Overpopulation in 2023

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Meanwhile you've got this guy who wants everyone to pop out more people
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-on-demographics-population-ageing-2021-12?op=1

 

What he doesn't mention is that infant mortality is falling much faster than the birth rate, and people are living longer. That's why the population level is still rising. 

[swansont]

16 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Meanwhile you've got this guy who wants everyone to pop out more people
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-on-demographics-population-ageing-2021-12?op=1

 

Perhaps we can dispense with the notion that he’s a genius, and stop paying attention to his nonsensical ramblings. 

[StringJunky]

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

Perhaps we can dispense with the notion that he’s a genius, and stop paying attention to his nonsensical ramblings. 

Money attracts money and once it reached a certain critical mass, it's gravy all the way. Recipients then become full of their own importance, even on matters where they have no real skills.

Edited December 1, 2023 by StringJunky

[iNow]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Perhaps we can dispense with the notion that he’s a genius, and stop paying attention to his nonsensical ramblings. 

He’s turning himself into the modern day equivalent of Howard Hughes, and IMO he’s on the precipice now of Spruce Goosing himself out of relevance. 

Eventually, the spoiled child having yet another tantrum gets ignored and the adults in the room move on to more important things.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Recipients then become full of their own importance, even on matters where they have no real skills.

In large part, this is our own damned fault since we as a culture tend so often in large massive numbers to idolatrize wealth.

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

In large part, this is our own damned fault since we as a culture tend so often in large massive numbers to idolatrize wealth.

Aye. 

In the words of the great social commentator Shania Twain: Ka-ching!

Cash and silicone; the path to influence.

Edited December 1, 2023 by StringJunky

[swansont]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

He’s turning himself into the modern day equivalent of Howard Hughes, and IMO he’s on the precipice now of Spruce Goosing himself out of relevance.

Combined with Henry Ford (automaker and Nazi sympathizer)

[StringJunky]

On 8/28/2023 at 7:56 PM, CharonY said:

There is also globalization, which on the one hand puts great food on our tables, but often on the backs of those who produce them. It is a hugely complicated mess, but this is often the space where folks seek simple answers. 

I think a big driver is also that the industries are building for obsolescence and low cost (e.g. clothing) in order to maximize profit. It is often cheaper to buy rather than to repair (not to mention more convenient). And considering that it is also often cheaper to ship things to different countries to assemble and/or process things, the cost savings add up to a lot of environmental cost that we offload to future generations. And I know that a lot of hypocrisy is involved here as I am sitting in a AC-cooled environment in front of a computer and surrounded by affordable electronics (not to mention coffee).

The obsolescence is inevitable, given the rate of technological change. When society designs things, it should focus more on the inevitable post-service life and reducing the number of processes it takes to make its components useful again. 

Edited December 1, 2023 by StringJunky

[AIkonoklazt]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Perhaps we can dispense with the notion that he’s a genius, and stop paying attention to his nonsensical ramblings. 

Alas, I can't put a filter in my newsfeeds that are specific to that one person (except maybe the Google app) ...Heck I wish I have his specific category of "genius" (e.g. having a father who owns an emerald mine)

(okay, maybe not any mine, but at least some immense luck)

19 hours ago, mistermack said:

What he doesn't mention is that infant mortality is falling much faster than the birth rate, and people are living longer. That's why the population level is still rising. 

Even if the population level eventually falls after all of us are long gone, encouraging births smells to me like a disguised form of nativism. I don't see how emigration couldn't handily resolve any perceived issues involving any sort of negative population growth.

[Airbrush]

On 8/28/2023 at 10:02 AM, Genady said:

Globally, regionally, locally ... Mentally, culturally, behaviorally ...

Thank you for playing. As I don't intend to discuss this topic any deeper, I rather excuse myself.

Conditions on Earth are changing faster than people's minds change.  It takes generations for significant human changes.  We don't have time for that.  We need to adapt quickly or self-destruct.

Edited January 8 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Conditions on Earth are changing faster than people's minds change.  It takes generations for significant human changes.  We don't have time for that.  We need to adapt quickly or self-destruct.

It only takes generations when one of those generations is unwilling to change. Pick any three major progressive changes and if you can avoid the obstructionists, things will move quickly.

