to consider.
Icarus -
Yep, little grains of gold. In all seriousness, I'd say to invest in publicly traded companies that refine raw silicon (fine, SAND) into pure silicon for commercial use. Between solar cells and a resurgence in chipmaking (in the US I mean), silicon has already doubled (or tripled, can't remember) in price since 2000. It is in high demand, and the people who make it are in an excellent position to demand steadily increasing prices for their ever in demand commodities. Invest where the money is, and right now, there's plenty of money in sand.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
China's One Child policy in recent years is being loosened to fix the problem of having an over abundance of males, in conjuntion of family planning to encourage a greater number of female ospring.
However due to the decentralized rather then centralized nature of the CPC, the policy isn't carried out veyr strongly in the countryside.
Also there are legal exceptions to the rule as well, if you and your spouse were single children then you can have more then one child.
If you live in SEZ's you can have more then one.
If you are a ehtnic minority (Tibetan, Uiglar, Turkish, Manchurian, Korean, Vietnamese etc) you can have more then 2.
If you are a foreigner lving in China say Canadian and marry in China you are also exempt from the one Child Policy.
This alone considering the size of China should garantee a steady growth rate.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's an article from Reason about the 300 mil landmark. They pooh-pooh the population alarmists.
I find myself pretty divided. On the one hand I'm strongly anti-consumerism; I feel unfettered consumption of resources is dangerous, destructive and, um, deleterious. On the other, I have no qualms about having a big family, and feel that instead of wringing our hands and saying "No more growth" we should be focusing instead on programs that will decrease resource consumption in order to support continued growth. Just as a mathematical abstraction, if we continue to grow as a race, but at a rate smaller than that of decreased consumption, we can support growth indefinitely.
Admittedly, there are some resources which we will not be able to use arbitrarily efficiently. For instance, there is only so much space, and we can't decrease the amount of space humans take up indefinitely. But I don't think those hard limits will need to be faced anytime soon (as in, for the next several hundred or thousand years). I think there's a lot of slack in our resource consumption currently that should be taken out before we even start discussing population controls.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Pix is ignoring a lot more than I am.
Which is, indeed, precisely the reason I utterly ignored his post: There was nothing of interest in it. Yours, on the other hand, I found interesting enough to reply to. If you find my argument bad, or the subject suddenly uninteresting, please say so; but to cover yourself with the fig leaf of what Pix is doing is just rhetoric.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyr: The technology is new. It will get better, more efficent and will be able to take in a lot more waste in the future and churn out a lot more oil.
Still, I think our future lies in nuclear power, as I said above. We'll still need oil, but we'll make all we need.
KoM: "His"? You've been around for 4800 posts and you think I'm a "He"? Do you *read* anyone's posts but your own?
And I'm not Ignoring anything. I'm pointing out the way of the future with the nascent technology of today.
From the article:
quote: Just converting all the U.S. agricultural waste into oil and gas would yield the energy equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil annually. In 2001 the United States imported 4.2 billion barrels of oil.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
poke-fun
Well your such a tomboy and all its easy to get confused.
/poke-fun
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: KoM: "His"? You've been around for 4800 posts and you think I'm a "He"? Do you *read* anyone's posts but your own?
Only if they are interesting.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Not to sidetrack this interesting discussion...
OK, to sidetrack this argument...
My first thought:
US Population Reaches 300,000,000. I know what YOU'VE ALL been doing!!! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Are you wagging your finger at immigration?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: While those policies should help curb some of the problems of the one child policy, it like Alice in Wonderland, opens a door only to reveal a smaller locked door.
The government will let people pay a fine if they wish to have more children but the government will NOT pay for more then one childs education. Not only that, many schools will openly NOT admit more than one child from the same family. So in essence its a de facto one child policy as nobody wants to raise a child that can't go to school and be somebody.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Immigratrion? Is that what you kids are calling it now? Well let me tell you something, when I was your age we had Borders, if you know what I mean. We had borders that noone was allowed to cross, no sir, not without due documentation signed by the Justice of the peace, and sacred vows.
