Logical argument to consider

[Greg Boyles]

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:

 

It is not fallacious DJBRuce. It is a valid conclusion arrived at via inductive reasoning given that bacteria and humans share a common ancestor and are subject to the same biological and ecological rules.

 

End of subject!

 

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

 

I doubt that I would have much trouble at all finding figures that contradict yours, i.e. that poverty has increased as the global population has increased beyond the capacity of the green revolution to provide additional food.

 

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:

 

 

At what ecological cost. There are plenty of scientists, particularly ecologists and biologists, who would dispute such a conclusion.

 

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).

 

China is the only exception. I am referring to western governments in particular that think the only solution to third world poverty is more food and medicine. Fertility coontrol should be a integrated and compulsory component of any foreign aid provided by the west.

 

Emancipation of women and distribution of contraceptives amounts to little to late. The global population is widely expected to outstrip food production hence the UN is getting desperate and calling for a new green revolution. However in my opinion it will not prevent mass starvation, food wars and global migration.

 

Perhaps we should follow China's lead and impose a global one child policy for a number of decades.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[DJBruce]

It is not fallacious DJBRuce. It is a valid conclusion arrived at via inductive reasoning given that bacteria and humans share a common ancestor and are subject to the same biological and ecological rules.

 

This subject of debate, and you have yet to show that it is correct. In fact numerous people have showed that it is not, and a biology expert pointed out that your comparison of humans to bacteria is not as a good of a model as one that shows your point to be false, and stated that bacteria cultures, "have a very specialized set of problems"

 

 

End of subject!

 

Why? You asked the question to evaluate the logic of your argument, and that is what I am doing. If you didn't want to listen to others telling you your logic was flawed, why did you even ask the question in the first place?

 

I doubt that I would have much trouble at all finding figures that contradict yours, i.e. that poverty has increased as the global population has increased beyond the capacity of the green revolution to provide additional food.

 

Then why don't you? I have provided a study that showed global poverty has decreased that was published by a very well regarded academic who holds a position at an excellent institute. So until you provide me data and show me why this article is wrong, I will believe the paper.

 

When I cite the author's crediential I refer in part to:

http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/1000%20top%20Citations.pdf

http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/Indexmuppet.htm

 

At what ecological cost. There are plenty of scientists, particularly ecologists and biologists, who would dispute such a conclusion.

 

Who? What papers? What data do the use to dispute this paper? Why don't you provide these things, and instead speak in unsupported generalizations?

 

 

Edited August 15, 2011 by DJBruce

[Greg Boyles]

This subject of debate, and you have yet to show that it is correct. In fact numerous people have showed that it is not, and a biology expert pointed out that your comparison of humans to bacteria is not as a good of a model as one that shows your point to be false, and stated that bacteria cultures, "have a very specialized set of problems"

 

 

That biologist pointed out that my conclusion cannot be drawn based on DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

 

I pointed out that it CAN be drawn via INDUCTIVE reasoning!

 

 

Why? You asked the question to evaluate the logic of your argument, and that is what I am doing. If you didn't want to listen to others telling you your logic was flawed, why did you even ask the question in the first place?

 

 

No I do not want to llisten to people like you as you make all the same pedantic, illigitimate and deceptive arguments as those who deny anthropogenic climate change.

 

Over population will be the next major political battle front as is climate change at present.

 

 

 

 

Dr Albert Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Colarado.

 

A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH

If any fraction of the observed global warming

can be attributed to the activities of humans,

then this constitutes positive proof

that the human population, living as we do,

has exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth.

THIS SITUATION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE!

 

AS A CONSEQUENCE,

IT IS AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

THAT ALL PROPOSALS OR EFFORTS TO SLOW GLOBAL WARMING

OR TO MOVE TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY

ARE SERIOUS INTELLECTUAL FRAUDS

IF THEY DO NOT ADVOCATE

REDUCING POPULATIONS TO SUSTAINABLE LEVELS

AT THE LOCAL, NATIONAL AND GLOBAL SCALES.

 

 

I've heard some say the world population crisis is over and that it's not a problem anymore. Is this true?

 

No, absolutely not. First of all, 6.8 billion people may well be too many already. Cornell University professor David Pimentel's research shows that about 2 billion people is the number the planet can sustainably support, if everyone consumes the same amount of resources as the average European (which is less than the average American). Secondly, U.N. experts predict that world population will increase for at least the next 50 years, with a "most likely" prediction of 9 billion people by the year 2050. There probably will be additional growth beyond that.

 

There's no doubt that the worldwide average number of children per woman has come down over the last 50 years -- from more than 5 to less than 3 -- but: (1) the current average is still well above replacement level, which would be 2.1 children per woman, and (2) the number of women having children is about TWICE what it was in 1960. There is also huge "demographic momentum," since half the world's population is age 24 or younger -- either having children now, or poised to have them in the next 10 to 15 years -- so that any changes we make today may not have a visible effect until a generation has passed!

 

Finally, people are living longer all over the world and will continue to do so, with a resultant slowdown in death rates. Thus, there's a big imbalance in the birth to death ratio: currently about 5 births for every 2 deaths worldwide.

 

 

The United States and other countries with low birth rates let in millions of immigrants each year. Doesn't this act as a "safety valve" to relieve the population pressure of the faster-growing countries?

 

Not really. Think of it this way. Each year the U.S. currently allows about a million people to immigrate legally (And another 500,000 to a million come in illegally.) But each year most countries of the developing world add almost 70 million more people to their numbers, net gain! The one to two million coming into the U.S. hardly make a dent to relieve the crushing problems created by the almost 70 million more people into these resource stressed countries -- each year!

 

If we continue letting in as many immigrants for the next 50 years as we have for the past 25, we will absorb only about 4 percent of the population growth from the less-developed countries! Although migration can greatly improve the lives of the immigrants themselves, it is not an effective way to relieve the population growth of the countries they come from.

