Over population

[JohnB]

It seems for your position to be true then the lower birth rate in developed countries has nothing to do with the availability of contraception.

 

No, I'm sure the availability of contraception in the west had contributed to the lower birth rate. However the choice whether to use contraception or not and which method to use remained with the individual woman and/or her partner. It was a free choice. There were no incentives used to influence the womans decision. Note also that in the west the women had the choice, something they might not have in other areas of the planet.

 

Sure you can, statistically.

 

So that would be a "No" then? You can't provide a scenario?

 

This isn't about the West. My comment was about tying a particular reproductive outcome to aid provision in the third world. This is coertion and as such violates the 4th Principle adopted at the UN Human Rights Convention in Cairo in 1994. One of the reasons for the Cairo conference was due to the outcry against just such deals as are being suggested here.

 

I direct you to Chapter VII of the Cairo Report. (Warning, very slow opening 10 meg pdf)

 

It states;

Reproductive health therefore impliesthat people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to dod so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility...

 

The bottom line is that even contraceptives are not 100% reliable, nor is there any way to be sure that they will actually be used. The only way to ensure a given reproductive outcome is by sterilisations, either forced or non consensual. Like it or not, this is the truth of the matter. Tying reproductive outcomes to aid has led to severe human rights abuses, specifically forced or non consensual sterilisations in Congo, Kenya, Bangladesh, Peru, Uzbekistan and other nations.

 

Note that the 1999 "Tiahrt" Amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act in the US specifically forbids this sort of thing.

 

Quoting from the USAID document on the amendment;

The Tiahrt amendment directs that in family planning ("FP") projects:

- service providers and referral agents cannot implement or be subject to quotas relating to numbers of births, FP acceptors, or acceptors of a particular FP method;

 

- there be no incentives to individuals in exchange for becoming acceptors or to program personnel for achieving targets or quotas for numbers of births, acceptors, or acceptors of a particular FP method;

 

- rights or benefits not be withheld from persons who decide not to become acceptors;

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

The original proposition was to tie reproductive outcome to aid provision. Firstly I have shown that the only way to ensure those reproductive outcomes is by forced or non consensual sterilisations. Secondly I have shown that this is a violation of both US law and UN conventions on Human Rights.

 

I have responded to exactly what was written;

for every life save at least one preganancy should be prevented

 

This isn't sociology, it's mathematics. If you "save" 4 million lives through vaccines, how are you going to ensure at least 4 million pregnancies are prevented?

 

If the deal was to tie aid to allowing the distribution of contraceptives and setting up family planning clinics, I wouldn't have a problem and would wholeheartedly agree. However that wasn't the deal, was it? The deal was to tie particular reproductive outcomes to aid and the only way to ensure those outcomes is by forced or non consensual sterilisation and that is abhorrent.

 

So neither a strawman nor a false dichotomy. Just a simple declaration of what such a deal would entail.

 

PS. Let him go DoG, he's going to quote Doran et al 2009, for sure.

Edited July 20, 2011 by JohnB

[Arete]

Or maybe you meant only 0.1% of the scientific community thinks it is debatable that man's effect on climate change is significant and the other 99.9% consider it a fact?

 

You're right: it's more like 2% and 98%

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.short

[random]

Well it's a proven fact technology is the only thing enabling our earthly population to eat. If we run out of fossil fuels with no replacement alot of people will starve or thinking outside the box if we had a natural disaster which caused an electromagnetic pulse (huge solar flare) there would also be drastic repercussions when everything electronic ceases to function.

 

However I did see somwhere an article breaking down the earth's population and how many acres were alotted to each person for sustenance and if i remember correctly we haven't hit the threshold yet. With modern farming the population threshold is increased needing less land per person and I myself have enough faith in the world's intelligent to build upon plant genetics and animal genetics (though controversial) in a manner keeping up with our nutritional needs.

 

But another question would be at what point can the economy simply not support any more individuals or will technology keep pace creating new industry? I think population control will be more about money than food. look at china? way over populated even with population control and they're the healthiest people in the world IMO ..........and of course it's worth noting there economy is keeping up ........til ours crashes. I dunno we'll see what happens but the world isn't over populated yet. We're not attacking countries to feed our own so it's all good.

[doG]

You're right: it's more like 2% and 98%

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.short

That's news. By your logic the whole of the scientific community is made up of climate scientists...

