Arete Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 Infinite monotonic growth is impossible on a finite planet and ecosystem at all levels and in all ecological niches. It is a universal and unchallengable 'rule', on planet Earth at least. Unchallengable in that is a truism. It's simply a statement that simultaneous, monotonic growth of all of Earth's biota indefinietly is "unsustainable". While I'm on my soapbox - the concept of sustainability is a bit bollocks IMHO as it's all relevant to a point of reference - the sun's energy is not infinite, so no known life is sustainable given that point of reference. Are you making the implication that humans occupy all ecological niches? This is unequivocally false due to the simple presence of other forms of life demonstrably occupying ecological niches which humans do not. Or that all possible niches are occupied? This would be proven false by ongoing adaptive divergence in a vast number of lineages. Environmental dynamism renders niche space constantly variable. Or that population growth is occurring in all niches? The fact that a large number of species are measurably in decline shows this is not the case. 'Infinite growth' is theoretically possible if it is part of a cycle of boom and bust. But then over the long term there is no net growth so 'infinite growth' is moot. There can only be perceptible growth over short period, e.g a human life time. Oscillation of abundance is neither representative of ecological niche expansion, nor an example of infinite growth. This entire example is a non sequitur. Examples of niche expansion include geographic expansion, novel adaptation allowing the exploitation of a new resource and elimination of a competitor. Exponential decay represents another observable model of indefinite population growth. Establishing a logical argument for voluntary human population decline is relatively straightforward if you establish a) that current population levels are above carrying capacity e.g. depletion of renewable resources is higher than replacement rate, e.t.c. and b) there are intrinsic limits to the human ecological niche - e.g. further geographic expansion short of space colonization is implausible, e.t.c. Put simply - If you can establish that we are likely to run out of things to eat and there's no plausible discoveries of enough new things to eat - you have a strong argument for fewer humans. The arguments you're posing here are sweeping generalizations and truisms - posing the politicization of science and abandonment of research which you personally see as counterproductive to your own moral agenda is also not compelling. I sure don't want another political/moralized agenda determining which fields of research are acceptable or not and vehemently oppose the ones that currently exist.
Greg Boyles Posted August 14, 2011 Author Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) Unchallengable in that is a truism. It's simply a statement that simultaneous, monotonic growth of all of Earth's biota indefinietly is "unsustainable". While I'm on my soapbox - the concept of sustainability is a bit bollocks IMHO as it's all relevant to a point of reference - the sun's energy is not infinite, so no known life is sustainable given that point of reference. Are you making the implication that humans occupy all ecological niches? This is unequivocally false due to the simple presence of other forms of life demonstrably occupying ecological niches which humans do not. Or that all possible niches are occupied? This would be proven false by ongoing adaptive divergence in a vast number of lineages. Environmental dynamism renders niche space constantly variable. Or that population growth is occurring in all niches? The fact that a large number of species are measurably in decline shows this is not the case. Oscillation of abundance is neither representative of ecological niche expansion, nor an example of infinite growth. This entire example is a non sequitur. Examples of niche expansion include geographic expansion, novel adaptation allowing the exploitation of a new resource and elimination of a competitor. Exponential decay represents another observable model of indefinite population growth. Establishing a logical argument for voluntary human population decline is relatively straightforward if you establish a) that current population levels are above carrying capacity e.g. depletion of renewable resources is higher than replacement rate, e.t.c. and b) there are intrinsic limits to the human ecological niche - e.g. further geographic expansion short of space colonization is implausible, e.t.c. Put simply - If you can establish that we are likely to run out of things to eat and there's no plausible discoveries of enough new things to eat - you have a strong argument for fewer humans. More pointless argument about the arrangement of the deck chair on the titanic! Humans may not occupy every ecological niche on Earth, but we clearly effect every ecological niche on Earth and reduce biodiverity in them. Through organochlorine pollution, e.g. DDT and Dieldrin, through introduction of exotic pest animals and plants e.g. rabbits and foxes and noxious weeds, through the removal of biomass from niches we do not occupy e.g. logging of forest, through building of dams and flooding of entire ecosystems and through climate change due to our CO2 emissions. The fact that the UN is talking about global food shortages and the need for another green revolution to cope with the global population blowing out to 9-10 billion is MORE than enough evidence to realise that the human race is running out of food. Did the passengers of the titanic require the evidence of sea water creeping up their legs to accept that their ship was sinking? No, so don't be so bloody