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That biologist pointed out that my conclusion cannot be drawn based on DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

 

I pointed out that it CAN be drawn via INDUCTIVE reasoning!

No, you didn't. You said:

 

Then perhaps I should re-arrange it into an inductive form of reasoning!

 

That's hardly an argument. You've since provided a number of "in my opinion" and "I doubt that I would have much trouble at all finding figures that contradict yours" statements without any actual figures, evidence, or reasoning.

 

China is the only exception. I am referring to western governments in particular that think the only solution to third world poverty is more food and medicine. Fertility coontrol should be a integrated and compulsory component of any foreign aid provided by the west.

 

Emancipation of women and distribution of contraceptives amounts to little to late. The global population is widely expected to outstrip food production hence the UN is getting desperate and calling for a new green revolution. However in my opinion it will not prevent mass starvation, food wars and global migration.

 

Hm.

 

Ahmad [(4) P: 14], after reviewing several studies in this field, finds that socioeconomic variables such as the literacy rate (especially that of women), per capita income, the portion of the labour force engaged in non-agricultural occupations, rates of infant mortality, life expectancy, age at first marriage, and the rate of women's participation in the labour force to be strongly associated with declines in fertility.

 

Interestingly, decreasing child mortality can decrease fertility rates. One can see that improving the economy of third-world countries, sending medical aid, and providing educational services can have strong a impact on fertility and population growth.

 

http://www.eubios.info/EJ124/ej124i.htm

[DJBruce]

That biologist pointed out that my conclusion cannot be drawn based on DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

 

I pointed out that it CAN be drawn via INDUCTIVE reasoning!

 

I understand you want to us inductive reasoning, however, I still contend that your argument is not logically correct. As Capn' stated you even noted that your original statement was did not use inductive reasoning, and even if you want to say it did then it did so improperly since in an inductive argument you must note that the outcome you are stating will only probably happen, and you failed to do this instead stating, "Therefore human population and economic growth cannot grow indefinitely."

 

 

No I do not want to llisten to people like you as you make all the same pedantic, illigitimate and deceptive arguments as those who deny anthropogenic climate change.

 

Please where have I been pedantic, illegitimate, or deceptive in my arguments? I feel that I have been fairly forthcoming with everything I have said. I have based my arguments on legitimate well respected sources, and have shared those sources with you so that you can review them and bring any complaints about the source. Furthermore, I have even admitted when my arguments do not full prove what I wished to prove.

 

It seems to me that this is Ad Hom, and not much else, however, please do elaborate on this so that I can try and correct my position and arguments.

 

Could you please provide me with links directly to the sources you are drawing from so that I can review the articles in full?

 

 

[jeskill]

Emancipation of women and distribution of contraceptives amounts to little to late. The global population is widely expected to outstrip food production hence the UN is getting desperate and calling for a new green revolution. However in my opinion it will not prevent mass starvation, food wars and global migration.

 

Famine is not caused by a lack of global food production. See here: and here and here

 

So, you are correct, increasing production will not prevent starvation, which is undoubtedly already occurring in many areas of the world.

As stated before in the population post, there are many organizations working to improve local food security by improving the capacity of small communities to grow their own food. These organizations are pretty successful, although they'd be more successful if the concept of food sovereignty was widely accepted.

 

It should be pointed out that the new "green revolution" the UN was calling for is a “green revolution for Africa built on technology and innovation aimed at the needs and capabilities of millions of smallholder farmers and at coping with the continent’s varying climate conditions."

 

i.e. they're advocating something completely different (small farms, low-tech) that the original concept of green revolution (large farms, high-tech, high input). While I disagree with many of the UN's suggestions, I agree with the overall concept. Improving the capacity of small farmers does improve food security and reduce the likelihood of famines.

[Greg Boyles]

No, you didn't. You said:

 

 

 

That's hardly an argument. You've since provided a number of "in my opinion" and "I doubt that I would have much trouble at all finding figures that contradict yours" statements without any actual figures, evidence, or reasoning.

 

 

Either you do not understand what inductive reasonong is or you are biolgically illiterate or both!

 

As I said, name a single species that exhibits genuine monotonic growth. If you can then you can leitimately claim that my inductive reasoning is invalid.

 

 

 

Interestingly, decreasing child mortality can decrease fertility rates. One can see that improving the economy of third-world countries, sending medical aid, and providing educational services can have strong a impact on fertility and population growth.

 

http://www.eubios.in...J124/ej124i.htm

 

 

There are as many or more examples of worsening poverty as their are improvements.

 

It is a pointless exercise in di#$ measuring via statistics.

 

Famine is not caused by a lack of global food production. See here: and here and here

 

So, you are correct, increasing production will not prevent starvation, which is undoubtedly already occurring in many areas of the world.

As stated before in the population post, there are many organizations working to improve local food security by improving the capacity of small communities to grow their own food. These organizations are pretty successful, although they'd be more successful if the concept of food sovereignty was widely accepted.

 

It should be pointed out that the new "green revolution" the UN was calling for is a "green revolution for Africa built on technology and innovation aimed at the needs and capabilities of millions of smallholder farmers and at coping with the continent's varying climate conditions."

 

i.e. they're advocating something completely different (small farms, low-tech) that the original concept of green revolution (large farms, high-tech, high input). While I disagree with many of the UN's suggestions, I agree with the overall concept. Improving the capacity of small farmers does improve food security and reduce the likelihood of famines.

 

 

 

You don't set your own personal daily consumption based on a small windfall from tattslotto or what ever last week.

 

Similarly you don't measure sustainability of food production by how many you can feed in the best of conditions and with the best of technology.

 

A sustainable population level is that which can be comfortably in the worst of times, e.g. drought, with the simplest of technology.

 

 

 

The average farmer understands the definition of sustainable when it comes to stocking his paddocks

 

One day the penny will drop for you people and you to will finally understand the true definition of the word 'sustainable'.