[Arete]

By your logic the whole of the scientific community is made up of climate scientists...

 

 

Not quite, by my logic, when evaluating scientific consensus you ask data - not people. Hence you look at published results rather than opinions.

[swansont]

No, I'm sure the availability of contraception in the west had contributed to the lower birth rate. However the choice whether to use contraception or not and which method to use remained with the individual woman and/or her partner. It was a free choice. There were no incentives used to influence the womans decision. Note also that in the west the women had the choice, something they might not have in other areas of the planet.

 

!

Moderator Note

"facilitating woman in the third world to make similar choices to western woman in not being pregnant" does not become "sterilisation or abortion", given that we know that contraception leads to a reduction in fertility rates. Which you admit.

 

You have blatantly ignored one of the options, and in doing so it created a straw man. The OP did not mention sterilisation, or any specific "deals" describing a reduction in aid tied into quotas. That was purely fabrication, and is the very definition of a straw man. I'm done discussing this. One more step down that path and the thread will be closed.

[doG]

Not quite, by my logic, when evaluating scientific consensus you ask data - not people. Hence you look at published results rather than opinions.

You miss the point. Someone made a claim that 99.9% of the scientific community believes man causes global warming and I complained about no source to back that assertion up. Then you attempt to do with a link that claims 97-98% of climate scientists believe that. News flash. 97-98% of climate scientists do not represent 99.9% of the scientific community unless all of the scientific community is made up of climate scientists. The assertion is still unsupported and your misleading attempt to claim otherwise is noted.

[Arete]

The assertion is still unsupported and your misleading attempt to claim otherwise is noted.

 

I provided a link to a peer reviewed journal article showing anyone who cared to look EXACTLY what my figures referred to - which is more transparency than any of your posts, given you reference nothing. When evaluating what the "consensus in the scientific community" is regarding an issue - the most obvious place to look is the peer reviewed literature on the subject at hand is, as this is where the scientific data on said issue is going to be, right?

 

If you care to strip away all the arguments by semantics - the underlying suggestion is that people with expert knowledge - whether you describe them as "the scientific community" or something else, are in debate about anthropogenic climate change, when publication by peer review clearly shows that by and large, they are not.

 

I'd counter that suggesting you need to survey scientists who have nothing to do with the issue at all to evaluate expert/scientific consensus on the issue is what is misleading here.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Arete

[doG]

...99.9% of the scientific community disagrees with you.

 

 

You're right: it's more like 2% and 98%

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.short

 

 

I provided a link to a peer reviewed journal article showing anyone who cared to look EXACTLY what my figures referred to - which is more transparency than any of your posts, given you reference nothing.

What's there to reference? I made no claim to support except that ACC is debatable. Greg said 99.9% of the scientific community disagrees and you posted a link to a peer reviewed article as a respponse to support his claim that which clearly states, "...97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...". Sorry, your link does NOT support the claim he made. Greg's statement is wrong and unsupported. No Where does your link say that 99% of the scientific COMMUNITY supports ACC and there's no reason any of us should believe that the scientific community as a whole is 97-98% climate researchers.

[CharonY]

First of all climate are the part of the scientific community whose expertise is relevant to the question. I would not know why the opinion of a microbiologist should have any relevance, unless some climate related effects were found in the studies of bacteria.

Then 99.9 is relatively close to 97 and is not too bad as a guess. The value behind the decimal point gives probably an unnecessary illusion of accuracy.

[doG]

First of all climate are the part of the scientific community whose expertise is relevant to the question. I would not know why the opinion of a microbiologist should have any relevance, unless some climate related effects were found in the studies of bacteria.

Then 99.9 is relatively close to 97 and is not too bad as a guess. The value behind the decimal point gives probably an unnecessary illusion of accuracy.

I understand that and yes, 99.9 is close to 97 but even 100% of climate researchers is not close to 99.9% of the whole scientific community unless the whole scientific community is climate researchers. I may be wrong but I tend to think there are probably a lot of scientists that are not climate researchers.

 

Imagine a truckload of fruit. One box on the truck is 100% apples. Does that mean the rest of the truck is all apples?

[Arete]

Imagine a truckload of fruit. One box on the truck is 100% apples. Does that mean the rest of the truck is all apples?