well pedantic! The arguments you're posing here are sweeping generalizations and truisms - posing the politicization of science and abandonment of research which you personally see as counterproductive to your own moral agenda is also not compelling. I sure don't want another political/moralized agenda determining which fields of research are acceptable or not and vehemently oppose the ones that currently exist. If you are an over popoulation denier then understandably you do not want another group with the political power to derail your own short term interests. If so then TOUGH - time for you to move over and share the policy table with a group with a higher quality world view. If you are a scientist yourself then perhaps your species and your civilisation can no longer afford you indulging yourself in the luxury of not getting involved in politics! Oscillation of abundance is neither representative of ecological niche expansion, nor an example of infinite growth. This entire example is a non sequitur. Examples of niche expansion include geographic expansion, novel adaptation allowing the exploitation of a new resource and elimination of a competitor. Exponential decay represents another observable model of indefinite population growth. No. But others before you on other forums have mounted the argument that some particularly long lived species do represent examples of unrestrained growth, e.g. those bristle pines that represent thousands of years of growth. Since they are not thousands of metres tall or thousands of metres wide some environmental mechanism is consuming their tissue at a similar rate at which they are producing new tissue. Hence I now deliberately specify 'monotonic growth' as opposed to long lived boom bust cycles of growth. Edited August 14, 2011 by Greg Boyles
swansont Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 You know what pi$$es me off the most about this whole thing? Most scientists will privately acknowledge that population and economic growth must cease ASAP if the Earth is not enter the next and biggest mass extinction event in Earth's long geological history, including possibly of our own species at our own hands. And yet day in day out scientists continue to develop the technological tools that enable fwit politicians to 'spin' their fairytale of 'growth is good' to the naive masses. Why are scientists not taking a moral and political stand and REFUSING to develop any technologies that will faciliate further expansion of the human population, e.g. GM food crops that will slightly increase crop yields. Why are they at least not talking about this publicly and loudly? Are their careers and personal prestige more important than god damned biodiversity on this planet, more important than our current civilisation, more important than the survival of their own species. Politicians and businessmen with this attitiude I can understand, but scientists?????? Why is their not a global scientific union that dictates which technologies will be worked on and which wont and that generally wields a little political muscle that can rival the political muscle of big business? Imagine the message that would be sent to the world if all scientists took a wider moral stand and simply refused to carry out any further work on GM crops or any other technology that would facilitate the global population from blowing out to the expected 9-10 billion, unless the western governments simultaneously massively fund a global family planning program. This whole thing smacks of hypocrisy. You probably have, or have had, a job. That job, in some way, facilitates population expansion — you make something that people want to buy, or sell things that people do buy, or provide a service that people need/want. A scientist/engineer/technician who invents or develops a technology is doing his or her job. To refuse to do that work means quitting and finding new work. I say: you first. Quit your job and devote your time 100% to this cause of yours. A scientist working on GM foods is not responsible for population growth anywhere in the world. A researcher gets to work on the projects they are assigned, or if they are lucky they can choose something they find interesting. What right do you have to tell them what to do? You're just making them out to be scapegoats, which makes it easy to bash them, as you have done. If you are an over popoulation denier then understandably you do not want another group with the political power to derail your own short term interests. If so then TOUGH - time for you to move over and share the policy table with a group with a higher quality world view. If you are a scientist yourself then perhaps your species and your civilisation can no longer afford you indulging yourself in the luxury of not getting involved in politics! Who is being a population denier? See my previous comment on scapegoating. No. But others before you on other forums have mounted the argument that some particularly long lived species do represent examples of unrestrained growth, e.g. those bristle pines that represent thousands of years of growth. Since they are not thousands of metres tall or thousands of metres wide some environmental mechanism is consuming their tissue at a similar rate at which they are producing new tissue. Hence I now deliberately specify 'monotonic growth' as opposed to long lived boom bust cycles of growth. Straw man. A bristlecone pine does not need to be thousands of meters tall or wide in order to have been growing for a long time. 1
