Over population

[Greg Boyles]

Is that how you normally react to people who ask you to actually back up what you say?

 

You've made it plainly obvious to all that you are interested in neither discussion nor facts, but only wish to be able to repeat any concept that comes your way without fear of contradiction.

 

I don't feel the need to justify my statements to you JohnB, because I do not agree with the premise of your criticisms.

 

You are not asking me for explanations as to why the lynx - hare graph does not precisely match what you would expect if their relationship was perfectly coupled.

 

What you are doing is trying to convince me that the whole theory of predator prey coupling is invalid based on this single study and based on a phrase in the supporting link I posted.

 

 

Right back at you JohnB.......is that really the best you can do?

 

If that's what you want I suggest you go back to the "Bob Brown Fan Club", you won't last long here. Try the local office of the "Greens", you can have a nice herbal tea and expound sagely to others who will simply nod, agree and continue their circle jerk.

 

I despise the Greens actually. They became the 'refugee party' over a decade ago but didn't change their party name. They are 'trading' falsely on their original name.

 

What I came to this forum to do is to converse with people with a formal scientific background and who are familiar with the scientific process, because I am tired of conversing with QandA forum types with whom rational discussion is impossible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is another scientific paper for JohnB - found through Google Scholar.

 

My link

 

It is discussing the anomolies of predator-prey coupling based on absolute numbers of predator and prey species and how, as I understand it, examining the relationships in terms of ratio of predator to prey solves many of the commonly observed anomolies that you folks have been pointing out in the hare-lynx data.

Exactly what I was trying to point out to you about ratios rather than absolute numbers as it turns out.

 

 

 

My link

Another study looking at musk rat and mink iinteraction in different parts of the musk rat range. Availability of other prey species for the mink in part of the musk rat's range results in imperfect predator and prey coupling.

 

 

 

My link

 

In this paper it appears that it is the mathematical models used to define predator - prey coupling that is being called in to question rather than the fact of predator prey coupling itself.

 

 

 

Are we happy yet JohnB?

Edited August 3, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[jeskill]

I don't deny this, but the simple fact is that the reduction in our fecundity is simply not fast enough to avoid a population crash at some point in the near future.

 

Yeah, but you could reduce fecundity to replacement levels around the world and it still wouldn't measurably change the global population size for another 50 years, especially since many regions are only still growing because they have a relatively large young population. The only way to measurably reduce population sizes within the next 20 - 50 years is by significantly increasing the mortality rate. I hope you understand the ethical consequences of such an action.

 

And while third world fecundity is slowly reducing, large segments of the third world are rapidly increasing their consuption to western levels - China, India,.....

 

So if per capita consumption levels are a significant problem, why not focus on decreasing them? Seems to me we'd get more bang for the buck. We have the technological know-how to do this and it's less morally objective. What's your problem with this avenue, other then the high probability that you've invested a lot of your pride in your argument?

 

Your statement might have some validity if we lived in a world where citizens remained for life in their own countries and consumed only those resources they could obtain from their own territories.

 

But that is clearly not the case is it Jess?

 

Acquisition of resources outside their territories allows populations of countries to expand beyong the long term ecological carrying capacity of their territories. Particularly in the west and our mining acivities and our provision of emergency aid to third world countries undergoing famines etc.

 

It depends on which area of the world you are discussing. A significant proportion of people in the world actually do remain for life in their own regions -- they cannot afford to travel. Specifically, people in the Global South who are dependent on food imports (including food aid) often cannot travel and have extreme food insecurity because of policies and political instability that reduces their ability to grow their own food sustainably. But it is entirely possible to grow food sustainably in many of these regions. In order to do so, they need the land rights and the know-how.

 

There is only so far that you can go in increasing efficiency and decreasing individual consumption.

How far, exactly? I've seen numbers that suggest people in developed countries could decrease their individual consumption by 80 - 90% without having a negative effect on their standard of living. That seems pretty darn significant.

 

Let's take water consumption. A person need a minimum of about 2L of water per day to survive. You cannot decrease water consumption any further than that. But if population growth continues then at some point you will STILL run out of fresh water and people will start dieing regardles of how 'efficiently' we are consuming it.

 

Do you have any data to back up the idea that at a global population of 9billion, we would not have the ability to provide enough fresh water via increasing water efficiency? Have you ever researched how much water is wasted with toilet flushing (13 L / flush = ~ 6 people's worth of water per day);agriculture, even wasted in the process of making plastic water bottles (3 L of water is used to produce 1 L of bottled water).

 

Again, there's a lot of room for improvement for efficiency.

 

While increasing in efficiency and decreasing personal consumption is essential in the short term, it is not an excuse to continue avoiding the morally difficult issue of how are we to reduce our population as rapidly and as humanely as possible.

 

I don't know if you realized this, but you just validated my point. To repeat, we are already reducing our fecundity and that will have an effect on population size in the long term. But we don't have the luxury of waiting 100 years. Hence why we need to focus on increasing efficiency and decreasing consumption NOW.

[Greg Boyles]

Yeah, but you could reduce fecundity to replacement levels around the world and it still wouldn't measurably change the global population size for another 50 years, especially since many regions are only still growing because they have a relatively large young population. The only way to measurably reduce population sizes within the next 20 - 50 years is by significantly increasing the mortality rate. I hope you understand the ethical consequences of such an action.