 

The Somalia famine IS cause by lack of local food production due to drought.

 

Summary: The paper presents a major overhaul to the World Bank's past estimates of global poverty, incorporating new and better data. Extreme poverty-as judged by what "poverty" means in the world's poorest countries-is found to be more pervasive than we thought. Yet the data also provide robust evidence of continually declining poverty incidence and depth since the early 1980s. For 2005 we estimate that 1.4 billion people, or one quarter of the population of the developing world, lived below our international line of $1.25 a day in 2005 prices; 25 years earlier there were 1.9 billion poor, or one half of the population. Progress was uneven across regions. The poverty rate in East Asia fell from almost 80 percent to under 20 percent over this period. By contrast it stayed at around 50 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa, though with signs of progress since the mid 1990s. Because of lags in survey data availability, these estimates do not yet reflect the sharp rise in food prices since 2005.

For every statistic you can quote showing that global poverty has improved I could quote another showing that it has deteriorated.

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/05/commodities-food-drink-industry

 

 

According to the UN, lack of adequate food is a cause of political instability and famines.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[jeskill]

You don't set your own personal daily consumption based on a small windfall from tattslotto or what ever last week.

 

Similarly you don't measure sustainability of food production by how many you can feed in the best of conditions and with the best of technology.

 

A sustainable population level is that which can be comfortably in the worst of times, e.g. drought, with the simplest of technology.

 

The average farmer understands the definition of sustainable when it comes to stocking his paddocks

 

One day the penny will drop for you people and you to will finally understand the true definition of the word 'sustainable'.

 

The Somalia famine IS cause by lack of local food production due to drought.

 

Evidence please?

 

I have provided links and supporting evidence for pretty much all my arguments. You, on the other hand, have not, suggesting that you are little more than a gust of hot air. Nor have you, I suspect, bothered to read anything from any of the links multiple people have provided. It seems to me that you're too focused on proving you're the smartest person here (Mr. "I have a BSc.") than actually having an intelligent discussion about the topics at hand.

 

This is starting to look a lot like trolling to me.

[Greg Boyles]

Evidence please?

 

I have provided links and supporting evidence for pretty much all my arguments. You, on the other hand, have not, suggesting that you are little more than a gust of hot air. Nor have you, I suspect, bothered to read anything from any of the links multiple people have provided. It seems to me that you're too focused on proving you're the smartest person here (Mr. "I have a BSc.") than actually having an intelligent discussion about the topics at hand.

 

This is starting to look a lot like trolling to me.

 

 

What would you like evidence for?

 

 

That drought reduces local food production? Or that Somalia is suffering a severe drought?

 

As previously stated, those who deny that the excessive number of humans is a major cause of poverty, and should be what we focus our efforts on, are as pedantic as those who do not want to acknowledge that humans are having some effect on the global climate.

 

Unqualified, and often uneducated, self appointed 'experts' were a major cause of the muddying of the climate change debate, particularly in Australia.

 

 

I have liitle doubt that similar unqualified, as in lacking the education to understand the biological and ecological basics and often with underlying religious agendas, will continue to muddy the over population debate.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[jeskill]

Provide evidence that Somalia's famine is CAUSED by drought. I have provided evidence that famine is NOT primarily caused by environmental factors. You obviously get a kick out of "qualified scholars", so you might want to check out Amartya Sen's Nobel-prize winning research on the causes of famine. Of course, I know you won't, because you've already shown you're too busy trying to prove you're smart to actually read.

 

BTW: If famine caused drought, then how come there was no major famine in Texas this summer?

(Hint: the answer lies in the distribution, not production, of food.)

 

I have liitle doubt that similar unqualified, as in lacking the education to understand the biological and ecological basics and often with underlying religious agendas, will continue to muddy the over population debate.

 

Well, I've provided numerous links to essays by tenured professors and known scholars who disagree with your premise. Why don't you actually check out those links to prove your point that they lack education and have underlying religious agendas?

[Greg Boyles]

Provide evidence that Somalia's famine is CAUSED by drought. I have provided evidence that famine is NOT primarily caused by environmental factors. You obviously get a kick out of "qualified scholars", so you might want to check out Amartya Sen's Nobel-prize winning research on the causes of famine. Of course, I know you won't, because you've already shown you're too busy trying to prove you're smart to actually read.

 

BTW: If famine caused drought, then how come there was no major famine in Texas this summer?

(Hint: the answer lies in the distribution, not production, of food.)

 

 

 

Well, I've provided numerous links to essays by tenured professors and known scholars who disagree with your premise. Why don't you actually check out those links to prove your point that they lack education and have underlying religious agendas?

 

If you won't acknowledge that famines at least CAN be caused by drought and the resulting reduction in food production, without specific evidence other than the basics of ecology, then I see little point in debating further with you.

 

Because in that case it is clear to me that you most likely have an underlying religious agenda here. And there is little point in debating biology and ecology with the faithful!

 

Would you care to lay your cards on the table Jeskill?

 

Are you a practicising christian and/or involved with a christian aid organisation?

 

There is no reasoning through biology and ecology with the "miracle of the five loaves and two fish" in the Gospel of John.

[DJBruce]

Either you do not understand what inductive reasonong is or you are biolgically illiterate or both!

 

I am sure Cap'n is both very well versed in biology and completely understands inductive reasoning. Furthermore, it is evident as I pointed out earlier if you wish to claim you that your original argument was inductive, something that would contradict your previous statements then it still stands that the claims you make in your original post are not a proper use of deductive reasoning.

 

It is a pointless exercise in di#$ measuring via statistics.