Greg Boyles Posted August 14, 2011 Author Posted August 14, 2011 This whole thing smacks of hypocrisy. You probably have, or have had, a job. That job, in some way, facilitates population expansion — you make something that people want to buy, or sell things that people do buy, or provide a service that people need/want. A scientist/engineer/technician who invents or develops a technology is doing his or her job. To refuse to do that work means quitting and finding new work. I say: you first. Quit your job and devote your time 100% to this cause of yours. A scientist working on GM foods is not responsible for population growth anywhere in the world. A researcher gets to work on the projects they are assigned, or if they are lucky they can choose something they find interesting. What right do you have to tell them what to do? You're just making them out to be scapegoats, which makes it easy to bash them, as you have done. The manufacturers of DDT were just doin their job providin products people wanted. So were the manufacturers of asbestos buildin products. Their products were later found to be toxic and carcinogenic They are now required to pay compensation for failure to consider the unforseen consequences of their business activities. Perhaps the scientists involved in developing them should also bare some responsibility. Similarly scientists involved in developing hiher yielding crops will give politicians another excuse to not act on over population that will have far reaching consequences for human kind. Perhaps they should bare some of the responsibility for those consequences. What has been previously said about those having the power also baring the responsibility...... Straw man. A bristlecone pine does not need to be thousands of meters tall or wide in order to have been growing for a long time. But they are not an example of monotonic growth are they swansont?????? There are no examples of monotonic growth on planet earth. There is always and internal bioloical or external ecoloical process that prevents it. Even a malignant tumour causes the death of the host and its growth is terminated. -1
Realitycheck Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 Bristlecone is a poor example, pretty inefficient, so fairly unknown and not so popular, it's only known for being the absolute oldest. But take a redwood or giant sequoia of similar age, and you get a lot of bang for your buck. After all, it didn't happen overnight.
Greg Boyles Posted August 14, 2011 Author Posted August 14, 2011 Bristlecone is a poor example, pretty inefficient, so fairly unknown and not so popular, it's only known for being the absolute oldest. But take a redwood or giant sequoia of similar age, and you get a lot of bang for your buck. After all, it didn't happen overnight. They still have a limited lifespan, even if a long one, and will eventually cease growing. Every species eventually loses the battle for life. One way or another life is always self limiting. As will the human race, either by our own hands or at the hands of mother nature. So why don't we stop the childish charade that we can put off doing anything about our numbers indefinitely.
Realitycheck Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 You really underestimate the power of human ingenuity, mankind's ability to be aware of the world around us, and it's ability to modulate its reaction to those changes. Being familiar with economics, you should know that the world behaves like a machine, inputs and outputs, it's all interconnected, the weather, the price of rice, the law of supply and demand. So what's the problem? Mankind isn't behaving efficiently enough for you? Prove that it's a problem and that mankind is ignoring it.
swansont Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 The manufacturers of DDT were just doin their job providin products people wanted. So were the manufacturers of asbestos buildin products. Their products were later found to be toxic and carcinogenic They are now required to pay compensation for failure to consider the unforseen consequences of their business activities. Perhaps the scientists involved in developing them should also bare some responsibility. Similarly scientists involved in developing hiher yielding crops will give politicians another excuse to not act on over population that will have far reaching consequences for human kind. Perhaps they should bare some of the responsibility for those consequences. What has been previously said about those having the power also baring the responsibility...... AFAIK yes, they were just doing their jobs. Were DDT and asbestos employed before/without proper testing was done on them? Was that decision within the power of the scientists that developed them? Was it the scientists' fault that government regulation was lax, and these products could be deployed in such a careless fashion? What about the chemist who discovered that when you mix bleach with ammonia that you get toxic fumes? Are they responsible for injury/death of people, even though bleach and ammonia have legitimate uses, and this knowledge is disseminated to protect people? Blaming scientists for political policies is petty and misguided, IMO. There's plenty of blame for the people who are actually responsible without manufacturing it. You risk alienating people who might actually be sympathetic to your position when you blame them for things beyond their control. But they are not an example of monotonic growth are they swansont?????? There are no examples of monotonic growth on planet earth. There is always and internal bioloical or external ecoloical process that prevents it. Even a malignant tumour causes the death of the host and its growth is terminated. Moving the goalposts again. I rebutted one of your claims, and now you shift the argument to declare that I did not rebut a different part. Yes, I agree: a bristlecone pine is not an example of infinite monotonic growth. Do you know what a pyrrhic victory is? Is being right worth destroying your credibility?
