The Over-Population Myth

[Mr Skeptic]

That's the whole problem with Mathusianism. It never takes into account technological or cultural changes.

 

OK, how about this for taking into account technology:

 

Assumptions:

1) Exponential growth of population, doubling every 50 years

2) Sophisticated mining technology; can mine all resources from every planet, star, asteroid, dust cloud, etc., so long as they can be reached.

3) Sophisticated transportation; can travel at 99.9999% speed of light. The ships are free.

4) Miniaturization, to the extreme that humans take up 1 atom (presumably we're computer-simulated humans, whatever works for you).

5) Any kind of atom works, even hydrogen, to make the human.

6) Energy not being a problem, with the caveat that we don't go using it to create matter from energy.

7) All the above technologies invented tomorrow.

 

Conclusion:

Humans run out of resources and cannot keep up the exponential growth.

 

Now tell me, are these assumptions optimistic enough for you? Do you think we can do better than that? Which of these assumptions is so overly pessimistic that you say we don't take it into account? We still run out of resources for exponential growth.

 

Proof:

[math]Resources gained = \rho \frac{4}{3}\pi c^3t^3[/math], where rho is the density of space (eg in atoms per cubic meter). As a bonus, I'm assuming no expansion of spacetime, since it would just reduce the possible resources gained and make the equation more complex.

[math]population = 7,000,000 \cdot 2^{t/50 years}[/math]

As you can see, the population's equation is bigger than that of the resources (exponential vs cubic), it's only a matter of time before the resources equation can't compete. If you want a specific time frame, just fill in the density of space and solve for t when the two equations are equal. That's the time at which population growth has to stop, given the above assumptions.

 

So tell me, what possible technology am I not taking into account?

[lemur]

So tell me, what possible technology am I not taking into account?

 

How about time dilation? If interstellar vessels were accelerated to relativistic speeds, wouldn't humans age more slowly aboard them than on Earth? In the same sense, couldn't higher-gravity environments result in faster aging and the people who moved there would have shorter longevity measured in Earth time.

 

Also, it may be the case that humans ultimately choose to integrate into the same bodies, so that for example a married couple would undergo transplant surgery where two consciousnesses live within the same body. If this kind of consolidation technology was available, population of bodies would actually decrease as souls-per-body increased. Eventually, bodies just die and it is up to individuals to decide what happens to their soul after that.

 

Exponetial vs. arithmetic growth is a classical basis for establishing the inevitability of overpopulation, but in practice I don't see why resources can't grow exponentially as well. If resources are replenished by recycling, for example, isn't the only limiting factor to resource-availability the speed at which things can be recycled into usable products?

 

The point is that if you're focussed on eventual resource limits, it makes technological innovations seem to have ultimate limits as well. If you focus on perpetuating progress in conservation, it makes technological innovation seem to always be one step ahead of resource limitations. Your approach causes people to give up progress - mine causes people to keep pursuing progress with the hope that it has no limitations. It's a political choice of which approach to population-sustainability you want to pursue.

Edited October 24, 2010 by lemur

[Sayonara]

I only used fish because you or someone else brought it up in an earlier post. My only point was that regardless of the commodity, it is an economic mistake to view consumer behavior as the ultimate determining factor in how much resources are used per unit consumption.

I understand that's what you're saying. But you need to realise that once a living resource is removed from its population the ecological consequences are already in effect. It simply does not matter whether that resource gets fried, grilled, or dropped in a bin.

 

I also realise that you advocate a system whereby catches should more closely match actual consumption, but there are two problems here: it is largely unworkable for fish and similar resources (and already practised with the resources which it works for), and as I said it only shifts k, it doesn't magically side-step it.

 

A more wasteful culture of consumption therefore burden resource-management more than a more efficient culture, even if the more wasteful one has less reproduction, because it is still reproducing and expanding its waste-culture.

That's not in dispute. At least, not by me.

 

Well, this is interesting but I'm not getting how you're relating it to the discussion at hand.

Because you seem to have the idea that fishermen can closely match demand. The reality of commercial fishing is that this is impossible in anything approaching real-time, and problematic on an orders-based system unless your customers like having to wait a week or so to get something that isn't really fresh any more.

 

My issue is that if someone eats each fish caught, there is not as much demand if someone only eats one out of every 5 fish caught because then five times as many fish would have to be caught to satisfy demand.

If you could change culture sufficiently that people would accept "a fish" as a fish meal, regardless of the species, it could actually work. However the achievement here - as I noted some time ago and then repeated - is that you have nudged the carrying capacity up very slightly. It's still there.

 

That's the whole problem with Mathusianism. It never takes into account technological or cultural changes. At this point I tend to view human behavior generally in terms of networks of mediated and delegated actions. Maybe "cyborg" is the better term insofar as humans consume resources according to technologically and culturally mediated needs and practices. So I don't think you can really base anything purely on numbers of living human bodies. You have to include all their delegates as well. So, for example, if a population of 100 people has 100 cows and another population of 200 people have no cows, you have to compare their total resource depletion according to how much water, arable land, etc. are consumed in total. Same story with technology advances that increase crop yields, farmable areas, etc. Then you can't really distinguish innovations that increase the ratio of resources to consumption, whether that's due to increased production or more conservation. So you can say that there is a limit to how much culture and technology can evolve, but I don't know why that would be the case.

You're right, population biologists wouldn't take anything like that into account because it wouldn't in a month of Sundays occur to them that it could be a factor. Population biologists don't spend all their time thinking about things like this at all. Ecology, after all, at no point involves mapping the routes that energy takes through biological systems or the abiotic factors which influence those routes.

 

Ultimately, humans could become photosynthetic, I think. Not by genetically infusing them with chlorophyl but by figuring out a way to re-charge them directly with electricity.

Bear in mind that carrying capacity somewhat assumes that you expect the population to remain in its current state, morphologically speaking. For humans this could extend to the preservation of a minimum level of civilisation. And you can't photosynthesise many of the materials we depend on, whether this is for building healthy bones, hydro-electric dams, or the processors in autopilots.

 

Personally, though, I think the most plausible scenario would involve engineering human bodies to be increasingly smaller. Would you still claim that there is a limit to how small humans can get and how many the Earth could sustain, even if they got them down to the size of, say, ants?

Again, that would just be a process of mitigation, of eking out the existing resources for as long as possible. Carrying capacity is shifted and not removed.

 

IIRC, there is thought to be a lower size threshold for complex intelligence. Our brains work as well as they do because of the number of neural connections. If you shrink the brain down, by necessity you shrink the number of connections that can form and exponentially cripple intelligent processing.

 

 

This part is vague. Not sure what you're saying exactly.

Needimprovement had a specific motive when he started this thread (as well as others). Not defining his terms is part of the strategy.

 

 

People don't have to have children to make their lives valuable.

Quite so. However when we talk about "waste" as a function of resource movement we're not usually evaluating it in subjective or emotive terms. Or at least, that's not the impression I got when you were talking about waste.

 

All human life has a certain value, which is why there's something rude in talking about overpopulation. It would make more sense to talk about under-resourcing, I think.

But the term "over-population" as applied in ecology is simply a descriptor, like all other scientific terms. If it has political overtones in some circles that has no explanatory or argumentative power in a conversation about ecology, because it's being invoked in the wrong domain.