 

I disagree with the premise. Any true "opinion of the scientific community" is validated with the experimental approach and peer review and thus best evaluated by analyzing published analyses. That's why scientific consensus has the robust reputation it does. As a biologist who does not study climate change, my personal opinion is just that - a personal opinion, not relevant to "scientific consensus/opinion/debate/whatever term you want to use to characterize expert evaluation". To offer it up as such would be misleading and unethical.

[JohnB]

Arete, you might want to read this article before defending Anderegg et al too strongly.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/E188.full

 

Number 1 on Andereggs list of "sceptics" is Dr. Roger Pielke Snr, here are his thoughts.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/comments-on-the-pnas-article-expert-credibility-in-climate-change-by-anderegg-et-al-2010/

 

If you aren't aware, Dr Pielke is one of the planets leading climate scientists.

 

His son is also a climate scientists, his take is here;

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-black-list.html

 

The comments from scientists under the article are very interesting.

 

A rather interesting point about the paper is that it ranks people according to "expertise" in climate science. Which is kind of funny when the lead author, William R.L. Anderegg, was a student at Stanford (maybe one of Steven Schneiders students?), the second author Jim Prall is a "Senior Systems Programmer" and the third Jacob Harold is an MBA (again from Stanford) who lists "School for International Training Tibetan Studies Program" as part of his CV. In his spare time Mr Harold has also been a "Climate Campaigner at Rainforest Action Network", "Global Warming and Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace USA" and a "Grassroots Organizer at Green Corps".

 

So a blogger, a student and a Greenpeace activist are competent to review the work of climate scientists and decide which of those scientists have the most "expertise". Just the sort of crew you would expect to publish "unbiased" papers, surely.

 

Even better is the method used to decide "expertise"

We ranked researchers based on the total number of climate publications authored.

 

Using that metric Mills and Boon authors are the greatest writers of English Literature. Similarly the metric means that a researcher who writes 10 wrong papers is better than one who writes 2 correct ones, a situation that I hope science hasn't descended to.

 

Even the first sentence of the paper should ring loud warning bells;

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC),

(Emphasis mine.)

 

To quote from the Free Dictionary;

ten·et (tnt)

n.

An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization. See Synonyms at doctrine.

 

tenet [ˈtɛnɪt ˈtiːnɪt]

n

a belief, opinion, or dogma

[from Latin, literally: he (it) holds, from tenēre to hold]

 

Noun 1. tenet - a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

dogma

article of faith, credendum - (Christianity) any of the sections into which a creed or other statement of doctrine is divided

church doctrine, religious doctrine, creed, gospel - the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group.

tenet

noun principle, rule, doctrine, creed, view, teaching, opinion, belief, conviction, canon, thesis, maxim, dogma, precept, article of faith. Non-violence is the central tenet of their faith.

 

Beliefs, opinions and dogma have no place in science. Neither do headcounts. What matters is proof and reproducability. What is the data, what are the methods and are the results reproducable by others, if you don't have these things then you don't have a science you have a philosophy.

 

Speaking as one of the resident sceptics here I really don't care if either side proclaim that they have 50,000 signatures on 50,000 letters or petitions, or whose opinion is worth more than whose. I care only about the evidence, data and methods. I only care about whether the predictions match reality. Nothing else is important.

 

I have a concern with climate science that Dr. Richard Lindzen phrased very well;

In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation,

 

Simulations and programs are tools, theory and observation are science. A number of people in the field of climate seem to have forgotten this vital difference.

[doG]

I disagree with the premise.

Why? Greg said that 99.9% of the scientific community disagrees. OK, the scientific community includes climate researchers, physicists, doctors of all kinds, geologists, chemists, etc. etc., all scientists of all kinds. Then you post a link that says 97-98% of climate researchers believe in ACC. I don't dispute that. I'm just saying that your link does not represent anything close to 99% of the scientific community because the scientific community is not comprised of 97-98% of climate researchers. They are a small part of the scientific community as a whole. Do you really want us to believe that you can't see the difference? Do you really want us to believe that you think 97-98% of climate researchers is the same as 99% of the WHOLE scientific community?