Essay Posted August 14, 2011 Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) Oh joy.......oh breath of fresh air........ Finally another rare moment when some who can see the big gaia picture, and how humans and our economies fit into it rather than the inverse, steps forth from the mob. If only there were more of us. But there probably are many of us, just few who are prepared to defy the mob and risk their popularity, social status or job. Have you heard of GPSO Essay? Global Population Speak Out: http://www.populationspeakout.org/ Perhaps you might consider making a pledge and raising this issue at any and every opportunity until enough people on this planet change their mind about the current direction we are collectively headed in. Gosh, thanks Greg. I continue to work locally on this stuff. ...hoping people will see the big picture; how ecology is connected with economy, and how our past is connected with our future. But aside from the semantics of "infinite" or steady-state.... === I heard (and operate assuming) we have enough resources to easily handle about 9 billion; but it's a matter of better management of those resources. So I focus more on improving resource use, rather than reducing a population that is already headed in the right direction to stabilize at around 9 billion. Lots of people are doing a good job on that front. Women's education, and all of the 8 Millennium Development Goals are helping on that front. This, Population Services International, looks like a good group: http://www.psi.org/ What I don't see is a better management of our resources. In fact we are scrambling to solve short-term problems by squandering even the remaining resource stability. ...or words to that effect. So.... Whether it is 2 or 9 billion people in another generation or so, it won't be a pretty picture if we don't learn to better manage the whole system--especially the free, natural ecosystem services. It has only recently become apparent that biosphere stability is linked to climate stability; and it is even less well known that soil is a major sector of, and an active player in, the biosphere. Management of soil has a history of affecting the course of civilizations, and I think any global level of civilization will similarly depend on propitious management of our soil resource. I also think propitious management of soil could (should?) be the basis for a sustainable economy. I read this recently, and it seems to sum up my perspective fairly well: "Mitigating climate change through food and land use" Author: Scherr, Sara J. Published: 2009 Format: Books Call Number: S589.7 .S337 2009 http://discovery.lib...cord/.b32717519 On discussing the large (15%-40%) government subsidies for intensive agricultural production, they mention: "Most of these payments exacerbate chemical use, the expansion of cropland to sensitive areas, and overexploitation of water and other resources, while distorting trade and reinforcing unsustainable agricultural practices." "The United Nations Environment Programme is initiating dialogues on "greening" the international response to the food crisis, linking goals of international environmental conventions with the Millennium Development Goals." "There is a major window of opportunity right now to put climate change mitigation (and adaptation) at the core of these [crisis response] strategies." "...comprehensive action is needed to ensure that ecologically sustainable, climate-friendly practices are the focus of increased agricultural investments." -p.32 "Many of the actions most needed in land use systems to adapt to climate change and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions will bring positive benefits for water quality, air pollution, smoke-related health risks, soil health, energy efficiency, and wildlife habitat. These tangible benefits can generate much broader political support for climate action than simply a fear of future problems." -p.35 I would rewrite that last paragraph to read: Many of the actions most needed for creating sustainable land-use systems will also significantly help us adapt to climate change and significantly mitigate greenhouse gas problems, as well as bringing positive benefits for water quality, air pollution, smoke-related health risks, soil health, the food web, global food production and nutrition, energy efficiency, wildlife habitat, and overall biodiversity. These tangible benefits can generate much broader political and socioeconomic support for climate action than simply a fear of future problems. ...but whichever, the point is.... === These are newly recognized "tangible benefits," right? So can I point out that as a "new tangible benefit," this is a "new commodity" with value, which may therefore help improve our economic outlook. Is this a logical consideration? ~ Edited August 14, 2011 by Essay