 

Under-resourcing would probably be acceptable in a discussion like this, but I think over-population is more useful in most ecological meltdown scenarios as it also applies to intraspecies competition spikes, geographical over-population, pandemics, and so on. While the meaning of 'under-resourcing' and 'over-population' coincide here, they don't have the same scope.

 

Population-limit science has never been politically neutral.

All sciences are politically neutral. What is not neutral is the application or pursuit of science within a policy-led framework.

 

It has always been the ruling class's excuse to control others to preserve their power and territory. I just put myself in the shoes of someone who is being subject to meddling in my family choices because of the assumption that population growth has to be controlled.

Right, but that wouldn't be the "fault" of population biologists, would it? It would be due to the policy decisions of the ruling body of whatever society you are talking about.

 

People's objections to such policy would not magically neutralise the scientific knowledge used to formulate them.

 

 

Again, why not break it down to particular scenarios instead of keeping it at the general level? At the general level, the logical models you set up will always confirm their own assumptions. When you put a real-world scenario on the table, you can bring in various factors.

Many ecological models are wonderfully scalable. The idea of models is to, well... model real world scenarios, not simply entertain undergraduates and generate employment. As much as you may dislike the idea that complex behaviours can be described by sets of formulae, and operate within the bounds of certain rules, the usefulness of current ecological models is demonstrated in the real. The fact is that they work. They make accurate predictions and they have explanatory power.

 

 

What about the fact we can manufacture energy from atoms and generate artificial sunlight? What about the fact that we can multiply land area by building up instead of out?

Both of those fall into the "making it a bit harder to calculate" category.

[Mr Skeptic]

How about time dilation? If interstellar vessels were accelerated to relativistic speeds, wouldn't humans age more slowly aboard them than on Earth? In the same sense, couldn't higher-gravity environments result in faster aging and the people who moved there would have shorter longevity measured in Earth time.

 

Nope, that won't work either because neither of those generate resources; at most they wiggle the time variable.

 

Also, it may be the case that humans ultimately choose to integrate into the same bodies, so that for example a married couple would undergo transplant surgery where two consciousnesses live within the same body. If this kind of consolidation technology was available, population of bodies would actually decrease as souls-per-body increased. Eventually, bodies just die and it is up to individuals to decide what happens to their soul after that.

 

Oh, so was assuming that each atom is equivalent to a human not enough for you? Did you want to have two humans being sustained by the resource provided by a single atom? Fine, but even so they still run out of resources.

 

Exponetial vs. arithmetic growth is a classical basis for establishing the inevitability of overpopulation, but in practice I don't see why resources can't grow exponentially as well. If resources are replenished by recycling, for example, isn't the only limiting factor to resource-availability the speed at which things can be recycled into usable products?

 

Nope, it won't work. Not unless you're advocating killing humans to recycle them, but that necessarily reduces the population and would be a form of population control. Remember, I assumed converting every atom into a human; there's not going to be anything left but humans to recycle.

 

The point is that if you're focussed on eventual resource limits, it makes technological innovations seem to have ultimate limits as well. If you focus on perpetuating progress in conservation, it makes technological innovation seem to always be one step ahead of resource limitations. Your approach causes people to give up progress - mine causes people to keep pursuing progress with the hope that it has no limitations. It's a political choice of which approach to population-sustainability you want to pursue.

 

You were entirely unable to make your case, as you have not suggested even one possible technology that could even potentially overcome the resource limitation in the above problem. Feel free to try again though.

 

In fact, the technologies you suggested were either neutral or worse than the ones I suggested.

[lemur]

I understand that's what you're saying. But you need to realise that once a living resource is removed from its population the ecological consequences are already in effect. It simply does not matter whether that resource gets fried, grilled, or dropped in a bin.

Except that the reason they're getting dropped in the bin is that the seller is throwing away one every two hours just in case the consumer decides to show up. So if 100 restaurants typically demand 1 ton of fish each per month, that creates demand for 100 tons of fish instead of, say, 50 tons. If demand for fish would be 50 tons, why would the ships bring in 100 tons?

 

I also realise that you advocate a system whereby catches should more closely match actual consumption, but there are two problems here: it is largely unworkable for fish and similar resources (and already practised with the resources which it works for), and as I said it only shifts k, it doesn't magically side-step it.

What you don't seem to get is how cultural evolution works. As economic/cultural practices shifts, they establish new bases from which to innovate. I'm not talking about a one time shift in "k" but a continuous series of shifts, each of which creates a new basis for the next one.

 

If you could change culture sufficiently that people would accept "a fish" as a fish meal, regardless of the species, it could actually work. However the achievement here - as I noted some time ago and then repeated - is that you have nudged the carrying capacity up very slightly. It's still there.

Good example. Flexibility in taste is a factor influencing cultural evolution. Once their taste is flexible enough to accept one fish as a substitute for another, they may even be able to accept soy-based fish substitutes (as I do). If people would welcome technological/cultural evolution instead of being suspicious and resistant to it, it would be interesting to see what the actual limits of evolution would be.

 

You're right, population biologists wouldn't take anything like that into account because it wouldn't in a month of Sundays occur to them that it could be a factor. Population biologists don't spend all their time thinking about things like this at all. Ecology, after all, at no point involves mapping the routes that energy takes through biological systems or the abiotic factors which influence those routes.

That's funny, I always thought that ecology was the study of ecosystems, food-webs, etc. There are a lot of interdependencies in food-webs that can influence each other's resource-availability. If a goat is eating the grass in a lawn and the grass replenishes at a rate that sustains the goat, you can get a consistent supply of milk from the goat. If the goat has babies and you eat them, there will be no competition for the grass. Ultimately, you have to figure out the most efficient conversion from sunlight to human consumption. If you achieved that, and population was still increasing at an unsustainable rate, you would have to seek alternative methods of energy-creation. If, somehow, you reached limits in that scenario, you would have to begin launching interstellar and intergalactic voyages. Eventually, if every star's energy output and all the fusion-fuel in the universe was being exhausted, you'd have to think about population control. But probably by sending people into increasingly closer orbits to a black-hole, you could dilate their time infinitely and have people living for eternity in near-C orbit around a black hole in what seemed like the blink of an eye for outside observers.

 

Bear in mind that carrying capacity somewhat assumes that you expect the population to remain in its current state, morphologically speaking. For humans this could extend to the preservation of a minimum level of civilisation. And you can't photosynthesise many of the materials we depend on, whether this is for building healthy bones, hydro-electric dams, or the processors in autopilots.

This is an artificial assumption if you believe in either evolution and/or genetic engineering.

 

IIRC, there is thought to be a lower size threshold for complex intelligence. Our brains work as well as they do because of the number of neural connections. If you shrink the brain down, by necessity you shrink the number of connections that can form and exponentially cripple intelligent processing.

I'll keep that in mind as long as I have my big-brain. Maybe nerve-cells could be engineered to operate the same at a smaller size.

 

Quite so. However when we talk about "waste" as a function of resource movement we're not usually evaluating it in subjective or emotive terms. Or at least, that's not the impression I got when you were talking about waste.

In my academic training, I learned to accept subjectivity and emotions. Waste is annoying when there are people killing and dying over resources. After all, why should people being killing and dying so that other people can casually waste what other people are giving and taking life for?