 

Welcome to the world of science. Most complicated issues are just that complicated, and that means that there are numerous reports, studies, and statistics that are often at odds with each other. The point of scientific debate, and in many ways the point of SFN is to debate the validity of such things, and analyze them in order to try and come to a conclusion about whats often going on. However, in order for this debate to exist both sides of the argument most not support their opinions by fact, but instead base there opinion on facts and then provide all the appropriate material so that the other side can review and brings its critiques to the debate. It is clear to me that in this debate one side has done this while the other has pointed out that its pointless.

 

 

Because in that case it is clear to me that you most likely have an underlying religious agenda here. And there is little point in debating biology and ecology with the faithful!

 

Would you care to lay your cards on the table Jeskill?

 

Are you a practicising christian and/or involved with a christian aid organisation?

 

 

 

Greg, this is a blatant Ad Hom. Regardless of your stance on religion or your religious denomination you can still debate in a respectful and scientific manner. Me being Presbyterian has never at any point during this debate or other scientific debates shaped my views or opinions I let the facts do that.

Edited August 16, 2011 by DJBruce

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Either you do not understand what inductive reasonong is or you are biolgically illiterate or both!

Either you do not understand what "be civil" means or you wish to have your access to the Politics forum revoked.

 

As I said, name a single species that exhibits genuine monotonic growth. If you can then you can leitimately claim that my inductive reasoning is invalid.

No. Your inductive reasoning is only valid if you can sufficiently exclude the other possibility: that monotonically growing species exist, but you have not detected them for whatever reason.

 

There are as many or more examples of worsening poverty as their are improvements.

 

It is a pointless exercise in di#$ measuring via statistics.

Prove it. Why should I take your word for it when I have the word of scholars and experts in the field?

 

If you won't acknowledge that famines at least CAN be caused by drought and the resulting reduction in food production, without specific evidence other than the basics of ecology, then I see little point in debating further with you.

 

Because in that case it is clear to me that you most likely have an underlying religious agenda here. And there is little point in debating biology and ecology with the faithful!

 

Would you care to lay your cards on the table Jeskill?

 

Are you a practicising christian and/or involved with a christian aid organisation?

 

There is no reasoning through biology and ecology with the "miracle of the five loaves and two fish" in the Gospel of John.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

Rule 1.c

[Greg Boyles]

Welcome to the world of science. Most complicated issues are just that complicated, and that means that there are numerous reports, studies, and statistics that are often at odds with each other. The point of scientific debate, and in many ways the point of SFN is to debate the validity of such things, and analyze them in order to try and come to a conclusion about whats often going on. However, in order for this debate to exist both sides of the argument most not support their opinions by fact, but instead base there opinion on facts and then provide all the appropriate material so that the other side can review and brings its critiques to the debate. It is clear to me that in this debate one side has done this while the other has pointed out that its pointless.

 

I really don't think that whether or not drought causes famine is the subject of debate in the genuine scientific community!

 

 

 

 

Greg, this is a blatant Ad Hom. Regardless of your stance on religion or your religious denomination you can still debate in a respectful and scientific manner. Me being Presbyterian has never at any point during this debate or other scientific debates shaped my views or opinions I let the facts do that.

 

 

Like I said, debating science as it applies to human over population with some one with a religious agenda is an exercise in futility. If I new this about anyone then I simply would not bother engaging with them.

 

I in my opinion everyone whould lay their cards on the table so we can all see exactly where each is coming from. After all that is precisely what happens in all non internet forum public debates. No one participates without their credentials and their vocation being stated up front by the chair.

 

 

So what has anyone in here got to hide?

 

Prove it. Why should I take your word for it when I have the word of scholars and experts in the field?

 

http://www.stwr.org/globalization/world-bank-poverty-figures-what-do-they-mean.html

 

The poverty picture is not as rosie as you prefer to paint it.

 

An economic catastrophe occurred on August 26th 2008 that was quickly forgotten across the media: an extra 430 million people were classified overnight as absolutely poor. The cause was no tsunami or natural disaster, but simply the revisions of World Bank statisticians who adjusted the international poverty line from $1.08 to $1.25 a day.

 

Contradicting the Bank's celebrated decline in extreme poverty figures last year to less than a billion for the first time, the new measurements revealed a far less optimistic outlook - a total of 1.4 billion poor people in 2005,[1] revised from 986 million in 2004.[2] A margin of error, in other words, of 42 percent, defining a quarter of the developing world as living without sufficient means for human survival.

 

 

 

Poverty doubles in AfricaIn Africa, the number of poor people nearly doubled over the period of globalisation, from 200 million in 1981 to 380 million in 2005, with still half the population of sub-Saharan Africa living below the poverty line. In India, the country with the largest number of extremely poor however defined, more than 4 out of 10 Indians - or 41.6 percent of the entire population - survive on less than $1.25 a day.[7] When compared to the previous estimate of 24 percent of the population, it meant that 200 million people living in absolute poverty effectively fell through the cracks of the World Bank's headcount. Revisions to China's figures were similarly dramatic, up to 207 million from a previous 130 million people in extreme poverty.

 

The example of China, which accounts for nearly all the world's reduction in extreme poverty in absolute terms, remains a subject of controversy with the new figures. It is undoubted that China's ‘economic miracle' of giant growth rates resulted in a remarkable pace of poverty reduction, but a certain perspective is required. For a start, both India and China declined to participate in most of the earlier price surveys on a sample of goods and services (used to measure how much the equivalent of a dollar can buy in different countries). China refused to participate in any of these surveys until 2005, leading to a large element of guesswork in past figures for such an all-important economy, and hence a muddying of the global picture. Even if the figures had been accurately approximated, it is doubtful that the Bank could take any credit for having influenced Chinese policy reforms. As former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz acknowledged during the poverty measurement debates of 2003, China's growth and inequality reduction has brought the whole world up - but China has not followed neoliberal policies as prescribed by the World Bank.[8]

 

When China is therefore removed from the equation to attain a more accurate picture, the most damning conclusion from the new figures becomes clear: the number of poor in the developing world has remained almost the same, at about 1.2 billion, over the period of globalisation between 1981 and 2005.[9] This fact alone places the Bank's hailing of a dramatic reduction in poverty over 25 years , from 53 percent in 1981 to 26 percent in 2005, into a different light. Progress in poverty reduction outside of China, when accounting for the overall number of poor, has in fact been negligible. At the very least, this calls into question the Bank's optimism in declaring that "there has been strong - if regionally uneven - progress toward reducing overall poverty."[10] At most, it underlines the fact that globalisation has been largely ineffective at either reducing the burgeoning ranks of the world's poorest of the poor, or including this vast swathe of the global population into the mainstream economy.