Offhand, I'd allow ranked-choice voting, just so we can break with the two parties that only represent corporations, and get some actual citizen representation going. I'd also nationalize something major, like food production, so healthy food was a right rather than something you have to earn. And my fave right now is to expand the USPS to compete with Amazon, including a vendor portal so small businesses aren't smothered. 

People who have no food insecurities and access to the means to prosperity aren't as likely to have lots of kids. Same goes for folks who are better educated, so a focus there can only help with overpopulation. We really need to stop supporting the industries that spend money to spin fear because we spend more when we're afraid and frustrated.

[CharonY]

57 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Offhand, I'd allow ranked-choice voting, just so we can break with the two parties that only represent corporations, and get some actual citizen representation going.

Well, looking at Europe I don't think that representative parties are a clear solution. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Well, looking at Europe I don't think that representative parties are a clear solution. 

But it should give The People back some skin in the game, which We haven't had for a few decades. The Republicans gave up representing The People and started focusing on corporate interests under Reagan, and the Democrats did the same under Clinton. The difference in donations was too much to pass up. Now We have major issues that 70% of us all agree on, but the corporations don't so we get no action on what could be some of the best, easiest solutions available to us. 

Overpopulation is quite closely related to capitalism from what I've read, so perhaps it's finally time for the US to embrace public and state funding with no private leeching allowed. That would be the old European way, but perhaps I'm over glamorizing a system I didn't live in.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

But it should give The People back some skin in the game, which We haven't had for a few decades. The Republicans gave up representing The People and started focusing on corporate interests under Reagan, and the Democrats did the same under Clinton. The difference in donations was too much to pass up. Now We have major issues that 70% of us all agree on, but the corporations don't so we get no action on what could be some of the best, easiest solutions available to us. 

Overpopulation is quite closely related to capitalism from what I've read, so perhaps it's finally time for the US to embrace public and state funding with no private leeching allowed. That would be the old European way, but perhaps I'm over glamorizing a system I didn't live in.

I think you might be glamorizing it a bit more. There is something to say regarding better representation. But, in recent times, wedge issues are also immensely successful in disruption these processes. Take the rise of the far-right, for example. They do echo the US situation, while having a very distinct political system. The mixed economic model is probably as a whole better in many areas, especially for folks not swimming money. But there are also distinct issues there. I think in some areas there are clear advantages, but I don't think that they are necessarily to the political system, but based on what folks mange to agree on.

Sure bi-partisan system encourages taking sides, but populations are not necessarily passive receivers. The immigrant-averse stance permeating much of the European population is quite at odds with many parties and which has fueled the success of the far-right. They also happen to be more aligned with the GOP, potentially due to the right-wing networks which have sprung up with suspected funding from Russia.

Ultimately it is an interplay between system and sentiments in the population. And they often cross-feed each other. If folks did not had the simmering resentments, Trump and the GOP would not be able to profit from them. But once they did, they managed to shift the Overton window to more acceptance of previously considered extreme sentiments. That in terms gave an opening for even more radical changes and so on.

[StringJunky]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It only takes generations when one of those generations is unwilling to change. Pick any three major progressive changes and if you can avoid the obstructionists, things will move quickly.

Offhand, I'd allow ranked-choice voting, just so we can break with the two parties that only represent corporations, and get some actual citizen representation going. I'd also nationalize something major, like food production, so healthy food was a right rather than something you have to earn. And my fave right now is to expand the USPS to compete with Amazon, including a vendor portal so small businesses aren't smothered. 

People who have no food insecurities and access to the means to prosperity aren't as likely to have lots of kids. Same goes for folks who are better educated, so a focus there can only help with overpopulation. We really need to stop supporting the industries that spend money to spin fear because we spend more when we're afraid and frustrated.

The EU and UK is trying unpack the byzantine tax strategies they use to currently hide 'excess' taxable wealth. It needs comprehensive global co-operation though, otherwise they'll just keep moving it.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

The EU and UK is trying unpack the byzantine tax strategies they use to currently hide 'excess' taxable wealth. It needs comprehensive global co-operation though, otherwise they'll just keep moving it.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/rich-untaxed-wealth

Quote

An analysis released Wednesday shows that in 2022, the wealthiest people in the United States collectively held a "staggering" $8.5 trillion in wealth that is not—and might never be—subject to taxation.