 

But the term "over-population" as applied in ecology is simply a descriptor, like all other scientific terms. If it has political overtones in some circles that has no explanatory or argumentative power in a conversation about ecology, because it's being invoked in the wrong domain.

And yet in practice, the domains overlap and are brought to bear on each other.

 

Under-resourcing would probably be acceptable in a discussion like this, but I think over-population is more useful in most ecological meltdown scenarios as it also applies to intraspecies competition spikes, geographical over-population, pandemics, and so on. While the meaning of 'under-resourcing' and 'over-population' coincide here, they don't have the same scope.

True, disease is not a resourcing issue.

 

All sciences are politically neutral. What is not neutral is the application or pursuit of science within a policy-led framework.

On the contrary, all sciences struggle with value/interest neutrality of their practitioners. Science may be perfect but scientists are human and therefore imperfect. Science attempts to control for values/interests but where it fails it operates as propaganda for the values/interests it's neutral-appearance masks.

 

Many ecological models are wonderfully scalable. The idea of models is to, well... model real world scenarios, not simply entertain undergraduates and generate employment. As much as you may dislike the idea that complex behaviours can be described by sets of formulae, and operate within the bounds of certain rules, the usefulness of current ecological models is demonstrated in the real. The fact is that they work. They make accurate predictions and they have explanatory power.

Fine, does that mean they shouldn't be critically dissected, analyzed, and evolve?

 

Both of those fall into the "making it a bit harder to calculate" category.

At any point, are you capable of accepting that the premises of your research model influence your outcomes/conclusions?

 

Nope, that won't work either because neither of those generate resources; at most they wiggle the time variable.

You're assuming there are limits to time dilation/compression ratios. What makes you assume that?

 

Oh, so was assuming that each atom is equivalent to a human not enough for you? Did you want to have two humans being sustained by the resource provided by a single atom? Fine, but even so they still run out of resources.

Have you ever paid any attention to religious practices of fasting? People actually experience fasting as spiritually nourishing. What do you think about the idea that people can starve themselves and experience that as life-enhancing?

 

Nope, it won't work. Not unless you're advocating killing humans to recycle them, but that necessarily reduces the population and would be a form of population control. Remember, I assumed converting every atom into a human; there's not going to be anything left but humans to recycle.

Humans already get recycled. Humans also already control their own reproduction. You just don't seem to want to accept the fact that they do this spontaneously/naturally. You also don't want to imagine that there are cultural forms possible where growth and control are not mutually exclusive categories. I believe there is a state of culture in which you would reproduce without constraint and, likewise, consume yourself and others without constraint - but you would have no right or ability to influence others in their reproductive behavior.

 

You were entirely unable to make your case, as you have not suggested even one possible technology that could even potentially overcome the resource limitation in the above problem. Feel free to try again though.

Sorry, you're operating in the realm of absolute abstraction. In that realm, the universe is perfectly predictable according to the a priori assumptions you make about it.

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

You're assuming there are limits to time dilation/compression ratios. What makes you assume that?

 

Why do you say that? I'm assuming that dilating time won't give you more atoms. Do you think I am mistaken?

 

Have you ever paid any attention to religious practices of fasting? People actually experience fasting as spiritually nourishing. What do you think about the idea that people can starve themselves and experience that as life-enhancing?

 

I think that if they have to eat (so that they can fast), then they take up more than one atom per human.

 

Humans already get recycled. Humans also already control their own reproduction. You just don't seem to want to accept the fact that they do this spontaneously/naturally. You also don't want to imagine that there are cultural forms possible where growth and control are not mutually exclusive categories. I believe there is a state of culture in which you would reproduce without constraint and, likewise, consume yourself and others without constraint - but you would have no right or ability to influence others in their reproductive behavior.

 

I'm just saying, if you go implementing population control that puts a stop to the population growth, so as I said the population growth has to stop. You're intending to recycle living humans, yes? Because otherwise your suggestion makes no sense. Note that my assumption included 100% recycling of everything, and everything is humans. (and of course they still run out of resources for population growth).

 

Sorry, you're operating in the realm of absolute abstraction. In that realm, the universe is perfectly predictable according to the a priori assumptions you make about it.

 

You're operating in the realm where you can't even imagine a possible solution to my problem, but still insist that it's not a problem. You'd have to find better (imaginary) technologies than the ones I assumed, for population growth to be able to continue, and you can't. Please, I tried my best. I assumed travel as fast as seems like it might possibly be allowed by the laws of physics; probably way faster than would be possible in actuality without most of your ship being antimatter. I assumed miniaturization to the limit that we somehow require only 1 atom per human. I assumed more energy that would probably be allowed by the laws of physics (enough to power about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atom-sized humans on earth alone). And still, exponential population growth can't continue. None of these technologies would even come close, nor have you been able to suggest one that could.

 

Despite the most optimistic suggestions anyone has offered, exponential population growth still couldn't be sustained. And yet you seem to think I'm being stubbornly pessimistic!?! You have quite the nerve to call me closed-minded given that the technological possibilities you offered as possible solutions are so far behind the ones I suggested.

[lemur]

Why do you say that? I'm assuming that dilating time won't give you more atoms. Do you think I am mistaken?

 

 

 

I think that if they have to eat (so that they can fast), then they take up more than one atom per human.

Food is ultimately energy embedded in a material matrix. The actual atoms of food get recycled through food webs and what humans are ultimately consuming is solar energy. You're right that dilating time doesn't give you more atoms, but it lets you recycle the same atoms at a faster rate. Many generation of humans could live and die in the time of a single lifetime in a different gravitational context. So, you wouldn't be dealing so much with population size as you would be with population rate. I see how you could say that rapid expansion is still expansion, but you also have space dilation/compression that goes with time dilation/compression.

 

I'm just saying, if you go implementing population control that puts a stop to the population growth, so as I said the population growth has to stop. You're intending to recycle living humans, yes? Because otherwise your suggestion makes no sense. Note that my assumption included 100% recycling of everything, and everything is humans. (and of course they still run out of resources for population growth).

Did you understand my distinction between extensive and intensive growth in an earlier post?

 

You're operating in the realm where you can't even imagine a possible solution to my problem, but still insist that it's not a problem. You'd have to find better (imaginary) technologies than the ones I assumed, for population growth to be able to continue, and you can't. Please, I tried my best. I assumed travel as fast as seems like it might possibly be allowed by the laws of physics; probably way faster than would be possible in actuality without most of your ship being antimatter. I assumed miniaturization to the limit that we somehow require only 1 atom per human. I assumed more energy that would probably be allowed by the laws of physics (enough to power about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atom-sized humans on earth alone). And still, exponential population growth can't continue. None of these technologies would even come close, nor have you been able to suggest one that could.

You're assuming a simple opposition between growth and consolidation, but I am trying to postulate that consolidation itself can be a form of growth in some cases. I'm not saying that all consolidation is growth, but it depends on what people themselves consider growth. Some parents have only one child because they see that as a means of concentrating resources into that one child, not as limiting further reproduction. Consider the same principle of intensification on a larger scale, for example if people with different languages have a single child who speaks both languages. In that case, you've just consolidated two distinct language populations in the same population after a single generation, provided all the the children keep using both languages of both parents without allowing one to fall into disuse.