 

 

 

[jeskill]

Like I said, debating science as it applies to human over population with some one with a religious agenda is an exercise in futility. If I new this about anyone then I simply would not bother engaging with them.

 

I in my opinion everyone whould lay their cards on the table so we can all see exactly where each is coming from. After all that is precisely what happens in all non internet forum public debates. No one participates without their credentials and their vocation being stated up front by the chair.

 

 

So what has anyone in here got to hide?

 

Knowledge of everyone's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, really won't affect the fact that you haven't provided any evidence, nor have you really provided any convincing counter arguments. In fact, one might say that the reason you are now resorting to offensive logical fallacies in order to continue this discussion is because you know you can't back your "opinion" with evidence.

[Greg Boyles]

Knowledge of everyone's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, really won't affect the fact that you haven't provided any evidence, nor have you really provided any convincing counter arguments. In fact, one might say that the reason you are now resorting to offensive logical fallacies in order to continue this discussion is because you know you can't back your "opinion" with evidence.

 

Just provided some evidence but you have chosen to ignore it, just as I chose to ignore yours.

 

It is just a case of competing statistics ad norseum.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[DJBruce]

I really don't think that whether or not drought causes famine is the subject of debate in the genuine scientific community!

 

It most certainly can be. It has been pointed out in numerous sources that the main cause of famine is not the quantity of food, but rather the distribution of said food. However, you have also proved evidence that shows that drought can cause famine. Therefore, we have scientific facts at odd, and must therefore have a scientific debate on how to rectify these to arguments.

 

I in my opinion everyone whould lay their cards on the table so we can all see exactly where each is coming from. After all that is precisely what happens in all non internet forum public debates. No one participates without their credentials and their vocation being stated up front by the chair.

 

On SFN, and more generally in the world of science the main credentials one has is their ability to effectively argue an mater in a scientific way. So in that sense all the credentials are that one needs are found in their posts. For example, Cap'n, iNow, Swanston, and numerous other members who have participated in this thread have argued rational points in a logical fashion with evidence supporting their claims, and so that is all the credentials they need to have their arguments take seriously. Yes, there people have biases, and in fact everyone has their biases, but this does not change the fact that if someone logically makes a point supported by evidence that they should be ignored. I could continue talking about how this is feeling a lot like an appeal to authority, and why I disagree with what you said, but you have already opened a thread about this where I believe much of what I have said was also said by many others. See here for that debate.

 

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.stwr.org/globalization/world-bank-poverty-figures-what-do-they-mean.html

 

The poverty picture is not as rosie as you prefer to paint it.

That has nothing to do with the statistics I posted, nor does it contradict them, so your objection is still unsubstantiated. You've been warned enough.

[jeskill]

Just provided some evidence but you have chosen to ignore it, just as I chose to ignore yours.

 

It is just a case of competing statistics ad norseum.

 

I apologize -- in the flurry of all the mini-debates in this thread, I haven't actually seen the evidence to support your case that the famine in Somalia was primarily caused by drought, rather than being exacerbated by drought. Please post it again so that I can read it.

 

But really, why are you bothering to debate people here if you're not going to read the evidence provided?

[Essay]

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.

That seems a bit hyperbolic. My memory was that, when development became apparent as a solution for reigning population growth in, development was pushed as a very welcome alternative to the very debatable ethics of, as you say, "if necessary, compelling people to stop" ...anything.

 

They did a horrible job of it, since they were focused on their own profits instead of sustainability in the local culture; and they made matters worse in many situations, as Bill Clinton acknowledged during recent testimony (re: Haiti, IMF, rice) in Congress.

 

But the quotes above, from that 2009 book, suggest a new path for development. Development can focus more on sustainable practices and systems, while also creating value.

 

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.

 

We may... but it sounds as if most sources say it's not too late. Are you saying we should do something "compelling" now, just because "we may have to face the prospect" it's too late?

 

I was heartened to see your enthusiastic comprehension of the Gaia perspective, but I don't see why you laser in on this one aspect of the picture instead of the broader aspect of resource use (or abuse). Meat consumption in China has doubled and will triple, and that affects our resources much more than the absolute numbers of folks--don't you think? Plus there are many programs up and running effectively to keep the population curve on track to continue levelling out.

 

Even if we get the population down to 4 billion, if they all use resources as is done currently in the US, we'll still be screwed! It seems that what the people do, and whether it is sustainable or not, is more important than how many people there are, so I'm focusing on modifying resource use.

 

And unlike the dimension of population.... Resources, and their cycles, offer an unlimited opportunity for science to dissect, examine, understand, and manipulate; so that we can,

 

...as E. O. Wilson suggests, aspire to be as good as nature.

 

Does that seem logical?

 

~

[Athena]

I am not so sure there are to many in this forum that are naive enough to believe that infinite growth of the human population and our economy is entirely plausible and possible.

 

But the problem is that there seems to be a fair number that think growth is sustainable for another 500 year or what ever.

 

The problem arises because every generation that comes along says the same thing.

 

It stems from NIMBYism.

 

Most recognize that growth must cease, but no ones wants shift to a steady state economy/population in their life time because it will require serious individual sacrifices that they will have to share in. No one wants to sacrifice their lovely retirement lifestyle with ocean cruises or round Australia camping trips etc for example.