And those vows were made to God, even if it was the only time we ventured into a church in our lives. Us guys did all kind of things to cross a border in those days, but dang nab it, they were legal things.
We didn't leave a lot of these illegal's around like today's so-called-men. Sure many of us who crosed those borders, especially the wide ones, crossed over as migrants, working one field than the next, but hey, if something unexpected took root, we stayed, man. We stayed. And the shot guns, they weren't really needed.
Not most of the time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nice.
Without immigration, America's population would pretty much stay steady, actually it might even go down a bit once the oldest two generations die off. Our birth rate is 2.09, which is .01 lower than the necessary replacement rate to sustain a population (2.0 to replace your parents, and .1 to make up for all the kids who die before age 15). Anything above that increases the population, anything lower decreases it. Our population grows from immigration, not from procreation.
So does this make the Congressionally approved border fence something akin to abstinence only sex education in high school? We already know that one of them doesn't work...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*shrug* the world ain't perfect.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:If you find my argument bad, or the subject suddenly uninteresting, please say so; but to cover yourself with the fig leaf of what Pix is doing is just rhetoric.
Fair enough.
quote:So while we can't get a million years of energy in one year, we might be able to get a million years of oil production in one year, depending on the conversion factor.
Please note : I do not think this is likely.
Well, I would have countered that I didn't think that was likely either, for several reasons:
1, it's a bit of a perpetual motion machine, using the fertilizer value of oil generated through agriculture to grow crops to create oil to generate fertilizer.
2, We would need to increase acreage devoted to growing crops for energy, while also devoting acreage to house increased population. We're already losing quality farmland and replacing it with farmland of marginal quality. Remember the basis for the whole thread. If population actually declined most of the problems would go away.
3, I don't believe your "efficiency factor" will ever be higher than that of plant growth. Agriculture is always going to be the root of renewable chemical energy.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Our population grows from immigration, not from procreation.
You left out increased longevity. As the average life expectancy goes up, you have an increase in the number of generations surviving at a given time.
So for example, when average life expectancy was 40 years, some kids got to know their grandparents for a while, but rarely got to know their greatgrandparents. As long as longevity didn't change, 2.0 was the (theoretical) replacement value.
But as life expectancy increased to 60, it changed from 2 surviving generations to 3 surviving generations. So reproducing at 2.0 would increase total population by 1/3.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It's not perpetual motion. We're taking energy into the system from the sun.
There are plenty of agricultural biproducts. WHen was the last time you ate the stalk part of the wheat?
If you think we use more than a teeny tiny fraction of the soup the sun rains down on us, you're insane.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Our population grows from immigration, not from procreation.
You left out increased longevity. As the average life expectancy goes up, you have an increase in the number of generations surviving at a given time.
So for example, when average life expectancy was 40 years, some kids got to know their grandparents for a while, but rarely got to know their greatgrandparents. As long as longevity didn't change, 2.0 was the (theoretical) replacement value.
But as life expectancy increased to 60, it changed from 2 surviving generations to 3 surviving generations. So reproducing at 2.0 would increase total population by 1/3.
Would it surprise you to know that American colonists (In New England anyway) routinely lived into their 60's? The lowest lif expectancy rate of the 20th century (average for both races and genders) was 39, in the year 1918, but other than that, the lowest was 47. I'd call 1918 a statistical aberration.
But regardless, 2.1 is STILL the replacement rate. It doesn't matter how much longer people live. That might cause the overall population to fluctuate at any given time, but for constant growth or shrinkage it has to be above or below that number. Look at it this way:
You have 10 sets of parents, they all have 2 kids each, that's 20 people who create 20 people, and THEY have kids. They do this every 20 years. The extreme high end of life expectancy (for women really) is the high 70's, or 80 at most. So potentially 4 generations could barely survive at once. Once you hit that 4 generation area, which is 80 people, if the youngest group keeps having 2.1 kids, the population will stay at an average of 80 people as the elderly 20 die off and the new 20 are born (and a theoretical .1 die in childhood before reaching child bearing age).