 

Despite the most optimistic suggestions anyone has offered, exponential population growth still couldn't be sustained. And yet you seem to think I'm being stubbornly pessimistic!?! You have quite the nerve to call me closed-minded given that the technological possibilities you offered as possible solutions are so far behind the ones I suggested.

This just reminds me of the stem-cell debate with GW Bush, at least what I saw of it in the Michael Moore movie. The congresspeople kept making arguments for stem-cell research that insisted it was necessary to accept the sacrifice of certain living cells in order to repair others. Bush kept telling them that they if they would send him a bill that would present the issue as something other than a sacrifice, he would sign it. This discussion seems to be the same thing. You want to insist that growth has to be limited somehow to avoid overpopulation and I want to insist that growth can take many different forms and need not lead to overpopulation vis-a-vis available resources. It's primarily an epistemological difference, but I have a feeling that you're going to insist I have to accept your epistemology while you vehemently resist accepting mine.

 

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

You want to insist that growth has to be limited somehow to avoid overpopulation and I want to insist that growth can take many different forms and need not lead to overpopulation vis-a-vis available resources. It's primarily an epistemological difference, but I have a feeling that you're going to insist I have to accept your epistemology while you vehemently resist accepting mine.

 

No, I understand how you're confused. However, all the examples you give are still far inferior to the ones I suggested, but somehow with inferior technologies you think you can get more resources or more efficient use of resources... it won't work. You advocate merging two (people/language/resource pools) into one person made up of about 10^27 atoms, I suggest something that is 10^27 times better but show that it still won't work. Where you say maybe you can fit two people I say maybe we can fit many many many times earth's current population. And you think I'm being stubbornly closed-minded by suggesting something 10^27 times better than what you are suggesting. I understand.

 

Now just to be clear: are you suggesting we can shrink people and their resource consumption past 1 atom per person? If not, please realize that you need something better than the technologies I myself suggested to keep up exponential growth. So far you are saying worse technologies are better and that I don't understand that.

[Sayonara]

Is it just me or is about 1/3 of this thread pie in the sky?

[Mr Skeptic]

If you mean my proposed technological progress, then most definitely yes, and that is rather the point. Exponential population growth doesn't work even when being stupidly optimistic, and therefore it won't work when being realistic either.

 

In fact the majority of the thread is pie in the sky because continuous exponential growth is even more ridiculous than any of the assumptions anyone else has made in this thread.

[lemur]

No, I understand how you're confused. However, all the examples you give are still far inferior to the ones I suggested, but somehow with inferior technologies you think you can get more resources or more efficient use of resources... it won't work. You advocate merging two (people/language/resource pools) into one person made up of about 10^27 atoms, I suggest something that is 10^27 times better but show that it still won't work. Where you say maybe you can fit two people I say maybe we can fit many many many times earth's current population. And you think I'm being stubbornly closed-minded by suggesting something 10^27 times better than what you are suggesting. I understand.

 

Now just to be clear: are you suggesting we can shrink people and their resource consumption past 1 atom per person? If not, please realize that you need something better than the technologies I myself suggested to keep up exponential growth. So far you are saying worse technologies are better and that I don't understand that.

I don't even think it's probably that humans can shrink to the size of single atoms. But what I've been trying to show you is that you are thinking unidirectionally, i.e. you see growth as increasing individuals, bodies, and therefore resource-demand. You assume, therefore, that no matter what else changes about the individuals and their demand, they will always continue to multiply in a way that outpaces their consumption. I was trying to explain consolidative growth to you, which could take many forms, but generally what I mean is that individuals can consolidate their activities and consumption in ways the result in intensive instead of extensive growth. The two-humans merging into a single body was an extreme and possible distant solution, but it is blatantly clear that if two individuals would merge into a single body, the food-consumption rate of a population would be cut in half, correct? Then, if they did it again, it would be again cut in half resulting in exponential reductions in resource-consumption.

 

I'm not ready to advocate body-pooling yet, but I think other forms of economic consolidation are very interesting. For example, building multistory buildings consolidate land-area and potentially agricultural productivity by using hydroponics and artificial grow-lamps. You can argue that it is crazy to build multistory buildings for agriculture but in the future, the entire planet may have evolved into multistory metropoles with humans living in layers many kilometers in size.

 

Also, I think when you allow urban areas to densify and facilitate density-culture, people automatically adjust their reproductive patterns to have less children. So, for example, a couple who like the idea of living in a bustling city may desire only one or two children because the lifestyle activities available to them and the kids are so bountiful that they would feel overwhelmed if they had to provide these for many kids. When you are living in relatively non-dense isolation, it makes more sense to have more kids so they can entertain and take care of each other. So it's not so much that you have to encourage people to limit their reproduction - you have to give them opportunities for cultural growth that naturally result in reproductive consolidation.

 

However, you can't really ethically do this by setting arbitrary limits on reproduction or geographical expansion. This kind of "caging" has been attempted in various situations and people always catch on and are very offended by the ethics of it. What I DO think is viable is to cultivate cultures of pedestrianism and other bio-energy intensive lifestyles. To live in such communities, people necessarily have to walk or bike because roads are simply not sufficient to accommodate everyone driving a car everywhere. If people choose to live in such areas, because of better jobs/income/amenities/etc., then they would have to adjust their lifestyles to greater efficiency because they simply wouldn't be able to use combustion vehicles to carry everything around for them all the time.

 

This would also lead to more consolidation of energy into one or two kids because parents would not be able to spend their time cruising from activity to activity in the car/minivan. They would have to walk or bike between activities, which would cost them more energy and promote smaller family sizes just because larger families would be more tiring. But you couldn't force or manipulate people to live in such areas. They would have to do so because they wanted to - which many would because they would be more pedestrian friendly, and higher density would promote more amenities and social-opportunities.

Edited October 26, 2010 by lemur

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't even think it's probably that humans can shrink to the size of single atoms. But what I've been trying to show you is that you are thinking unidirectionally, i.e. you see growth as increasing individuals, bodies, and therefore resource-demand. You assume, therefore, that no matter what else changes about the individuals and their demand, they will always continue to multiply in a way that outpaces their consumption. I was trying to explain consolidative growth to you, which could take many forms, but generally what I mean is that individuals can consolidate their activities and consumption in ways the result in intensive instead of extensive growth. The two-humans merging into a single body was an extreme and possible distant solution, but it is blatantly clear that if two individuals would merge into a single body, the food-consumption rate of a population would be cut in half, correct? Then, if they did it again, it would be again cut in half resulting in exponential reductions in resource-consumption.

 

No, no I understand that completely. That is why I suggested consolidative growth right from the start, and trillions upon trillions of times better than the one you suggested. I stopped the consolidative growth at getting humans down to one atom per human, because I figured it would be impossible to get any further consolidative growth than that.

 

Humans still run out of resources for exponential growth.

 

I'm not ready to advocate body-pooling yet, but I think other forms of economic consolidation are very interesting. For example, building multistory buildings consolidate land-area and potentially agricultural productivity by using hydroponics and artificial grow-lamps. You can argue that it is crazy to build multistory buildings for agriculture but in the future, the entire planet may have evolved into multistory metropoles with humans living in layers many kilometers in size.

 

Sure, but it is still far worse than what I assumed. My one-atom humans don't need any of these resources you want them to need, but nevertheless they still run out of resources for exponential growth.