Greg Boyles Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 You really underestimate the power of human ingenuity, mankind's ability to be aware of the world around us, and it's ability to modulate its reaction to those changes. Being familiar with economics, you should know that the world behaves like a machine, inputs and outputs, it's all interconnected, the weather, the price of rice, the law of supply and demand. So what's the problem? Mankind isn't behaving efficiently enough for you? Prove that it's a problem and that mankind is ignoring it. Given the weight of human history against us and the sheer number of civilisations that have risen and fallen I doubt that western civilisation will be any different. But I hold out some hope that we will be the first civilisation where intellect and rationality wins out over the base instincts and emotive irrationality of the human mob. And it is no longer about human ingenuity, it is about humans humbly sticking to their place within evolutionary creation. Every problem we face is a result of previous rounds of human ingenuity that has allowed the human population to expand ever increasing the poker stakes. Sooner or later we will bust and there will be an unthinkable amount of human misery and suffering as a result. AFAIK yes, they were just doing their jobs. Were DDT and asbestos employed before/without proper testing was done on them? Was that decision within the power of the scientists that developed them? Was it the scientists' fault that government regulation was lax, and these products could be deployed in such a careless fashion? Well perhaps the scientific community needs to take responsibility in recognizing the greed and foolishness of the non-scientific community before they go releasing their research or even undertaking it! What about the chemist who discovered that when you mix bleach with ammonia that you get toxic fumes? Are they responsible for injury/death of people, even though bleach and ammonia have legitimate uses, and this knowledge is disseminated to protect people? I guess it comes down to the magnitude of the harm caused by their inventions. The above example is of local harmful effects if misused. DDT represents globalalised harm with any use. Blaming scientists for political policies is petty and misguided, IMO. There's plenty of blame for the people who are actually responsible without manufacturing it. You risk alienating people who might actually be sympathetic to your position when you blame them for things beyond their control. Yadda yadda yadda. Politicians blame scientists, scientists blame polticians,............. How about the scientific community, with its greater intellect, adopt more responsibility for the human race. They are in a position of power and power without responsibility is dangerous. Gosh, thanks Greg. I continue to work locally on this stuff. ...hoping people will see the big picture; how ecology is connected with economy, and how our past is connected with our future. But aside from the semantics of "infinite" or steady-state.... === I heard (and operate assuming) we have enough resources to easily handle about 9 billion; but it's a matter of better management of those resources. 9 billion is the UN's most optimistic prediction. Their predictions range up to 10-11 billion I think. We are already suffering signficant food shortages now Essay with 7 billion or so. I believe that most efforts should go towards fertility reduction and some to more efficient resource management. As I have said previously, there are physical limits to how efficient you can use resources. So focusing on that and assuming that the global population will stabilise at a managable level us rather foolish in my opinion. A bit like trading up on your house with the assumption you will soon be on a higher wage.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 How about the scientific community, with its greater intellect, adopt more responsibility for the human race. They are in a position of power and power without responsibility is dangerous. I don't think any scientist is in the position to predict the social and societal consequences of a given piece of research. Scientific revolutions -- and individual products -- generally come from many pieces of research building new knowledge over years, rather than a single scientist saying "I'm going to solve this problem and incidentally cause overpopulation in sub-Saharan Africa."
DJBruce Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Greg, you do realize that DDT was first synthesized in 1874, and that it would be roughly 60 years before its insecticide properties were discovered., which show a key idea about discovery in that all the use for a product or item are never totally foreseeable. I mean name any chemical or piece of technology, and I can probably think of a way that it could be used to cause harm. Also where would you stop with your suppression of dangerous knowledge? A knowledge of mathematics and physics has allowed for people create weapons that kill mass numbers of people so should have those kept those secret? I don't know about you, but I rather like the internet, computer, and all the other modern convienves that science has brought us, and I am really glad that people like Salk and Pastuer did not hide there discoveries for fear that someone might discover a dangerous use for them.