[swansont]

Why? Greg said that 99.9% of the scientific community disagrees. OK, the scientific community includes climate researchers, physicists, doctors of all kinds, geologists, chemists, etc. etc., all scientists of all kinds. Then you post a link that says 97-98% of climate researchers believe in ACC. I don't dispute that. I'm just saying that your link does not represent anything close to 99% of the scientific community because the scientific community is not comprised of 97-98% of climate researchers. They are a small part of the scientific community as a whole. Do you really want us to believe that you can't see the difference? Do you really want us to believe that you think 97-98% of climate researchers is the same as 99% of the WHOLE scientific community?

Perhaps the implication was the relevant science community. My opinion on details of a theory outside of physics isn't particularly germane, and may not represent any meaning much above a lay person's.

[doG]

Perhaps the implication was the relevant science community.

Perhaps, that's not what was said though.

[Greg Boyles]

For the record, while I do not advocate culling or forced sterlisation as a solution here I do advocate linking foreign aid to cooperation on fertility reduction by third world governments and third world citizens.

 

 

No cooperation then no aid and no exceptions.

 

 

You may accuse me of being insensitive or mean spirited but you may not accuse me of being Hitler or genocidal etc, because ushc goals are clearly not the aim of what I advocate.

 

 

And I am not interested in debating with nit wits about such straw man accusations, that are worthy of nothing more than "blah, blah, blah".

[CaptainPanic]

Greg Boyles, what do you mean by "fertility reduction", and can you give one example?

[Greg Boyles]

Greg Boyles, what do you mean by "fertility reduction", and can you give one example?

 

 

Western funded family planning services and contraception, education on the use of contraception in schools, encouragement of girls to seek careers rather than babies, use of subcutaneous long acting oestrogen pellets (I think tey have those available for some animal species I believe so there should not be any reason why they could not be made available for humans).

 

 

Cooperation on the above from third world governments should be a pre-condition of receiving any western aid. On an individual basis, coperation on the above should be a pre-condition of receiving food packages and medical help. The time for polite half measures is coming to a close I fear.

 

 

If not then nature should be allowed to take her course.......strangely it appears that many humanitarians would prefer this than interfere in any way with the human 'right' to breed.What they fail to understand is that breeding is also a responsibility in the global context and that what may be good for an individual regarding breeding is not necessarily good for the world as a whole.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[CaptainPanic]

Cooperation on the above from third world governments should be a pre-condition of receiving any western aid. On an individual basis, coperation on the above should be a pre-condition of receiving food packages and medical help. The time for polite half measures is coming to a close I fear.

What if a country doesn't have a government, like Somalia? The entire country is hijacked by different terrorist groups. Should its population (who never asked for these terrorists) suffer because of it?

Or what people living by religious rules? The pope (leader of the Catholic church) for example opposes all contraception. Should faithful Catholics simply not receive any aid if they need it because they follow their culture and the rules set by their religious leader?

 

To some extent I agree with your proposal, but we should try to find out when it's unethical to withhold aid from people who cannot change their own situation.

[Greg Boyles]

What if a country doesn't have a government, like Somalia? The entire country is hijacked by different terrorist groups. Should its population (who never asked for these terrorists) suffer because of it?

Or what people living by religious rules? The pope (leader of the Catholic church) for example opposes all contraception. Should faithful Catholics simply not receive any aid if they need it because they follow their culture and the rules set by their religious leader?

 

To some extent I agree with your proposal, but we should try to find out when it's unethical to withhold aid from people who cannot change their own situation.

In the case of Somalia I guess the terrorist groups and famine do a bit of culling - mother nature's default way of dealing with over population.

 

 

Those living by religious rules - we should say good luck to them and keep our noses out. Again mother nature will take care of their over population. It that is their choice then so be it.

 

In the case of western Catholics, regardless of what the pope says the government should not provide baby bonuses, or perhaps any other form welfare, for the third or more child. If people want to be good catholics and have a third or more child then they should be entirely self funded. The government should not be seen to be encouraging more than 2 children per couple. This is especially important in western countries since we all consume so profligately.

 

 

Nor is ethical to interfere with the ecological balance. Because all you end up doing is increasing the number of people and the level of suffering later.

 

 

You either compensate for saving lives by preventing births or you leave the matter to mother nature to sort out. What ever you do you MUST maintain the ecological balance of humans and their environment.

[JohnB]

Greg, after a bit of a chat, I can agree that my comment was wrong. However you will need to give better reponses than "Blah, blah" to opposing points. If you can't do that then you aren't here for discussion or debate, but to attempt to soapbox your ideas without opposition.