 

Also, I think when you allow urban areas to densify and facilitate density-culture, people automatically adjust their reproductive patterns to have less children. So, for example, a couple who like the idea of living in a bustling city may desire only one or two children because the lifestyle activities available to them and the kids are so bountiful that they would feel overwhelmed if they had to provide these for many kids. When you are living in relatively non-dense isolation, it makes more sense to have more kids so they can entertain and take care of each other. So it's not so much that you have to encourage people to limit their reproduction - you have to give them opportunities for cultural growth that naturally result in reproductive consolidation.

 

Sure, if you stop exponential growth then exponential growth stops. That's perfectly reasonable, but then like I said exponential growth stops anyways.

 

However, you can't really ethically do this by setting arbitrary limits on reproduction or geographical expansion. This kind of "caging" has been attempted in various situations and people always catch on and are very offended by the ethics of it. What I DO think is viable is to cultivate cultures of pedestrianism and other bio-energy intensive lifestyles. To live in such communities, people necessarily have to walk or bike because roads are simply not sufficient to accommodate everyone driving a car everywhere. If people choose to live in such areas, because of better jobs/income/amenities/etc., then they would have to adjust their lifestyles to greater efficiency because they simply wouldn't be able to use combustion vehicles to carry everything around for them all the time.

 

This would also lead to more consolidation of energy into one or two kids because parents would not be able to spend their time cruising from activity to activity in the car/minivan. They would have to walk or bike between activities, which would cost them more energy and promote smaller family sizes just because larger families would be more tiring. But you couldn't force or manipulate people to live in such areas. They would have to do so because they wanted to - which many would because they would be more pedestrian friendly, and higher density would promote more amenities and social-opportunities.

 

Sure, but I'm suggesting that you turn every atom in that bike, sidewalk, etc, into a human as the population expands. I can't see how you think your suggestion would allow for more growth than mine. Humans still run out of resources for exponential growth.

 

Do you even realize that to sustain an exponential growth you need to have exponential resources (or exponential decrease in needed resources but as you said that can't happen if you can't shrink humans down to less than one atom each)?

 

By all means, repeat yourself until you are sore. I won't even bother responding unless you can suggest something that would actually work, rather than your continuing of suggesting things more pessimistic than I myself suggested. Quit being a closed-minded pessimist already, and suggest some technology that can sustain exponential growth -- if you can.

[lemur]

No, no I understand that completely. That is why I suggested consolidative growth right from the start, and trillions upon trillions of times better than the one you suggested. I stopped the consolidative growth at getting humans down to one atom per human, because I figured it would be impossible to get any further consolidative growth than that.

 

Humans still run out of resources for exponential growth.

No, because consolidation doesn't just mean shrinking humans. It is a type of growth that can develop into different forms. In an extreme case, all humans could consolidate all their growth down to a single individual, who would be quite lonely, I think, but who knows. If a culture of 1-child families became widespread, how many generations would it take before there would be only one human born?

 

Sure, if you stop exponential growth then exponential growth stops. That's perfectly reasonable, but then like I said exponential growth stops anyways.

You're still looking at consolidation as anti-growth. If consolidative growth occurs exponentially, you would not be able to generate enough humans to maintain any population.

 

By all means, repeat yourself until you are sore. I won't even bother responding unless you can suggest something that would actually work, rather than your continuing of suggesting things more pessimistic than I myself suggested. Quit being a closed-minded pessimist already, and suggest some technology that can sustain exponential growth -- if you can.

Who are you calling pessimistic and close-minded? You're the one who can't see consolidation except as anti-growth, and I doubt you are optimistic about it.

 

 

 

[padren]

Who are you calling pessimistic and close-minded? You're the one who can't see consolidation except as anti-growth, and I doubt you are optimistic about it.

Is it pessimism to assert a design for a perpetual motion machine is flawed? Some things are mathematically flawed. Resource efficiency as a means to achieve perpetual unlimited exponential population growth is just as fatally flawed as any perpetual motion machine design. No matter how efficient you make a machine, it can never generate enough power to run itself.

 

Likewise, talking about all sorts of potential efficiency improvements that frankly, make a technological singularity look like Kitty Hawk only demonstrates a lack of understanding about the hard mathematical limits within the problem.

 

 

Just do the math:

 

Population A:

1 million people, using 10 resources each, increasing at a rate of 1.2 per generation

 

Population B:

1 million people, using 1 resources each, increasing at a rate of 2.1 per generation

 

 

The generational breakdown of population A looks like:

 

Generation 1: 1m x 10 = 10m resources consumed in generation 1

Generation 2: 1.2m x 10 = 12m resources consumed in generation 2

Generation 3: 1.44m x 10 = 14.4m resources consumed in generation 3

Generation 4: 1.728m x 10 = 17.3m resources consumed in generation 4

Generation 5: 2.0736m x 10 = 20.7m resources consumed in generation 5

Generation 6: 2.48832m x 10 = 24.9m resources consumed in generation 6

Generation 7: 2.985984m x 10 = 29.9m resources consumed in generation 7

Generation 8: 3.5831808m x 10 = 35.83m resources consumed in generation 8

Generation 9: 4.29981696m x 10 = 43.0m resources consumed in generation 9

Generation 10: 5.159780352m x 10 = 51.6m resources consumed in generation 10

 

The generational breakdown of population B looks like:

 

Generation 1: 1m x 1 = 1m resources consumed in generation 1

Generation 2: 2.1m x 1 = 21m resources consumed in generation 2

Generation 3: 4.41m x 1 = 4.4m resources consumed in generation 3

Generation 4: 9.261m x 1 = 9.3m resources consumed in generation 4

Generation 5: 19.4481m x 1 = 19.4m resources consumed in generation 5

Generation 6: 40.84101m x 1 =40.8m resources consumed in generation 6

Generation 7: 85.766121m x 1 = 85.7m resources consumed in generation 7

Generation 8: 180.1088541m x 1 = 180.1m resources consumed in generation 8

Generation 9: 378.22859361m x 1 = 378.2m resources consumed in generation 9

Generation 10: 794.280046581m x 1 = 794.3m resources consumed in generation 10

 

As you can see, by 10 generations, group B is consuming about 15 times as much as group B, despite the fact that group A uses 10 times as much per person

 

So, lets say that by 10 generations of advancement, group B is managed to some how, thanks to unknown technology get by with only 1/100th the resources per person as group A. Then they'd only be consuming one and a half times group A. Lets say they are even better, and manage to use 1/200th (say half a penny, for every dollar to use currency as a resource metric) and group B manages to, by 10 generations, still be more efficient than group A.