Imagine what could be done with even a 10% tax on that kind of wealth. 

[StringJunky]

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/rich-untaxed-wealth

Imagine what could be done with even a 10% tax on that kind of wealth. 

It seems the EU is trying to force all the various arms of Apple Corp. into one taxable entity.... as it should be. A current example:

Apple disputes EU rules labelling its 5 App Stores as one service

Just think, when quantum computing becomes the norm it'll see accounting anomalies' faster than we can blink. I'd be straightening out my accounts and processes to a more transparent position if I was in the FAANG group. QC seems the right tool for handling global financial data when it's running as intended. 

Quote

Quantum computing can revolutionize tax modeling, audit resolution and fraud detection.
In brief
Quantum computing has the potential to dramatically impact tax policy and administration.
Tax practitioners can expect many use cases including real-time audits, granular tax modeling and exponentially better anomaly detection to help combat fraud.
Tax teams should take steps now to prepare for the coming era of quantum-powered tax.

.....Channing Flynn, EY Global Technology Tax Sector Leader, says tax audits are currently conducted on a historical basis, looking back over the past 12 months or more of legacy transactions. Quantum could change that. “Once adopted,” he says, “quantum audit technologies will likely not only simultaneously verify audits but also assess any deficiencies instantly. Disputes are also likely to be resolved much more quickly.”
Fraud detection is another use case with great potential for financial institutions and tax administrations, who hope quantum computing will one day help them identify the tell-tale signs of tax fraud, which are hidden within terabytes of data.

https://www.ey.com/en_no/tax/three-steps-tax-teams-should-take-to-prepare-for-quantum-computing#:~:text=Quantum computing has the potential,detection to help combat fraud.

 

Edited January 9 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It only takes generations when one of those generations is unwilling to change. Pick any three major progressive changes and if you can avoid the obstructionists, things will move quickly.

Offhand, I'd allow ranked-choice voting, just so we can break with the two parties that only represent corporations, and get some actual citizen representation going. I'd also nationalize something major, like food production, so healthy food was a right rather than something you have to earn. And my fave right now is to expand the USPS to compete with Amazon, including a vendor portal so small businesses aren't smothered. 

People who have no food insecurities and access to the means to prosperity aren't as likely to have lots of kids. Same goes for folks who are better educated, so a focus there can only help with overpopulation. We really need to stop supporting the industries that spend money to spin fear because we spend more when we're afraid and frustrated.

+1`

I share your dreams and on the back of that, I'd add compulsory voting for everyone between the ages of 5 and 80, privatisation of all essential utilities and a ceiling of wealth set at enough to live in reasonable luxury for life above which tax is set at 90% leaving them 10% to invest in whatever pet project that takes their whimsy. Edit, it would also force big business to invest in the infrastructure that suits it's needs and by extension a lot of the rest of society, and the wages of it's worker's, bc the rest is 90% taxable.

Unlikely as that may be @CharonY, I think it will become essential for our survival, way before overpopulation becomes a real risk to our survivability on this planet; unfortunately I think you're right and that we'll just keep shooting ourselves in the foot...

Edited January 9 by dimreepr

[MSC]

This presentation pretty much covers how I feel about this subject and is still my current view. I'd also add that a lot of the more alarmist overpopulation perspectives tend to get tied toether with eugenics and I do believe some eugenicists use the overpopulation concerns as a smokescreen for advocating for eugenics. 

Admittedly I don't know enough about the subject to be able to tell you if overpopulation is a problem or not, just that Hans makes a compelling case in my perspective.

[CharonY]

I think his presentation always comes up o  this topic as it strongly challenges many false and simplified notions. Also relevant are his other talks related to gapminder, dismantling many global misconceptions.

It is not a coincidence that folk lamenting about overpopulation rarely make the case to first reduce the population that is overconsuming resources.

[MSC]

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think his presentation always comes up o  this topic as it strongly challenges many false and simplified notions. Also relevant are his other talks related to gapminder, dismantling many global misconceptions.

It is not a coincidence that folk lamenting about overpopulation rarely make the case to first reduce the population that is overconsuming resources.