 

As you have said you aren't advocating forced sterilisation. However I think an unintended consequence of tying aid to fertility reduction in the third world would result in those governments acting along those lines. It's happened before. Presumably there would be some sort of "targets" or markers to check on the progress of the program, what happens if a gov finds itself falling short of the targets and in danger of losing the aid?

 

I also think that your basic premise is faulty. There is no "ecological balance", there never has been and never will be. It's like a stable climate, it would be nice to have but it doesn't happen. If we take the basic grass -> Herbivore -> Carnivore pattern. Rain falls and the grass grows, this allows the number of herbivores to grow. The larger number of herbivores will then support a larger number of carnivores, but these numbers are never in balance. There is always too much or too little grass for the number of herbivores and either too many or too few herbivores to support the carnivores. This is because the increase in a population lags behind the increase in the food supply, ditto with a decrease. There is never a "balance", especially once you add competing species of both herbivore and carnivore into the mix.

 

There is no "ecological balance" to maintain.

[Greg Boyles]

Greg, after a bit of a chat, I can agree that my comment was wrong. However you will need to give better reponses than "Blah, blah" to opposing points. If you can't do that then you aren't here for discussion or debate, but to attempt to soapbox your ideas without opposition.

 

As you have said you aren't advocating forced sterilisation. However I think an unintended consequence of tying aid to fertility reduction in the third world would result in those governments acting along those lines. It's happened before. Presumably there would be some sort of "targets" or markers to check on the progress of the program, what happens if a gov finds itself falling short of the targets and in danger of losing the aid?

 

I also think that your basic premise is faulty. There is no "ecological balance", there never has been and never will be. It's like a stable climate, it would be nice to have but it doesn't happen. If we take the basic grass -> Herbivore -> Carnivore pattern. Rain falls and the grass grows, this allows the number of herbivores to grow. The larger number of herbivores will then support a larger number of carnivores, but these numbers are never in balance. There is always too much or too little grass for the number of herbivores and either too many or too few herbivores to support the carnivores. This is because the increase in a population lags behind the increase in the food supply, ditto with a decrease. There is never a "balance", especially once you add competing species of both herbivore and carnivore into the mix.

 

There is no "ecological balance" to maintain.

 

Like I said John, I have no intentions of debating straw man accusations of genocide, naziism, sterilisation and culling etc.

 

Such comments will always receive a response of "blah, blah, blah" from me.

 

If folks don't want this response from me then they should refrain from making those childish accusations.

 

 

 

There is ALWAYS ecological balance between populations of any animal, including humans, and its environment over the long term though there is always oscillation around that balance point over the short term.

 

This is demonstrable scientific FACT.

 

That oscillation leads to individual suffering when numbers exceed available resources.

 

With humans we seek to eliminate that individual suffering. And the only way to do that in the long term is to stop our population oscillating around the ecological balance point. At present we only do half the job of handing out food packages but we must consider the bigger ecological picture and do the other half of the job of preventing births.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[JohnB]

In that post I made no accusations.

 

I pointed out a possible unintended consequence of what was proposed and asked a question.

 

I also pointed out what I see to be a flaw in your basic assumptions.

 

Have you neither answers or rebuttals?

[Greg Boyles]

In that post I made no accusations.

 

I pointed out a possible unintended consequence of what was proposed and asked a question.

 

I also pointed out what I see to be a flaw in your basic assumptions.

 

Have you neither answers or rebuttals?

 

I didn't imply that you did make such accusations - I don't know as I didn't read back through the posts to see who it was that did.

 

I am merely responding to your criticism of my "blah, blah, blah" response.

 

I don't necessarily think that aid should be stopped if a government genuinely tries to curb fertility and fails. But if that does happen then it should coopperate in allowing the west of the UN to intervene with their own programs to try and achieve better fertility outcomes.

 

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

With the war on terror, most of us believe that islamic contries should accept western troops if their country is a major source of terrorists that threaten the west and they are unable to effectively elimate them themselves.

 

Over population in the third world is also a threat to the west. Because it breeds terrorists and immigrants that want a better life in the west and threaten to cause over population in western countries, and all the related problems that the immigrants are trying to escape in the first place.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Greg Boyles