 

That would make generation 10 of group B look like:

 

Generation 10: 794.280046581m x 0.005 = 3.9714m resources consumed in generation 10

 

That would be an amazing accomplishment, and perhaps their necessity would drive that sort of extreme innovation. Well, if the first 10 generations had it rough, generation 11+ is in for a challenge that makes that all look easy:

 

Group A - Generation 11: 6.1917364224m x 10 = 62m resources consumed in generation 11

Group A - Generation 12: 7.43008370688m x 10 = 74.3m resources consumed in generation 12

Group A - Generation 13: 8.916100448256m x 10 = 89.1m resources consumed in generation 13

Group A - Generation 14: 10.6993205379072m x 10 = 107m resources consumed in generation 14

Group A - Generation 15: 12.83918464548864m x 10 = 128.4m resources consumed in generation 15

 

 

Group B - Generation 11: 1667.9880978201m x 0.005 = 8.34m resources consumed in generation 11

Group B - Generation 12: 3502.77500542221m x 0.005 = 17.5m resources consumed in generation 12

Group B - Generation 13: 7355.827511386641m x 0.005 = 36.8m resources consumed in generation 13

Group B - Generation 14: 15447.23777391195m x 0.005 = 77.2m resources consumed in generation 14

Group B - Generation 15: 32439.19932521509m x 0.005 = 162m resources consumed in generation 15

 

Once again, all Group B did was put off the inevitable, and now they have to find a way to cut up that 1/200th resource per person and cut it up even smaller, because for all the saving they did by generation 15 they are still less efficient than Group A

 

This is a mathematical fact. They can try to take their slice of cake, cut it up into 200 pieces, then learn - somehow - to get by with one slice cut up into 40,000 pieces 10 generations later, then one slice cut up into 8,000,000 pieces 10 after that, and 1,600,000,000 10 after that... but do you really think that can be sustained? Do you think that is a better strategy to allow and fund innovation with spare resources when compared to Group A, which after just as many generations is still able to give 10 pieces of cake to every person?

 

 

The whole reason we are talking about humans being made out of single atoms is because this mathematical formula scales up to the levels where 1 atom per person would be required for the population to grow - not because it's viewed as viable. It's a demonstration of the impossibility of unlimited population growth.

 

There is pessimism, and then there's mathematics.

 

As a secondary note: admitting the realities of exponential mathematics is not a moral justification for direct interference with high-growth populations. It is politically and ethically neutral to admit that 1+2 = 2 or that 1 x 2.1 = 2.1 - the only thing it is, is honest. If people take those numbers and decide to commit genocide, or forced sterilization that is an ethical fault in the people taking that action.

 

For any ethical and reasonable solution to be possible, a proper and honest understanding of the situation is essential. You cannot ignore realities because you fear they could lead to the justification of unethical actions without creating a flawed model of reality, which will eventually create a severe enough break with reality to generate blowback, and that will be far more likely to result in those specific unethical policies you wanted to avoid to begin with.

 

Each fact has to be dealt with, and if one piece of information is absolutely clear in a mathematical manner, it can't be negated simply by the feared implications. It has to be taken into account, and any solution has to deal with the reality of it.

[lemur]

For any ethical and reasonable solution to be possible, a proper and honest understanding of the situation is essential. You cannot ignore realities because you fear they could lead to the justification of unethical actions without creating a flawed model of reality, which will eventually create a severe enough break with reality to generate blowback, and that will be far more likely to result in those specific unethical policies you wanted to avoid to begin with.

 

Each fact has to be dealt with, and if one piece of information is absolutely clear in a mathematical manner, it can't be negated simply by the feared implications. It has to be taken into account, and any solution has to deal with the reality of it.

What you are saying is very true. Given total faith in the culmination of population growth in mathusian scarcity, famine, war, etc. people with the power to do so will engage in population-control measures as draconian as their fear itself. It's like backing an animal into a corner and taunting it with fear of immanent death. You need to think about the difference between exponential growth on paper and how growth actually occurs in reality. In reality, myriad forms of consolidation occur all the time. Where resources become scarce, people adjust or suffer. The problem is that some people refuse to adjust to resource-scarcity and instead sustain cultures of waste and inefficiency. By doing so, they make resource-scarcity more immanent that it would be due to population-growth. You can use exponential math to generate numbers that look like more of a problem than resource-waste, but the numbers only exist on paper while the waste is in dumpsters all over the developed world.

[padren]

What you are saying is very true. Given total faith in the culmination of population growth in mathusian scarcity, famine, war, etc. people with the power to do so will engage in population-control measures as draconian as their fear itself. It's like backing an animal into a corner and taunting it with fear of immanent death. You need to think about the difference between exponential growth on paper and how growth actually occurs in reality. In reality, myriad forms of consolidation occur all the time. Where resources become scarce, people adjust or suffer. The problem is that some people refuse to adjust to resource-scarcity and instead sustain cultures of waste and inefficiency. By doing so, they make resource-scarcity more immanent that it would be due to population-growth. You can use exponential math to generate numbers that look like more of a problem than resource-waste, but the numbers only exist on paper while the waste is in dumpsters all over the developed world.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that you are incorrect about the short-term - in fact, part of the mathematical breakdown that I provided does demonstrate incontrovertibly that you are entirely correct: out of two equal populations, the one that consumes more puts a higher stress on resources than the one that reproduces faster in the short-term. The values for the consumption multipliers (10x in group A, 1x-0.005x in group B ), starting populations (both 1 million to start) and growth rates (1.2 and 2.1) in my examples create a specific "turning point" for when the more efficient group consumes more than the smaller group, but for any values (with equal starting populations) it is a mathematical certainty that the group with the higher rate of consumption will use more resources for a period of time.

 

The only point of contention is that you can only delay, not solve that "turning point" in the timeline where unrestrained population growth results in eventual higher consumption, and will result in a forced population limit.

 

That said, if you do agree with the above statement, it is no longer a point of disagreement and there are other interesting issues within the sociological/geographical makeup of such groups and the issues of both over-population concerns and resource-scarcity concerns, and how they interrelate. I find all the sub-facets of the topic quite interesting, but it's hard to go into them unless we can agree on some of the principle foundations that frame the issue, which is why I suspect the discussion has revolved around these aspects for so long.

 

Edit: forums always always have a way of making a secondary group, like (group B ) think they are sooo cool thanks to sunglasses smiley guy B) if they don't get that extra space

Edited October 27, 2010 by padren

[lemur]

The only point of contention is that you can only delay, not solve that "turning point" in the timeline where unrestrained population growth results in eventual higher consumption, and will result in a forced population limit.

One problem with this is that we are humans and have the ability to contemplate population-growth and respond to it as an abstraction instead of simply being confronted with factors caused by it in practice. When, for example, people are starving naturally, instead of due to exclusion from the global food-resource economy, they can go through natural adjustments to their suffering because they have no one to blame but nature.

 

That said, if you do agree with the above statement, it is no longer a point of disagreement and there are other interesting issues within the sociological/geographical makeup of such groups and the issues of both over-population concerns and resource-scarcity concerns, and how they interrelate. I find all the sub-facets of the topic quite interesting, but it's hard to go into them unless we can agree on some of the principle foundations that frame the issue, which is why I suspect the discussion has revolved around these aspects for so long.

The only thing we seem to agree on so far is that your predictions are dramatic and threatening in their promise of future scarcity. What you don't seem to see is that there are already people experiencing famine, lethal disease, social-political killing, etc. so what does it matter to them if it is the result of population-growth or fear of such growth? Likewise, what would it matter to future victims of such maladies if they are the result of overpopulation or not? After all, starvation is starvation isn't it?

 

I wonder if you've ever read the Accursed Share by George Bataille. Bataille talks about ecological-economics in terms of space filling up and evolving to create more space. So, for example, he says that first, ground-cover plants fill up the available land and then trees start growing higher to compete for more light and in the process create more space for life. Then he looks at a carnivorous predator like the tiger as an organism that has evolved to make space for other organisms to continue to reproduce. I.e. the perpetual reproduction of zebras is facilitated by their being hunted. The rest of Bataille's book is analysis of different forms of human economics and cultures of sacrifice, which he claims are the driving force of economic growth. It is not insignificant that Bataille preludes his book with a statement about the incredible economic growth of the US economy and the need for leisurely intellectuals like himself to consume the abundance to make room for more growth.