But here's the kicker, with America anyway. More and more women (and families) are choosing to have kids later and later in life. Instead of having kids in their early 20's, people are having kids in their early or mid 30's. So while people might live to be 80, if they and their children and their children never have kids until they are 30, they'll still barely see their grandchildren.
Life expectancy doesn't effect the 2.1 replacement rate. It's based on 2 kids replacing their two parents, plus a .1 child (over the course of multiple families) to make up for some kids who die before they reach child bearing age.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I don't believe your "efficiency factor" will ever be higher than that of plant growth. Agriculture is always going to be the root of renewable chemical energy.
No, you're quite right; but this is a much higher number than the natural conversion of sunlight to oil, which needs not only plant growth but also subduction and compression into the oil-bearing layers.
quote:We would need to increase acreage devoted to growing crops for energy, while also devoting acreage to house increased population.
Dude, what are the oceans for?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I KNEW it was only a matter of time before Seaquest DSV went from Sci-Fi to Documentary. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:No, you're quite right; but this is a much higher number than the natural conversion of sunlight to oil, which needs not only plant growth but also subduction and compression into the oil-bearing layers.
Your post made it sound like it's a million times higher.
quote:Dude, what are the oceans for?
We're already driving fish species to extinction and destroying coral reefs. We're supposed to destroy the whole thing?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Your post made it sound like it's a million times higher.
Why shouldn't it be? I'd be surprised if as much as one part in a million of the world's vegetable amterial makes it into becoming oil.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
The site I linked to made it pretty clear that even if we did take advantage of all the current technologies available *and* the theoretical ones, we wouldn't equal the energy output of oil. Sure, we could make do, but there WILL be a significant change in societies and lifestyles around the world.
Also, Hubbard's Peak says absolutely nothing about the oil "running out". Anyone who makes this claim doesn't know what they're talking about. Oil will never run out. It will simply be so depleted (and expensive) that it won't be a feasible source of energy to support humanity's growth.
And I still think it's funny that people assume that we'll figure it out--that technology will save us.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Launchy -
How can oil NEVER run out? I'm talking about the oil we get out of the ground, rather than the stuff we make in a factory. There's no new oil being made at the moment by nature, once the resevoirs of oil under the ground are gone, they are gone, they don't refill themselves.
Why is it so amusing that people who're used to innovating their way out of problems would continue to believe that they'd be able to do so in the future? Pix has shown a sizeable chunk of evidence for what human ingenuity can accomplish thus far in this thread. The internal combustion engine, one invention, changed the face of the world at large. The nuclear bomb, one invention, changed the course of history in the world.
It only takes one invention to change the world. Something like 4 million patents were filed for last year (of which an increasing amount were foreign, which is linked to a troubling stat: More and more international students are coming here for high quality education then going home, not settling here, as they have done in the past). Thinking that we're going to solve all our problems with the flick of a switch so let's just go on our merry way is careless, wreckless, and quite frankly stupid. But believing that future inventions will save us all, let's prepare the way for the future is reasonable thinking.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:The lowest lif expectancy rate of the 20th century (average for both races and genders) was 39, in the year 1918, but other than that, the lowest was 47. I'd call 1918 a statistical aberration.
I'd call it the Flu. Also WWI, but mostly the Flu.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah WWI and possible starvation from the Depression is what popped into my head, though the flu is a great point I'd forgotten about before.
Though with bird flu (increasingly scary) and SARS, I'm surprised we aren't a little more concerned.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:How can oil NEVER run out? I'm talking about the oil we get out of the ground, rather than the stuff we make in a factory.
Actually, he's right. When it takes more energy to get oil out of the ground than we get back from the oil itself, then there will be no advantage to using oil for energy. The remaining oil will just stay in the ground, because it will be too expensive to use.
quote:Would it surprise you to know that American colonists (In New England anyway) routinely lived into their 60's? The lowest lif expectancy rate of the 20th century (average for both races and genders) was 39, in the year 1918, but other than that, the lowest was 47. I'd call 1918 a statistical aberration.
But regardless, 2.1 is STILL the replacement rate. It doesn't matter how much longer people live. That might cause the overall population to fluctuate at any given time, but for constant growth or shrinkage it has to be above or below that number.