 

That is already happening due to famine, war, genocide and disease in over populated third world countries, e.g. Somalia. Making all possible efforts to reduce fertility in the third world will alleviate this.

 

 

 

 

So if per capita consumption levels are a significant problem, why not focus on decreasing them? Seems to me we'd get more bang for the buck. We have the technological know-how to do this and it's less morally objective. What's your problem with this avenue, other then the high probability that you've invested a lot of your pride in your argument?

 

 

Apart from the fact that no one, including the third world, has any intentions of reducing their consumption....... Consumption is not the underlying problem and focusing efforts on this will do nothing to solve our problems in the long term.

 

 

 

It depends on which area of the world you are discussing. A significant proportion of people in the world actually do remain for life in their own regions -- they cannot afford to travel. Specifically, people in the Global South who are dependent on food imports (including food aid) often cannot travel and have extreme food insecurity because of policies and political instability that reduces their ability to grow their own food sustainably. But it is entirely possible to grow food sustainably in many of these regions. In order to do so, they need the land rights and the know-how.

 

Therefore fertility control will be the only means by which we will successfully alleviate their suffering of the vast majority of them in the long term.

 

 

 

How far, exactly? I've seen numbers that suggest people in developed countries could decrease their individual consumption by 80 - 90% without having a negative effect on their standard of living. That seems pretty darn significant.

 

 

And such figures should be treated with a great deal of skepticism - they represent the triumph of optimism or delusion over common sense.

 

 

 

Do you have any data to back up the idea that at a global population of 9billion, we would not have the ability to provide enough fresh water via increasing water efficiency? Have you ever researched how much water is wasted with toilet flushing (13 L / flush = ~ 6 people's worth of water per day);agriculture, even wasted in the process of making plastic water bottles (3 L of water is used to produce 1 L of bottled water).

 

 

I could provide abundant evidence of populations already suffering severe water shortages and nations already in simmering conflict with each other over access to water. The problem is that people like you fixate on the superficial politics that underlying water (and other resources) shortages tend to get wrapped up in.

 

 

 

Again, there's a lot of room for improvement for efficiency.

 

As with the resources themselves, improvements in efficiency are finite. People require at least 2 litres of water per day to remain alive. You can't use water any more efficiently than that without people dieing. And if population increase continues to 9 billion many people, mainly in the third world, will start dieing despite the fact that they are using water more 'efficiently' than 2L per day.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if you realized this, but you just validated my point. To repeat, we are already reducing our fecundity and that will have an effect on population size in the long term. But we don't have the luxury of waiting 100 years. Hence why we need to focus on increasing efficiency and decreasing consumption NOW.

 

 

Well I agree with you Jess. But the difference between you and I is that you are using improvement in an efficiency and reduction in consumption as an excuse to do nothing about reducing fertility beyond current trends. The fact is we need to do both simultaneously.

 

 

And on what evidence do you base you claim that improvement of efficiency and reduction of consumption can acheive results in a signficantly shorter time frame than actively reducing our fertility.

[jeskill]

Well I agree with you Jess. But the difference between you and I is that you are using improvement in an efficiency and reduction in consumption as an excuse to do nothing about reducing fertility beyond current trends. The fact is we need to do both simultaneously.

 

I apologize for not responding sooner -- thesis and ESA conference has been keeping me busy.

 

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I strongly believe that all women should have control over their ability to reproduce. I strongly believe that women need to have more power within their political structures and communities, especially in regions with extreme poverty and inequity. I do know that there is (to an extent) a correlation between improved women's rights and decreasing birthrates. That's all good and fine, but there is no feasible way we would be able to ETHICALLY reduce the population size of developing countries significantly within the next 50 years with policies that solely affect fertility rates. If you don't understand that, then you need to read up on basic concepts of population demographics, and how young populations contribute to population growth even when fecundity declines.

 

 

 

And on what evidence do you base you claim that improvement of efficiency and reduction of consumption can acheive results in a signficantly shorter time frame than actively reducing our fertility.

 

Again, if you understood population demographics, you wouldn't have to ask this question. My suggestion is to read the following articles. It's more efficient than me regurgitating it all.

On population:

Sex, lies, and statistical correlation: A caveat for populationists (AKA: The penis argument)

"There is no correspondence between emissions and population density"

Vandermeer blogs about 'necessary vs sustainable' population.If you read closely, he's basically saying that human populations can not be modeled by the L-V model because food shortages in the short term actually cause an increase in population size when food production requires human labor.

Historical Context: Why Population size was not the cause of the Irish Potato Famine.

 

From a thought experiment on population reduction:

As you can see, my assumption about declining birth rates leads to a stable population, but it's still 50% larger than today. In fact, this projection is remarkably similar to the one produced by the United Nations, which estimates a global population of 9.2 billion in 2050. The message of this graph is clear. If we need to reduce our population, simply adjusting the birth rate is insufficient. There will be excess deaths required to reach our target.

 

 

On improving energy efficiency:

Stabilization Wedges: A big picture for improving energy efficiency

A discussion on how reducing our use of plastic water bottles and plastic bags can contribute to reductions in CO2 emissions.

Green roofs reduced energy consumption of Toronto buildings by 30%: www.upea.com/pdf/greenroofs.pdf

 

On effectively improving sustainability in impoverished communities without reducing population sizes:

Increasing seed biodiversity improves sustainability

Planting mangroves in Eritrea

Hunger, poverty and sustainability.

 

(edited to add a link)

Edited August 15, 2011 by jeskill