In regards to the population that overconsumes resources, can you clarify as to whether or not you mean everyone or the minority of the rich, influential and powerful? I suspect you mean the latter but just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.

If it is the latter; do you think offering tax incentives to this group to consume less and adopt conservative resource policies would be a good idea? 

As an example, if apple switched to a built to last approach for their hardware, reined in their executives by ditching private travel and investing in green factory and distribution infrastructure, should they pay less taxes than a company that is not doing those things? I realise this is a non exhaustive list so far and I'm very interested to hear other suggestions and ideas along this train of thought. 

In regards to Roslings presentation, the part where he feels like he has to remind everyone that people die leaves me howling with laughter!

It is counterintuitive for most people to think that advancements made in elongating the human lifespan could be something that dooms us, but then if you've watched Altered Carbon you can kind of see a few other reasons as to why. Say what you want about people like Hitler, Trump, Mao, etc at least they aren't immortal or extremely long lived.

Edited February 11 by MSC
Clarity

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

In regards to the population that overconsumes resources, can you clarify as to whether or not you mean everyone or the minority of the rich, influential and powerful? I suspect you mean the latter but just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.

Everyone is part of the problem, even the holier than though; it's a side effect of being alive...

 

[MSC]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Everyone is part of the problem, even the holier than though; it's a side effect of being alive...

 

Bro this isn't taking 5 lol... take 5 hours haha

[TheVat]

18 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think his presentation always comes up o  this topic as it strongly challenges many false and simplified notions. Also relevant are his other talks related to gapminder, dismantling many global misconceptions.

It is not a coincidence that folk lamenting about overpopulation rarely make the case to first reduce the population that is overconsuming resources.

I like his approach to visualizing statistics.  I think some pushback against him is from the concern that while some trends in how people live are positive, there is the possibility, with so many people, of a societal collapse if politics/economy go awry.  If Earth arable land is just providing enough food, then various events like massive wars, climate catastrophes, economic depressions, disrupted supply chains, energy crunches....will swiftly tip huge populations into poverty and starvation.  Ten billion people, all living well, will rely on a delicate balance.  Especially given that ten billion will be fitting onto a smaller habitable land surface than eight billion live on now.  (And most of them longing for a more affluent (high consumption) lifestyle as their countries strive to develop.) Areas of the tropics are heading towards being uninhabitable, and there is also inevitable sea level rise eating away coastal land.  

I agree overconsumption is the biggest problem, and also the most fixable if leaders are not short-sighted.

Edited February 11 by TheVat
pyto

[MigL]

On 12/1/2023 at 4:58 PM, AIkonoklazt said:

Alas, I can't put a filter in my newsfeeds that are specific to that one person

It's simple enough.
If you stop searching for drivel,  the app's algorithm will stop feeding you drivel.

[CharonY]

10 hours ago, MSC said:

In regards to the population that overconsumes resources, can you clarify as to whether or not you mean everyone or the minority of the rich, influential and powerful? I suspect you mean the latter but just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.

If it is the latter; do you think offering tax incentives to this group to consume less and adopt conservative resource policies would be a good idea? 

You can apply the same argument to multiple level. E.g. within a given population, you could identify those who use a disproportionate amount of resources (e.g. private jets).  But you could also look worldwide and look at populations that have a higher per capita consumption. I.e. the main point is that consumption is not equally distributed and folks who worry about overpopulation usually conveniently focus on measures that excludes themselves form being part of the problem, if that makes sense. 

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

Ten billion people, all living well, will rely on a delicate balance.  Especially given that ten billion will be fitting onto a smaller habitable land surface than eight billion live on now. 

One thing to note (also based on some of the things that gapminder has been showing): most people now live in places below replacement fertility rates. This is why the population will peak. As second thing to consider is that most projections only look until around 2100. But assuming that fertility does not somehow increase, the decline in in world population likely rivals its rapid ascent. 

Simple extrapolation suggests therefore that assuming 10 billion will be present around 2085, around 50-60 this will drop back to 8 billion (ca. 2022 levels). And about a hundred years later it may level out around 2 billion. Again, these are just simple projections, but at this point appear to be at least reasonable scenarios. I.e. 10 billion would not be a steady-state, but rather a transitional phase.