No, it doesn't surprise me at all that some colonists lived into their 60's. That's why we use the term "Average life expectancy."
And yes, I know that replacement rate is replacement rate. But replacement rate is only one part of the equation, which is what I was pointing out. An increase in average life expectancy yeilds a one time increase in overall population. Likewise, a decrease in the average life expectancy yeilds a similar decrease in population. You introduced average age of childbirth, which is yet another complicating factor in overall population size.
Most people would oppose reducing life expectancy to bring down population (Logan's Run, anyone?). We're still working to increase life expectancy, for the simple reason that people don't want to die. That was the gist of the post that I started this thread. If we don't want to reduce the number of "Actual people," we need to reduce the number of theoretical people that become actual people. Whether that comes as a result of limiting family size or increasing the age at which childbirth occurs, doesn't really make any difference.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're assuming there's an alternative, if there ISN'T an alternative, and companies still find someone willing to pay for it, then it'll be produced. Almost all the new wells being drilled for now are in places that even two years ago were not affordable, but because of the incredible increase in the price of oil, it's worthwhile to do expensive test wells and buy platforms or what not. Eventually yeah I imagine the price of oil will make driving a car impossible.
But for the sake of this argument, oil doesn't ever have to run out, it just needs to become scarce enough and expensive enough to put extreme pressure on the world economy and for the average consumer to not be able to afford it, which will have the same effect as it running out. Once we hit that point, it might as well be gone, because very few will be able to use it. Hopefully before that point it will be economically feasible for more expensive alternatives to throw their hats in the ring, just as the system should work.
I'm not sure what your point was in your first statement, unless your meaning was to imply that those living into their 60's were the minority, they weren't. When I said "routinely" I didn't mean a couple here and there, I meant the average, the majority, enjoyed long life, in the north and middle states. The south wasn't quite so lucky, but they still had longer life than they did in Britain.
If the replacement rate is 2.1, and we are reproducing at that rate, then the ebbs and flows that come from the increased average life expectancy is a consistent part of the national population, and so long as it is either a slowly upward trend, or is a series of ups and downs, it averages out to almost not mattering when it comes to real population growth.
Without a MAJOR technological leap forward, we aren't going much above what we are currently at.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Just in case Glenn needs some more doom and gloom in his day, here's the latest from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "Mr. President, we must not allow a reproduction rate gap!"
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:But for the sake of this argument, oil doesn't ever have to run out, it just needs to become scarce enough and expensive enough to put extreme pressure on the world economy and for the average consumer to not be able to afford it, which will have the same effect as it running out.
That is the point being made. Thank you for reiterating it.
quote:Without a MAJOR technological leap forward, we aren't going much above what we are currently at.
Which was why I added the issue to the argument. During the 20th century, technological advances increased the worldwide average life expectancy dramatically. It may be a one time increase, but I don't see us going back. As far as future advances, there are people now who are claiming that technological advances may eliminate aging altogether. I don't know that I believe that , but I have very little doubt that there will be continued advances in medicine, and a corresponding increase in average life expectancy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No need to be sassy (tone is assumed, I could be wrong).
But I don't get the point of the entire debate over oil then. Saying oil will never run out implies that we don't need to worry about it. Whether it's too expensive to purchase (which will NEVER happen for everyone, there'll always be a market for it), or is gone entirely, once it disappears from the public, it gone, whether it exists or not.
As for life expectancy. I'll be dead by the time that happens. The day we cure ageing is the day NASA's budget triples.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The point is that the (true) statement "We will never run out of oil" is being used by people who deny that running out of oil is an issue. By taking the statement out of context, they justify continuing to waste oil.
As for life expectancy, it's already happening. Life expectancy has risen pretty steadily over the last century, and has been a major factor in the overall population increase worldwide. It continues to rise now, as we develop better medical treatment for disease and symptoms of aging.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wait, so we agree on the oil thing? I assumed from your snarkiness that we were on opposite sides.