 

 

The arguing going on is not worthy of people serious about science, and accusing anyone of trolling when everyone is participating in stupid arguing, while ignoring facts, is like putting rocks in snow balls, when the other is not using rocks.

 

I will try this one more time. 2050 is not 500 years from now. We could exhaust our known supplies of phosphorus by 2050. This is a main ingredient in fertilizers, and we can not maintain high yields without it.

 

" Every living cell must have two elements, potassium and phosphorus. Phosphorus tend to get locked in mineral compounds form quite easily instead of freely circulating. Bones and teeth are calcium phosphate. Simply to build the bones of 1.2 billion Chinese takes a lot of phosphorus. It has been suggested that lack of phosphorus accounts for the typically small-bone structure of many Asians. Keeping phosphorus in circulation so that all people can get their needed share is somewhat of a problem already. It may be more so in the future. Luther Tweeten, Professor of Agriculture Marketing at Ohio State University, at the 1995 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated that the world "currently uses about 150 million metric tons of phosphorus rock a year." This use is now increasing at the rate of four percent a year. There is an estimated 34 billion metric tons of phosphate rock in the world reserve. Phosphate is used as fertilizer for almost all food crops and thus into the human system. But if the current usage trend continues, the world's supply of phosphate may be depleted by 2050. If world population growth can be slowed to just one percent annual increase (compared with present 1.7), the phosphate supply would last 82 years. Tweeten further noted that phosphate is a basic building block of plants and for which there is absolutely no substitute." From GeoDestinies by Youngquist.

 

 

So we will realize an end to phosphorus in deposits large enough for commercial use at same we hit this wall...

 

http://dieoff.org/page40.htm

 

Someone told me in PM that the dieoff link is old and not good science, so I made the effort to find better links. Each one has at least one fact about our food supply. Now you all have facts and can say what you think of them, and you can stop trashing this thread about a very important subject with arguments that will achieve nothing of any good. <br _mce_bogus="1">

 

http://www.deccanher...-hit-world.html

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.

Essay has something important to say about adopting to climate change, and I hope he connects his ideas with the problem stated in the link.

 

http://newsfeed.time...f-food-by-2050/

In a recent study by the ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, it warned of a potential mass extinction as the number of ocean dead zones - waters starved of oxygen - increase at an accelerating pace. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research also put out a study that shows the increasing likelihood of frightening changes to rainfall, water supplies, weather systems, sea levels and crop harvests by the end of the century.

 

Is this a serious fact or something we can dismiss as untrue? Again this is 2050, not 500 years from now.

 

http://www.scienceda...00201101901.htm

This one is about water management and a failure to invest, which becomes a less likely investment considering everyone's economic problems. This might get some people to the article talked about in the link. I can't use PDF so I can check it out.

 

[PDF]

Entire nation has online access to more than 2000 e-journals

www.iwmi.cgiar.org/News_Room/.../AGWAT_Press_Release_final.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

Feb 1, 2010 – Agricultural Water Management in Articles in Press, 27 January 2010, published by Elsevier. Full text articles are available to members of ...

 

http://www.baysoundi...phosphate1.html

Against this complex backdrop, two things are certain: phosphate is a non-renewable resource and Florida is running out. Some say reserves will be exhausted in as little as 30 years, possibly sooner, although technology may extend that window. What then? American farmers will have to rely on foreign sources like Morocco for phosphate, and food prices will almost certainly go up. What's particularly unsettling is that no one's talking about it - not yet.

 

This one supports what Youngquist said. China is going to want Morocco's phosphate, and we know, as something becomes scarce the price goes up, so fertilizer will cost more and that means food will cost more. We also know economic troubles could get worse, and greater numbers of people may find it hard to pay higher food prices. This may not be a problem for well off people, but it will be a problem for the unemployed, and if the riot, than that be a problem for the more fortune people. Whatever, it is not something we should continue to ignore, while engaging in petty arguments.

 

As for the economic problems, these are not the only resources being exhausted, and we need to do a serious reality check.

 

I think the argument about droughts is a petty one, but considering the accusations that go with it, perhaps some links about droughts and who gets to eat and who does not, are in order. Like this isn't just about the history of droughts, but our new situation of climate change that is playing a role in this whole debate.

http://www.bloomberg...st-of-beef.html

 

The problem is not limited to hay and beef, but also involves wheat. Given the arguments in this thread, perhaps I should say wheat is the main ingredient of bread, pizza crust and pasta. The problem is not to limited to Texas or even the US, but has hit other countries as well. These droughts not only mean higher prices for food, and therefore people going hungry, but they also mean lost markets and this hurts the economies of countries hit by droughts and floods. I think there is a huge under appreciation of what farmers do for us, and how vulnerable our food supply is.

ttp://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-24/worst-texas-drought-in-44-years-eroding-u-s-wheat-beef-supply.html

 

Gee, I don't know what it takes to prove that poverty is worsening but may be something here will work as proof?

1. 
   Poverty is worsening in African LDCs
   www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol16no2/162povty.htm - CachedPoverty is worsening in African LDCs. UNCTAD says commodity dependence is a key factor. By Nirit Ben-Ari. Compared with least developed countries in other ...
   ►
2. 
   AIDS Hindering Economic Growth, Worsening Poverty in Hard-hit ...
   gbgm-umc.org/programs/aidsafrica/durban1.stm - CachedHIV/AIDS is already starting to have immense impact on the economies of hard-hit countries, hurting not only individuals, families and firms, ...
3. 
   Rising food inflation worsening poverty in India - PressTV 100713 ...
   