CharonY Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 I guess it comes down to the magnitude of the harm caused by their inventions. The above example is of local harmful effects if misused. DDT represents globalalised harm with any use. This is debatable. In high-malaria risk regions the dangers of DDT may be overshadowed by the death toll of malaria. Risk assessment is an incredibly complicated process and there is little funding for the understanding the risks of the stuff we dump into the environment. How about the scientific community, with its greater intellect, adopt more responsibility for the human race. They are in a position of power and power without responsibility is dangerous.. Who says that scientists have a higher intellect? We are highly trained in solving specific problems and to generate knowledge. Part of our job is to make the knowledge public, but the real power is somewhere else. Just look at the anti-vaccination debacle to see how well it goes. The best thing we can do is to train people in critical thinking, which includes the ability to carefully analyze available data, carefully investigate the validity of premises before any sweeping assumptions are made. There is rarely such a thing as simple questions and simple answers are usually even less forthcoming.
Essay Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 So focusing on that and assuming that the global population will stabilise at a managable level us rather foolish in my opinion. A bit like trading up on your house with the assumption you will soon be on a higher wage. Isn't that more like bsuiness as usual? I would think a better analogy would be remodelling a house now, based on the assumption income would be fixed (or decline) in the future. But whichever.... === 9 billion is the UN's most optimistic prediction. Their predictions range up to 10-11 billion I think.Well, that's because we are behind schedule on the 8MDG. We are already suffering signficant food shortages now Essay with 7 billion or so. I believe that most efforts should go towards fertility reduction and some to more efficient resource management. I'm not sure what you might mean by "fertility reduction," but.... Are you aware of how pursuing the 8MDG would be a good way to reduce population growth? ...of how empowering women always seems to moderate population growth, and that... "There is a strong interconnection of women's empowerment to all the eight MDG goals." -from a newspaper link w/ pop-ups, philstarDOTcom, July 2010. "Its UN Millennium Task Force on Education and Gender Equality has identified seven interdependent strategic priorities for achieving gender equality and women's empowerment: (i) Strengthen opportunities for post-primary education for girls (Goal 2); (ii) Guarantee sexual and reproductive health and rights for women and girls (Goals 3, 5 and 6); (iii) Invest in infrastructure to reduce the time spent by women and girls on unpaid household and care work (Goals 1 and 2); (iv) Guarantee property and inheritance rights for women and girls (Goals 1, 2 and 7); (v) Eliminate gender inequality in employment by reducing women's dependence on informal employment (Goal 3); (vi) Increase women's share of seats in national parliaments and local government bodies (Goal 3); and (vii) Eliminate violence against girls and women (Goal 3). Well, that is a fairly lame citation, but there is lots of info at:http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml The eight MDGs break down into 21 quantifiable targets that are measured by 60 indicators. Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Goal 5: Improve maternal health Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development === But I still think that regardless of the population, 2 or 12 billion, we need to manage our resources better if we want to enjoy the future. ~
Athena Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) Personally, I think unless we are working with the information that is in the following links, the argument is like arguing if there is enough money to buy a new boat without checking the budget and bank account, and failing to consider there might be unexpected expenses coming, so a reserve is necessary. These links provide updated facts about our food supply. http://www.deccanher...-hit-world.html http://newsfeed.time...f-food-by-2050/ http://www.scienceda...00201101901.htm http://www.baysoundi...phosphate1.html We need to reduce population growth and to better manage our resources, and even then, that might not be enough, because the very meaning of finite means limited. Not only is the planet finite, but so are our brains. Crowding people together in small spaces has a negative effect on human relationships. We become strangers in a crowd and this has moral repercussions. Edited August 15, 2011 by Athena