 

Ultimately, I think the evolution of such economically wasteful cultural forms is inevitable, but I still think the ethical thing to do is minimize waste and maximize efficiency to preclude the waste of destruction as much as possible. I think the moment you act on the notion that destruction is inevitable by contributing to someone else's destruction, you have basically initiated destruction for yourself. What goes around comes around.

 

 

[padren]

One problem with this is that we are humans and have the ability to contemplate population-growth and respond to it as an abstraction instead of simply being confronted with factors caused by it in practice. When, for example, people are starving naturally, instead of due to exclusion from the global food-resource economy, they can go through natural adjustments to their suffering because they have no one to blame but nature.

I think we are beyond being able to blame nature for the suffering people endure and often die from that is born from scarcity. People in the most advanced societies of the world still die in earthquakes and blizzards of course, but the tools people have to help mitigate these natural causes are a direct result of human nature and there can be no clear distinction between human caused and naturally caused suffering.

 

The only thing we seem to agree on so far is that your predictions are dramatic and threatening in their promise of future scarcity. What you don't seem to see is that there are already people experiencing famine, lethal disease, social-political killing, etc. so what does it matter to them if it is the result of population-growth or fear of such growth? Likewise, what would it matter to future victims of such maladies if they are the result of overpopulation or not? After all, starvation is starvation isn't it?

No one is suggesting that anyone alive should not be fed, due to fear of over-population or otherwise. Modern day famines, disease from dirty water sources, and other forms of suffering/death that arise from localized resource scarcity are important humanitarian issues that we have the power to help alleviate and eventually eradicate. I think personally that we have a moral imperative, not so much as a species but as intelligent, sentient beings to mitigate that suffering.

 

The point I am making is that as we solve those issues, we will also have to deal with the fact that overpopulation will eventually negate any improvements we make in their access to resources, so while "starvation is starvation" we do have to address the first cause (resources) but also the secondary cause (overpopulation) because without addressing it starvation will still occur. They are equivocal with regards to those suffering it, but they are the result of different causes and need to both be addressed distinctly. If we can relieve the starvation that results from immediate localized resource shortages, the only way to ensure later starvation does not occur is through either genocide, forced sterilization, or voluntary birth control. Personally, I only have the stomach for voluntary birth control, which I believe is rather effective in most places as educated stable populations tend to shift from a "have as many kids as possible in hopes a few survive to care for you in your old age" strategy to one of strategic resource allocation to smaller families. This does not kill anyone, it does not force anyone against their will, and it is a shift we have observed occurring naturally in many emerging and first world societies.

 

However, it does require more time to become effective, and when overpopulation hits critical mass as it has in China it becomes harder and harder for that strategy to be effective. It is the most "win win" solution I am aware of (and happy to discuss that topic as well, I am open minded) but is also places the highest strain on the resources for those populations trying to help them avoid famine.

 

I wonder if you've ever read the Accursed Share by George Bataille. Bataille talks about ecological-economics in terms of space filling up and evolving to create more space. So, for example, he says that first, ground-cover plants fill up the available land and then trees start growing higher to compete for more light and in the process create more space for life. Then he looks at a carnivorous predator like the tiger as an organism that has evolved to make space for other organisms to continue to reproduce. I.e. the perpetual reproduction of zebras is facilitated by their being hunted. The rest of Bataille's book is analysis of different forms of human economics and cultures of sacrifice, which he claims are the driving force of economic growth. It is not insignificant that Bataille preludes his book with a statement about the incredible economic growth of the US economy and the need for leisurely intellectuals like himself to consume the abundance to make room for more growth.

 

Ultimately, I think the evolution of such economically wasteful cultural forms is inevitable, but I still think the ethical thing to do is minimize waste and maximize efficiency to preclude the waste of destruction as much as possible. I think the moment you act on the notion that destruction is inevitable by contributing to someone else's destruction, you have basically initiated destruction for yourself. What goes around comes around.

I haven't read Bataille, but I am not quite understanding how evolutionary pressures in nature apply to the human situation - nature is a horrible, violent and cruel process and every form of efficiency or balance it has provided is paid for somewhere in very large quantities of blood and suffering.

 

As for "economically wasteful" societies, it's also worth noting that without these wasteful societies, there would not exist the technology to help those in harsher areas of the world avoid famine and suffering. That does not justify leaving those peoples to starve, but it cannot be ignored that our solutions to inequity only exist in part because of the problem of inequity. When an issue contains such a paradoxical fact, it deserves further scrutiny because the solutions may not be as simple as one would expect.

 

 

Lastly, I am curious what you think about situations of "special need" and human nature. For example, Michael J. Fox campaigns regularly to raise money for Parkinson's research and it is a near statistical certainty that some of those donors are persuaded by his actions to spend their "charity allotments" towards the search for a cure instead of feeding people who are currently starving in the poorest parts of the world. Therefore, it is a near statistical certainty that there are people who have died due to starvation that would not have if he had not persuaded those donors.

 

Do you think that is wasteful, or unethical considering that Parkinson's affects a lot less people than starvation, and food-funding can concretely save lives now whereas a cure for Parkinson's is theoretical future? If the final cost for a cure is measured against the lives it saves, and is compared to how many people could be fed by that funding, would it be wasteful?

 

Sorry to double-reply, but I thought this point warranted a specific response after the fact:

You can use exponential math to generate numbers that look like more of a problem than resource-waste, but the numbers only exist on paper while the waste is in dumpsters all over the developed world.

Yet, mathematics is reliable enough to get us to the moon and back, send probes beyond the solar system, and generate huge amounts of energy by splitting the atom. It's not just "on paper" but drives nearly all contemporary technological progress.

 

To dismiss it as "merely on paper" is to dismiss the single most powerful tool we've ever managed to discover in helping us understand, predict, and solve our very much real-world problems. If you want to suggest the numbers are incorrect, then point to where they are incorrect, if you suggest they are correct but fail to adequately model enough variables to support the scope of the claims made, then point out where that is so.

 

However, to dismiss mathematics as "only existing on paper" is ultimately futile because, I assure you, any solutions to reduce modern waste will require putting numbers on paper long before you see a reduction in waste in dumpsters.

[Mr Skeptic]

Certainly. When there is something that limits exponential growth, things work out nicely for those involved. And it doesn't really matter what it is that limits the exponential growth, so long as something does. Personally, I prefer that that limit is our own choice, rather than forced upon us like it has been proven to unavoidably happen otherwise. Please note that this does not mean that we have to force birth control or death nor anything -- rather, our more developed populations have reduced their birth rate, and presumably if we let the poor countries catch up they will do the same. This would be ideal since we don't need to do anything ethically questionable like let our population expand past what can be sustained nor conversely limiting population by force.

[lemur]

I think we are beyond being able to blame nature for the suffering people endure and often die from that is born from scarcity. People in the most advanced societies of the world still die in earthquakes and blizzards of course, but the tools people have to help mitigate these natural causes are a direct result of human nature and there can be no clear distinction between human caused and naturally caused suffering.