As for life expectancy, this does a bit to improve my point. You might be interested to know that while the life expectancy for Americans over the last 100 years has improved by something like 57%, the average life expectancy for people in America age 60 has only risen 10%. Which means that people really aren't living to older ages, it means that we're reducing the number of infant and youth deaths in the country. That makes the 2.1 all the more valid with less child deaths. Less infant mortality could potentially lower the replacement rate below 2.1, though not below 2.0, so I guess the tenth of a point is rather irrelevant.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
With the obesity epidemic in this country Glenn, the life expectancy of the new generation is actually supposed to be shorter than their parents' generation, for the first time ever in this country I believe. So maybe McDonald's isn't an evil corporate entity, but rather just doing its part to help prevent overpopulation.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Well, I'm not in favor of shortening lifespans in order to reduce population. But I guess if it happens naturally it's not a bad thing.
Overall, though, it's not really the U.S. that will make the difference, but India, and all those little developing countries with high birth rates.
This thread kind of makes it even clearer that we need to reduce population. I've been saying the same thing for years, that when we hear "studies" that say that the earth can support 15 billion or 50 billion people, they aren't looking at the whole picture. The fact is that if we're destroying the environment as effectively as we are, the earth can't support the 6.4 billion we've got already.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mhm, but I think the information in THIS thread makes it clear that technological advances can vastly decrease the footprint humans leave on the earth. I don't think earth could really sustain more than 20 billion without more serious consequences.
That is where the US and Europe come in. We aren't the ones exploding the world population, but we ARE the ones closest to inventing and perfecting the technologies that the entire world will use to reduce pollution and the other problems we as humans create. India and China will only clamp down on population problems when they can't afford to feed all the people anymore, and really, that's how everyone will slow down.
The US is better than anyone in the world at growing food. It's expensive, it's labor intensive, and it's high tech. Getting everyone to that point will take a century or more.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
High tech and expensive I'll certainly grant you (and incidentally, what will the US be doing for agriculture when oil gets really expensive?) but how is it labour intensive? There's something like 3% of the population employed in farm work.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And there would be fewer people involved if we didn't have incredible supports for people who want to grow food to sell but can't find anybody to buy it at the prices they try to charge.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright I'll remove labor intensive, for America anyway. For countries that don't have the high tech, expensive, etc stuff, that have to make up for that with more labor. Although look at it this way as far as labor goes:
Farm subsidies in this country cost billions upon billions of dollars, and the farmers are paying for those subsidies, everyone else is. So when you say only 3% of the population is involved with agriculture, that number is misleading in the extreme, for it must include the many thousands of people that make that money to pay the farmers to make their products cheap enough for everyone else to buy.
(incidentally, if we ended farm subsidies, and cut taxes by exactly that much, would it be enough money back in all our pockets to pay for a four dollar tomato?)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most of our farm subsidies go to keep the prices high, not low.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not entirely true.
Only part of farm subsidies go to people who are paid NOT to produce so supply can be kept low and prices high. The other part goes to small farmers who wouldn't be able to support themselves on small farms because prices aren't quite high enough.
Were ALL farm subsidies taken away, thousands of small farms would collapse, and large agrobusinesses would control goods, maybe not in small, small towns, but the majority of this nation's population is in urban and suburban areas.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think you know very little about farms and farm subsidy policy.
All small farms combined make just 11% of farm products (by production value). Large agribusinesses already control farm goods. Well, if by agribusinesses we mean large and medium farms (the small farms sell to agribusinesses as well, coincidentally). And as there are over 175,000 large farms and over 600,000 medium farms, I'm perfectly comfortable with that evil cartel controlling farm production in the US, I can see the collusion happening already!
Most small farmers make negative money on their farms, even with government subsidies (which are small to small farmers). They make most of their money doing other things. Presumably if all of them are willing to currently operate a farm at a loss, a large majority of them would still be willing to operate a farm at a loss.
Heck, if even half of them stay in business small farmers would still have 5% or so of the US farm production value. That's not a substantial gain for large agribusiness (again, by which we mean the huge numbers of medium and large farms, that are apparently somehow less worthy of providing our food than the small farms are).