   
   www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIYmxJ8ukc42 min - Jul 13, 2010 - Uploaded by newsupload2010
   Rising food inflation worsening poverty in India - PressTV 100713. newsupload2010 7510 videos. Subscribe Alert icon Subscribed ...
   More videos for worsening poverty »
4. 
   Amazon.com: UNEMPLOYMENT IS WORSENING POVERTY AND OTHER PROBLEMS ...
   www.amazon.com › Books › Business & Investing › Economics - CachedThis digital document is an article from NotiSur - South American Political and Economic Affairs, published by Latin American Data Base/Latin American ...
5. 
   Worsening poverty 'due to natural disasters' | Sun.Star
   www.sunstar.com.ph › Tacloban › Local News - CachedMay 27, 2011 – AN OFFICIAL of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) blamed the impact of natural calamities for the worsening poverty ...
6. 
   Climate Change Worsening Poverty in India
   www.defence.pk/.../41491-climate-change-worsening-poverty-india... - Cached15 posts - 7 authors - Last post: Apr 12, 2010At 8 feet below sea level, Pakistan's financial capital Karachi shows up on the list of world's mega-cities threatened by global warming.
7. [PDF]
   DIVIDED THEY FALL: HARDSHIP IN AMERICA'S CITIES AND SUBURBS
   www.rockinst.org/.../2007-11-divided_they_fall_hardship_in_america's_...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
   by DJ Wright - 2007 - Cited by 2 - Related articles
   West had worsening poverty impaction over the 1990s. Only 13 percent of the Southern cities in our study worsened. This is a different pattern from the ...
8. 
   High Growth, Rising Inequalities, Worsening ... - South Asia Books
   southasiabooks.com/high-growth-rising-inequalities-worsening-pov... - CachedMar 8, 2011 – South Asia Books has been the premier distributor of books from India for 41 years. Its Founder, Professor Jerry Barrier, was considered one ...
9. 
   British Columbia's “Boom” spreading worsening poverty
   www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/.../02067.htm... - Canada - CachedDec 31, 2007 – British Columbia's “Boom” spreading worsening poverty ... as increasing numbers of people are experiencing worsening poverty. ...
10. 
    allAfrica.com: Africa: World Bank Warns of Worsening Poverty in ...
    allafrica.com/stories/200110010498.htmlOct 1, 2001 – World Bank Warns of Worsening Poverty in Africa After US Attacks ... Washington, DC — The poverty in developing nations next year will ...

 

These do not seem to cover Russia where things are really bad, and the people are dying so fast, investors are concerned about Russia maintaining a strong enough work force, to make their investments good. I could add a site to explain this, but I hope some people question if they are reacting logically or emotionally to what is being said here, because not all the arguments are logical ones, and they sure are not based on facts, but are just attacks.

 

Knowledge of everyone's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, really won't affect the fact that you haven't provided any evidence, nor have you really provided any convincing counter arguments. In fact, one might say that the reason you are now resorting to offensive logical fallacies in order to continue this discussion is because you know you can't back your "opinion" with evidence.

 

 

Why did you make this argument? You are attacking someone who made a post, and you have not stated facts about the subject. Things are getting worse and by 2050 things will probably be a lot worse than they are now. Attack the problems, not the people who make post.

 

I apologize -- in the flurry of all the mini-debates in this thread, I haven't actually seen the evidence to support your case that the famine in Somalia was primarily caused by drought, rather than being exacerbated by drought. Please post it again so that I can read it.

 

But really, why are you bothering to debate people here if you're not going to read the evidence provided?

 

I could ask the same question of you.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Athena

[jeskill]

re: phosphorus

 

I agree that this is a huge problem. We are indeed running out of phosphate rock to mine.

 

But to bring it around to the original question .... how do you think we should best handle this issue? As you stated, we might have 50-some odd years left. As linked to previously, demographic models suggest that 50 years is simply not enough time to ethically (i.e. via reduced fecundity) bring the global population down to a density that would allow us to continue to sustainably harvest phosphate rock.

 

There are alternatives to phosphate fertilizers right now, and while we might not be able to completely stop using phosphate fertilizers within the next 30 years, we can certainly scale back our usage:

 

From the Guardian:

Professor Chambers is calling on the government to respond to the threat of peak phosphate by recovering nutrients from household compost, livestock and human manure and municipal waste.

 

Western Europe imports all of its phosphate for agricultural use, but Professor Chambers from environmental consultancy ADAS, believes that more than 50 per cent of the UK's total requirement could come from organic sources, saving the agricultural industry between £20m and £30m a year.

 

From IFOAM:

When considering Organic Agriculture at the farm level, there are several possible inflows of phosphorus. Organic inputs can be brought from outside the farm (e.g., through grazing, collection of wild products, and organic amendments such as peat, guano, and seaweeds). Agro-forestry practices can also increase the nutrient take-up from the subsoil through the deep-penetrating roots of trees (and other perennial crops)

 

I don't disagree that yields will decline in North America as Industrial Ag becomes more and more expensive. But we over-produce crops that we really shouldn't be eating a huge amount of, like corn (actually, it's processed form is the danger -- high-fructose corn syrup). In small pockets of NAmerica, a new generation of farmers are slowly cropping up who are focused on producing fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese and meat in a local, sustainable manner. They use techniques that by and large take advantage of ecological processes, require less fertilizers and as stated before, grow polycultures, which can be far more productive per acre than monocultures.

 

Why did you make this argument? You are attacking someone who made a post, and you have not stated facts about the subject. Things are getting worse and by 2050 things will probably be a lot worse than they are now. Attack the problems, not the people who make post.

 

Here's the deal: Greg has been arguing with many people on the same subject. He has written a number of statements that are simply false (e.g. evolution doesn't take into consideration genetic drift; L-V equations are a "fact"). He rarely, if ever, links to supporting arguments. So although the post wasn't necessarily about the main topic of the OP, I was, actually, stating a fact. Specifically, when I specifically asked him to back up his argument that "people who think population isn't a problem have a religious agenda", he accused me of having a religious agenda. If that's not the definition of an "offensive logical fallacy", then I don't know what is.