Greg Boyles Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) The eight MDGs break down into 21 quantifiable targets that are measured by 60 indicators. Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Goal 5: Improve maternal health Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development Great idea in theory - I have no doubt it would work. But my problem with this strategy alone is as follows..... Norman Borlaug warned the world, at the height of his green revolution in the 50s and 60s, that he had bought us perhaps a few decades to tame the third world population dragon, as he put it. Since that time the worlds politicians have pretty much sat around with their thumbs up their ar$holes too afraid that they will upset some people by suggesting they should have fewer children. We may have to face the prospect that there are just to many people in poverty now to make the above a logistically practical response that will acheive a large enough reduction in fertility in a short enough time. Edited August 15, 2011 by Greg Boyles
swansont Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Well perhaps the scientific community needs to take responsibility in recognizing the greed and foolishness of the non-scientific community before they go releasing their research or even undertaking it! I guess it comes down to the magnitude of the harm caused by their inventions. The above example is of local harmful effects if misused. DDT represents globalalised harm with any use. Yadda yadda yadda. Politicians blame scientists, scientists blame polticians,............. How about the scientific community, with its greater intellect, adopt more responsibility for the human race. They are in a position of power and power without responsibility is dangerous. You seem to be quite content to use the technology that has arisen from scientific endeavor. That's either more hypocrisy or a fundamental misunderstanding of the world of research. Norman Borlaug warned the world, at the height of his green revolution in the 50s and 60s, that he had bought us perhaps a few decades to tame the third world population dragon, as he put it. Given your position, you must hold Borlaug responsible for that population increase.
Greg Boyles Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 Given your position, you must hold Borlaug responsible for that population increase. Not at all. As I said he was well aware of the third world population dragon and unambiguously warned the world that his green revolution was not a total solution, in his nobel prize acceptance speech I believe. The failure has been more subsequent genertions of politicians and scientists who did not and are not taking his warning seriously. Perhaps Norman was being naive in believing that they would have the courage to do something about third world fertility.
DJBruce Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Since that time the worlds politicians have pretty much sat around with their thumbs up their ar$holes too afraid that they will upset some people by suggesting they should have fewer children. If you truly believe this are you going to make sure that you never have kids? I mean it would be somewhat hypocritical of you to tell people they shouldn't have kids, and then have kids yourself. On a different note, what does any of these really have to do with your original question: Bacteria cannot multiply infinitely in petri dish or test tube - sooner or later the resources are exhausted and the population crashes.Bacteria in a test tube is a biological system in a finite space Humans on planet earth is a biological system in a finite space. Therefore human population and economic growth cannot grow indefinitely - sooner or later the resources will be exhausted and our population will crash. Is there anyone in here that rejects this as a logical fallacy????? It seems to me that like some of your other threads the question you posed has been answered by numerous people, however, since their answers are not what you want to hear you have managed to somehow shift the debate away from your original question to something else. 1
Greg Boyles Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 If you truly believe this are you going to make sure that you never have kids? I mean it would be somewhat hypocritical of you to tell people they shouldn't have kids, and then have kids yourself. On a different note, what does any of these really have to do with your original question: It seems to me that like some of your other threads the question you posed has been answered by numerous people, however, since their answers are not what you want to hear you have managed to somehow shift the debate away from your original question to something else. Blah blah blah..... You wouldn't be the first to come up with that. I did not say that the third world should have no children, I said they should have less children or enabled to do so if they cannot. I have 2 children myself, and if everyone on Earth was encouraged or enabled to stop at two we would not be having this discussion! I find many of the answers provided are not good enough in the words of swansont. In other words fertility control is all to hard so we will just keep our fingers crossed and hope that global fertility declines enough before we run out of food and water.