As for some of those farms closing, which would happen, that means larger farms, and as the numbers on that page show quite effectively, large farms are more efficient producers per acre even before the (much larger) subsidies they receive. This again means lower prices, not higher prices.
Of course, even the subsidies to the smaller farmers are going to keep prices higher in the long run (and have). Farming is a heavily evolving field, and subsidies are a disincentive to innovate (particularly as one might well do better by having a bad year). The more farmers continuing to use outdated production technique
And this is all with massive subsidies in the form of import restrictions (primarily tariffs), of course. Our tariffs are miniscule compared to many countries, but they're 12%! That means without those tariffs we'd be able to buy food from other countries much cheaper (not quite 12%, as a lower price would increase quantity demanded, leading to a slight compensation in price). This would also drive local prices down to comparable levels.
The people this is costing are the consumers, and especially the poor. Food prices in the US could potentially drop 10 to 15% given a solid effort to reduce subsidies. Farmers would be somewhat worse off, but you know what, I'm okay with that. If we were to give hair salons a subsidy, removing it would make them worse off, but I'd still be okay with it. Similarly for almost every industry.
That's $829 million in administrative fees and $2.3 billion dollars in insurance premiums, all paid by the government, for policies that paid out $752 million last year. If people really think these payments are necessary to preserve the farming way of life, they would clearly be far, far better off just mailing money straight to farmers instead of having government subsidies. I suggest that as an approach to you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Funny, I don't really care that much. My original point about the percentage of labor involved in farming is correct, for better or for worse.
I don't really mind the majority of production coming from larger farms, they have more access to satellite aided farming tools, and quite frankly are more efficient.
I don't know what would happen if we removed all farm subsidies, so I'm not convinced it's a good or bad idea, and you'll have to forgive me for not taking your word for it fugu. But let's say all subsidies (with the exception of tariffs, those are never going anywhere (well, not for a long time anyway)), were to end, small farms collapse or just stop farming for anything other than local farmer's markets, and prices drop, what happens then? Doesn't that mean farms have to increase cropland to produce more produce to make up for the loss of income from lower prices? I just wonder how that benefits anyone other than large farms. Hooray for efficiency and all, but all that means is that the billions are spent in job training or assistance for lost revenue to small farms. That's how Congress works. And at the end of the day, the price probably still isn't any better for the consumer.
Anyway, my point from above was that although 2-3% of the population is involved actively in farming, thousands more are involved in funding farming efforts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The point is that those thousands helping fund farms are double paying.
Besides not taking my word for it, you apparently failed to read the chart. Small farm owners, on average, do not make any money on their farms. In fact, they lose money. They have other jobs that make the money they live off of. If all those small farms go out of business, those small farmers have more money in their pocket and still have their day jobs. Where is this vast need for job training, even if they do go out of business (which, for the reasons I've outlined, is unlikely)?
As for what happens if subsidies go away, farmers make less money. There isn't some magic act where they pull more land out of their hat and use that to entirely make up the profit. Subsidies give them money. If they don't have the subsidy, they make less.
Similarly, farmers don't magically pull land out of their hat to make up for declines in price. They make less money, like everyone in almost every other walk of life when price declines but cost of production doesn't. The ones who continue to be able to make more money will be medium and large farms. So what?
Of course, increasing demand for organic products might well be an area of comparative advantage for small farmers. I wouldn't be surprised if the incentives to stay in traditional crop production actually reduces production of organic foods.
I'm also wondering how the phrases 'removed all farm subsidies' and 'assistance for lost revenue to small farms' reconcile, despite you saying both those things are happening in the same period of time.
You seemed to say a lot of blustery things that weren't related to your point, assuming the big about being involved was your point, btw
quote:(incidentally, if we ended farm subsidies, and cut taxes by exactly that much, would it be enough money back in all our pockets to pay for a four dollar tomato?)
And I do mean assuming. It doesn't look like your point. Your point seemed to have something to do with
quote:that number is misleading in the extreme, for it must include the many thousands of people that make that money to pay the farmers to make their products cheap enough for everyone else to buy
, which includes rather bold statements about price.