If someone has the ability to alleviate suffering and it is shirked, that is different than when someone really doesn't have the ability to help. Developed capitalist economies constantly fail to alleviate suffering by bickering between the controllers of the means of production and goods and those who control money. The producers typically claim they can't help anyone without money, but of course when they money isn't there they still have the means to do what they do when they are getting paid. So there's sort of an endless standoff to get money, and people suffer in the balance. This is why maximum self-sufficiency is the best escape from the tug-of-war game of developed economies.

 

 

No one is suggesting that anyone alive should not be fed, due to fear of over-population or otherwise. Modern day famines, disease from dirty water sources, and other forms of suffering/death that arise from localized resource scarcity are important humanitarian issues that we have the power to help alleviate and eventually eradicate. I think personally that we have a moral imperative, not so much as a species but as intelligent, sentient beings to mitigate that suffering.

The ironic thing is that the culture of the developed economies to deal with such problems is to leave. During hurricane Katrina a few years ago, people with the means to do so left the area and migrated to somewhere with adequate resources and facilities. Many of the global poor would like to do the same thing, but migration-controls work against this. Many of the people who fled from Katrina would have been flabergasted if they had faced anti-migration for trying to flee a natural disaster, but many of those same people would complain if the government allowed people in developing economies to do the same thing.

 

The point I am making is that as we solve those issues, we will also have to deal with the fact that overpopulation will eventually negate any improvements we make in their access to resources, so while "starvation is starvation" we do have to address the first cause (resources) but also the secondary cause (overpopulation) because without addressing it starvation will still occur. They are equivocal with regards to those suffering it, but they are the result of different causes and need to both be addressed distinctly. If we can relieve the starvation that results from immediate localized resource shortages, the only way to ensure later starvation does not occur is through either genocide, forced sterilization, or voluntary birth control. Personally, I only have the stomach for voluntary birth control, which I believe is rather effective in most places as educated stable populations tend to shift from a "have as many kids as possible in hopes a few survive to care for you in your old age" strategy to one of strategic resource allocation to smaller families. This does not kill anyone, it does not force anyone against their will, and it is a shift we have observed occurring naturally in many emerging and first world societies.

How is birth control "voluntary" if the only other choices are genocide or forced sterilization? The other thing I believe occurs at present is that populations that do not contain their growth within acceptable margins do not qualify for various kinds of economic assistance, and they end up getting punished for population growth by resource-deprivation. Meanwhile people who choose to have big families in western Europe are getting subsidized per child - yet people who wish to migrate there to take advantage of such subsidies are hated and discriminated by those who see themselves as "indigenous" to Europe.

 

I haven't read Bataille, but I am not quite understanding how evolutionary pressures in nature apply to the human situation - nature is a horrible, violent and cruel process and every form of efficiency or balance it has provided is paid for somewhere in very large quantities of blood and suffering.

Bataille analyzes different cultures of waste/sacrifice in terms of economic effects. He dislikes communism, for example, because he finds it too productive and efficient; the same as capitalism, I believe. He thinks that efficiency and saving results in a build-up of surplus that culminates in waste on way or the other, war for example. So he think that it makes more sense to dissipate resources constantly to prevent surplus from building up. Basically, he likes the idea of having a class of people whose only task is to squander surplus.

 

As for "economically wasteful" societies, it's also worth noting that without these wasteful societies, there would not exist the technology to help those in harsher areas of the world avoid famine and suffering. That does not justify leaving those peoples to starve, but it cannot be ignored that our solutions to inequity only exist in part because of the problem of inequity. When an issue contains such a paradoxical fact, it deserves further scrutiny because the solutions may not be as simple as one would expect.

It is a consistent egoism of the developed economies that they can justify migration control and territorialism by the fact that they contribute so much to the developing economies in terms of technology and aid. What goes unsaid is that these economies are just as likely to use the same technology and economic power to destroy the parts of developing economies when they fear that they are becoming a threat. We often preach freedom but engage in control-containment in practice.

 

Lastly, I am curious what you think about situations of "special need" and human nature. For example, Michael J. Fox campaigns regularly to raise money for Parkinson's research and it is a near statistical certainty that some of those donors are persuaded by his actions to spend their "charity allotments" towards the search for a cure instead of feeding people who are currently starving in the poorest parts of the world. Therefore, it is a near statistical certainty that there are people who have died due to starvation that would not have if he had not persuaded those donors.

There are many problems with the logic of this. For one thing, why does Parkinsons research cut into hunger-relief more than, say, MADD or breast-cancer research funding? Or particle-accelerators? Second, are the resources being devoted to research transferrable to hunger-relief if they were in fact devoted to it? In other words, what is needed to feed people (food and the means to transport it) is not the same thing that is needed to study Parkinsons, high-speed particle collisions, or crusade around distributing pink ribbons and putting pretty monuments to car crashes on the sides of roads.

 

Sure, you could pay all those people to put their time into loading and unloading food-supplies, but you could also hire the people who are suffering from hunger to do it themselves. Then there is the issue of the fuel and equipment needed, but who says those things need to be paid for by anyone except the providers, or at least why shouldn't those companies provide fuel and equipment for hunger relief at base production costs instead of including a profit margin? If nothing else, why can't hungry people just walk to the food instead of spending money to bring the food to them? The reason is because the people where the food is don't want poor people walking into their regions.

 

Do you think that is wasteful, or unethical considering that Parkinson's affects a lot less people than starvation, and food-funding can concretely save lives now whereas a cure for Parkinson's is theoretical future? If the final cost for a cure is measured against the lives it saves, and is compared to how many people could be fed by that funding, would it be wasteful?

It doesn't matter because people have plenty of time in their lives to both eat AND study Parkinson's disease. It's a waste that the people that are hungry aren't given access to the means to feed themselves and the educational opportunities to be able to contribute to Parkinson's research.

 

Yet, mathematics is reliable enough to get us to the moon and back, send probes beyond the solar system, and generate huge amounts of energy by splitting the atom. It's not just "on paper" but drives nearly all contemporary technological progress.

These things also require engineering, labor, materials, etc. not just math and science on paper.

 

To dismiss it as "merely on paper" is to dismiss the single most powerful tool we've ever managed to discover in helping us understand, predict, and solve our very much real-world problems. If you want to suggest the numbers are incorrect, then point to where they are incorrect, if you suggest they are correct but fail to adequately model enough variables to support the scope of the claims made, then point out where that is so.

Theory is a powerful tool and it's great and I use it more than many people. My point was that oftentimes theory gets caught up in abstract logics that fail to take account of how things work in practice. It's the difference between thinking in terms of abstract systems and concretely imagining the actual situations in which human activities take place.

 

However, to dismiss mathematics as "only existing on paper" is ultimately futile because, I assure you, any solutions to reduce modern waste will require putting numbers on paper long before you see a reduction in waste in dumpsters.

I never said anything about dismissing math. I said that formulating the mathematical problem of population-growth obscures the immediate issue that is happening daily, which is food waste. You can curtain reproduction to constrain population-growth to a level that can be fed by current food-resource management or modify food-distribution culture to allow people maximum reproductive freedom. I vote for throwing away less and creating more freedom to choose how many children to have because I can't stomach the ethic of wasting food resources to starve people out of having children. Now, in reality are the people in developed economies generally overfed excessive amounts of sugar, salt, fat, and other empty carbohydrates . . .