I agree that we shouldn't get off topic and start hurling insults at each other, but it's been quite frustrating to discuss this topic with someone who seems to be more focused on "winning" than actually discussing concepts. One of the things I like about scienceforums is that it forces me to read something new and think about something in a different way. For example, your point about phosphate is a good one. It's scary when you think about what is likely to be in the next 50 years if we continue business as usual.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

jeskill: Greg won't be replying here any longer, as his persistent bad behavior has led to his Politics access being revoked.

[Athena]

re: phosphorus

 

I agree that this is a huge problem. We are indeed running out of phosphate rock to mine.

 

But to bring it around to the original question .... how do you think we should best handle this issue? As you stated, we might have 50-some odd years left. As linked to previously, demographic models suggest that 50 years is simply not enough time to ethically (i.e. via reduced fecundity) bring the global population down to a density that would allow us to continue to sustainably harvest phosphate rock.

 

There are alternatives to phosphate fertilizers right now, and while we might not be able to completely stop using phosphate fertilizers within the next 30 years, we can certainly scale back our usage:

 

From the Guardian:

 

 

From IFOAM:

 

 

I don't disagree that yields will decline in North America as Industrial Ag becomes more and more expensive. But we over-produce crops that we really shouldn't be eating a huge amount of, like corn (actually, it's processed form is the danger -- high-fructose corn syrup). In small pockets of NAmerica, a new generation of farmers are slowly cropping up who are focused on producing fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese and meat in a local, sustainable manner. They use techniques that by and large take advantage of ecological processes, require less fertilizers and as stated before, grow polycultures, which can be far more productive per acre than monocultures.

 

 

 

Thank you for addressing the subject. I am very glad to know there was a news article about the phosphorous problem! I have seen nothing in our news about it. Come to think of it. I live near farms and perhaps I could knock on doors and ask the farmers themselves, if they are aware of the coming problem and have a plan?

 

We are lucky because the farms near us produce a wide variety of vegetables and we can go directly to the farms and buy our produce, or go to the Saturday farmers market.

 

There might be a problem using human waste for fertilizer. Our waste is all mixed up with all our sewage which includes soups and other chemicals. I think it is mercury in our sewage that is the main problem, and we might able to resolve that?

I sort of looked into this when I was excited about methane. We just are not being as careful as we could be in managing our waste. We could be reclaiming methane and manure, if we can get the bad stuff out of our sewage.

 

Now I am getting excited, because we have so many farm animals around us, and I know these farmers would be glad to get rid of their waste and we have one site that does convert garbage into methane, but the operation is hurting, because we have removed so much form our garbage and recycle it in other ways. If someone increased the operation with the animal waste, we might have something really good going? What do you think?

 

Burning methane puts CO2 into the air right? I just read an article about how the ocean is becoming dead because it absorbs CO2 and this makes it acid and that kills a lot of what grows in the ocean. We seriously need to get CO2 out of the air. I think that is what Essay is working on. By increasing our use of charcoal we might reduce the CO2 problem, right?

 

Religion is playing a role in keeping the global birth rate too high. I believe this is a problem especially in Mexico where the population is more apt to be Catholic. It would be great if the Pope supported birth control. In the east it is religions that say a son must bury you, that keeps pushing population increase. It would be wonderful to correct this problem, right? All we can do is continue working on getting the information out. People from all over the world come to western countries and many maintain communication with people in their place of birth. We are also connecting on the internet. When we have pleasant and informative discussions, we have hope.

 

jeskill: Greg won't be replying here any longer, as his persistent bad behavior has led to his Politics access being revoked.

 

I have to say, an argument is simply a statement, and is a good thing, until the response is an unpleasant one. Greg repeatedly was put on the defensive in a most unpleasant way and I am extremely displeased by how this been handled.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Athena

[jeskill]

Thank you for addressing the subject. I am very glad to know there was a news article about the phosphorous problem! I have seen nothing in our news about it. Come to think of it. I live near farms and perhaps I could knock on doors and ask the farmers themselves, if they are aware of the coming problem and have a plan?

 

 

We are lucky because the farms near us produce a wide variety of vegetables and we can go directly to the farms and buy our produce, or go to the Saturday farmers market.

 

It's a bit more complicated than that. Farmers often don't have a choice in what fertilizers they can use. They are beholden to the credit unions (at least in Canada and the US, not sure if you're NAmerican), and those credit unions tend to put clauses in their contracts that force the farmers into using certain techniques, such as synthetic fertilizers.

 

Farmers markets are great. Good food, and good for the local economy.

 

There might be a problem using human waste for fertilizer. Our waste is all mixed up with all our sewage which includes soups and other chemicals. I think it is mercury in our sewage that is the main problem, and we might able to resolve that?

I sort of looked into this when I was excited about methane. We just are not being as careful as we could be in managing our waste. We could be reclaiming methane and manure, if we can get the bad stuff out of our sewage.

 

Now I am getting excited, because we have so many farm animals around us, and I know these farmers would be glad to get rid of their waste and we have one site that does convert garbage into methane, but the operation is hurting, because we have removed so much form our garbage and recycle it in other ways. If someone increased the operation with the animal waste, we might have something really good going? What do you think?

Apparently urine is a good source of phosphorus, and it's fairly sterile.

 

Religion is playing a role in keeping the global birth rate too high. I believe this is a problem especially in Mexico where the population is more apt to be Catholic. It would be great if the Pope supported birth control. In the east it is religions that say a son must bury you, that keeps pushing population increase. It would be wonderful to correct this problem, right? All we can do is continue working on getting the information out. People from all over the world come to western countries and many maintain communication with people in their place of birth. We are also connecting on the internet. When we have pleasant and informative discussions, we have hope.

 

If religion is playing a role in maintaining a high Mexican birthrate, then they're doing a horrible job. Birth rates have definitely been declining in Mexico for at least the past 10 years.. You can see the same pattern in pretty much all parts of the world.