This is particularly silly as almost all taxpayers consumer most common kinds of food, and subsidies always cost the government far more than the increase in consumer surplus plus producer surplus, much less the increase in consumer surplus alone. That means whatever benefit a given consumer receives in lower prices (if that is indeed what farm subsidies create, which is doubtful to the the anti-competitive ways they are provided) is more than outweighed by the amount paid on average to create that lower price.
So if tomatoes were to become $4 (ridiculous, even farm subsidies aren't that high), that would mean consumers are currently paying even more than that per tomato to generate that lower price.
Far better to take the subsidy money and give it to the poor directly.
As for it taking a century to reach our level of farming technology, I think you're remarkably unobservant. It didn't take us anywhere near a century to reach our level of farming technology, and we had to deal with inventing much of it from scratch!
The US is the breadbasket of the world, but you can bet that when barriers to large-scale farming come sufficiently far down in developing nations like India and China, modern farming techniques will change things astonishingly. Unfortunately, the biggest barriers to those large-scale farming efforts are the tariffs and subsidies in the rest of the world.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Note what happens in sugar, a farm product we choose to subsidize through tariffs. Our subsidy kept 2,261 jobs around . . . at a cost to consumers of $826,000 per job saved. Better just to hand each worker the amount they would have made in cash each year, and have a smaller minus per worker on the balance sheet of productivity. Better still for the workers to find other jobs, and be a net benefit to productivity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah, I DO see your point there.
Assuming there would be enough food created by larger farms, which I would assume would come from land not farmed before (from payments made to farms to NOT grow food), to make up for the difference from whoever stopped farming, then I'd be okay with dumping most farm subsidies. I have no idea what the difference would be there, but I'm not okay with a drop in national production levels of foodstuffs. It's not so much an economic issue as it is a national defense one. Not that I'm ever REALLY worried about running out of food, I mean, we stopped selling grain to the USSR a couple decades ago and they just bought it from someone else, but there's something to be said for self sufficiency.
Still you make a good point, at the very least about sugar. Unless sugar farmers also have big day jobs that make up for most of their income, there'd have to be job training assistance at least offered, but that's a one time cost really, it'd be about long term savings.
Where does that $800K per worker go anyway?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A large part of the loss is opportunity cost -- sugar from abroad is so much cheaper that companies making sugar-using products are either paying a lot more for sugar or using more expensive substitutes like corn syrup (ever wonder why coke uses that instead of sugar, nowadays?).
Heck, its even costing the US jobs:
quote:The number of American jobs destroyed by sugar quotas since 1980 exceeds the total number of sugar farmers in the United States. The Commerce Department estimates that the high price of sugar has destroyed almost 9,000 U.S. jobs in food manufacturing since 1981. In early 1990, the Brach Candy Company announced plans to close its Chicago candy factory and relocate 3,000 jobs to Canada because of the high cost of sugar in the United States. Thanks to the cutback in sugar imports, 10 sugar refineries have closed in recent years and 7,000 refinery jobs have been lost. The United States has only 13,000 sugar farmers.
Regarding the price of sugar, the current US raw sugar price per pound is around 21.27 cents. The world price is 12.42 cents. That's a huge difference when you think of the quantity of sugar consumed in the US. It gets even worse for refined sugar prices, because there's a large disincentive to setting up a sugar refinery in the US. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/data.htm
There are all sorts of other costs, some of which are rather unsuspected (and the number probably doesn't include -- that's probably purely a cost per consumer in opportunity cost), such an environmental costs. The artificially high price of sugar in the US means people are willing to use land to make it that might otherwise be conserved, specifically in the wetlands of Louisiana and the like.
Many people don't get how harmful protectionism is to, well, just about everyone. Even those whose jobs are 'saved' are just being set up for a worse situation later down the road, and they have to live with the (often far more) jobs saving their job has cost -- jobs they could have gotten, themselves.
Re: agriculture as a national security issue, we have a large comparative advantage in many types of farming. I have no doubt we'll continue to make a large portion of our agricultural products, and probably export large quantities, too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I see what you're saying about sugar, and I agree with you.
And I certainly don't want to get into a larger debate on trade policies here, but I see your point.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)