DJBruce Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) I find many of the answers provided are not good enough in the words of swansont. Would anything short of agree with you statement be good enough for you? If you would accept a different answer what is the criteria that the answer would need to fulfill so that you accept it because certainly logical arguments, well supported arguments, and the opinions of people who are very well versed in biology have been submitted in response to your original question of wether your logic was fallacious. In other words fertility control is all to hard so we will just keep our fingers crossed and hope that global fertility declines enough before we run out of food and water. I certainly am not hoping or thinking any of that. Edited August 15, 2011 by DJBruce
Greg Boyles Posted August 15, 2011 Author Posted August 15, 2011 Would anything short of agree with you statement be good enough for you? If you would accept a different answer what is the criteria that the answer would need to fulfill so that you accept it because certainly logical arguments, well supported arguments, and the opinions of people who are very well versed in biology have been submitted in response to your original question of wether your logic was fallacious. I certainly am not hoping or thinking any of that. We have failed to eliminate poverty and educate girls by a mile with a population of 7 billion. The global population is expected to peak at 9-11 billion by 2050. We are facing global warming and peak oil. What evidence can anyone provide that we will be able to do better job with elimination of poverty and education of girls under those conditions? What evidence can you provide that we will even be able to feed that many people? Are you of the opinion that mass starvation is a better than, if necessary, compelling people to stop at 2 children?
Athena Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) The only comment I have received is the my first post in this thread is old and not up to scientific standards. I have since posted updated links that have not gotten attention. The economist Malthus explained populations increase exponentially, while the increase in the food supply is arithmetically. The end result is the population is greater than the ability to supply food. Monday 15 August 2011 Food shortage may hit world by 2050 As the world population grows grain production must increase two fold by 2050 to address its escalating needs. But crop yields will suffer unless new approaches to adapt crop plants to climate change are adopted, new data from the University of Illinois suggests. Improved agronomic traits responsible for the remarkable increases in yield have reached their ceiling for some of the world's most important crops. This is just talking the 2050 population, which becomes exponentially larger, and even if we met the 2050 need for food, without increased birth control, we will not continue meeting the need for food. PS my former husband and I determine to have only two children, one to replace him and one to replace me. We thought that was fair. With the information I posted in the links, I would advise against having any children, because our future does not look good at this time. The above quote is from my first link. Edited August 15, 2011 by Athena
DJBruce Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 (edited) I am unsure of what these question have to do with your original question. You basically asked if the following logic was fallacious: If there is a finite biological system Then bacteria cannot grow indefinitely. There is a finite biological system for humans therefore humans cannot grow indefinitely. or for a more simplistic form [latex]F \Rightarrow C[/latex] F therefore H Which is fallacious, so what do all your questions have to do with that is beyond me. However, to please you: What evidence can anyone provide that we will be able to do better job with elimination of poverty and education of girls under those conditions? I cannot predict the future into what will be possible, however, I will point out that since 1970 the world population has just under doubled, and since then the percent of people who are in poverty has decreased. So saying that an increase population will cause a increase in world poverty, and so I would think that it is up to you the one who posited that this would happen to provide evidence that in the future it will. http://www.columbia....ibution_QJE.pdf ]The first finding is that global poverty rates (defined as the fraction of the WDI below a certain poverty line) declined significantly over the last three decades. The CDF for 1990 stochastically dominates that of 1970. This means that poverty rates declined for all conceivable poverty lines.[/font] What evidence can you provide that we will even be able to feed that many people? Not that a 1999 paper by Eswaran, etc all found that it is possible for the world to support 19.82 billion people, and furthermore they found that: http://soils.usda.go...port-paper.html From a global land-productivity point of view the spectre of Malthusian scenarios seems unwarranted. The conclusion of this study is that famine and starvation of people of some countries are not the result of the innate inability of global land resources to produce the necessary food but because of an absence of political will in most countries. In most cases, poverty, starvation, and famine are generally due to inadequate natural resource endowments and the lack of capital to mitigate these constraints. Are you of the opinion that mass starvation is a better than, if necessary, compelling people to stop at 2 children? I think it would be better to use our massive scientific resources to continue to discover ways to help end poverty and starvation, and believe that if properly managed the Earth can provide more than enough food for the 9 billion people estimate. Edited August 15, 2011 by DJBruce
CharonY Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 Since that time the worlds politicians have pretty much sat around with their thumbs up their ar$holes too afraid that they will upset some people by suggesting they should have fewer children. How do you reconcile these statements with the 1-child policy in China? Or the the steady reduction of world population growth? Or with projects that aim at the emancipation of women and distribution of contraceptives (though there are religious counter movements, but I am not sure how much they amount to).
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now