How to fix overpopulation?

[EdEarl]

Well it's quite simple actually, stop healthcare properly nature never wanted it anyway. Stop medicine all people who actually dont belong here acording to evolution just die.

Nature is not a person with a brain that has wants. You, I and all of humanity are part of nature, and things people do are part of nature; thus, medicine is part of nature. Your suggestion to deny people medicine and let them die would be a crime against humanity, no better than collecting Jews in concentration camps and gassing them. In fact, there are already cases in which parents were found guilty for refusing medical treatment and subsequent death of their child.

[Strange]

 

Really??? Well OK if you say so, but that doesn't change the similarity of the emergent quality, population imbalance.

 

Of course. Once it was understood that doing things that seem like a good idea anyway (improving education, reducing poverty) also lead to improved health, lower infant mortality and lower population growth then those "emergent" results were also goals of the programs.

What is a Malthusian crisis​?

 

"ideas derived from the political/economic thought of the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, as laid out in his 1798 writings, An Essay on the Principle of Population, which describes how unchecked population growth is exponential while the growth of the food supply was expected to be arithmetical."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

[dimreepr]

 

Of course. Once it was understood that doing things that seem like a good idea anyway (improving education, reducing poverty) also lead to improved health, lower infant mortality and lower population growth then those "emergent" results were also goals of the programs.

 

Bolded mine: how could they be?

You can control the seed you plant, but you can't control the plant ((Edit)it will become).

Edited October 6, 2016 by dimreepr

[Strange]

 

Bolded mine: how could they be?

 

If you know that doing A will result in B, and B is something you want to achieve then you will do A to meet your goal of achieving B. (Especially if A is good in itself.)

 

Emergent doesn't mean random or uncontrollable. So I don't understand your objection.

 

 

You can control the seed you plant, but you can't control the plant ((Edit)it will become).

 

Of course you can. Domestication of plants and later agricultural improvements are the main reasons we are able to comfortably sustain the expected population.

 

Do you think farmers just throw random seed on the ground and hope that something useful will grow?

 

"These seeds came from wheat. I just hope we don't get pineapples again like last year"

Edited October 6, 2016 by Strange

[dimreepr]

 

Emergent doesn't mean random or uncontrollable. So I don't understand your objection.

 

 

But it does mean, previously unknowable...

Edited October 6, 2016 by dimreepr

[Strange]

 

 

But it does mean, previously unknowable...

 

 

But now it is known. (Hence my "Once it was known...")

[dimreepr]

How does that change the population imbalance?

[Strange]

How does that change the population imbalance?

 

 

What is "population imbalance"? The thread is about ways of addressing overpopulation.

[dimreepr]

Since the citizens of China are living longer and having fewer children, the growth of the population imbalance is expected to continue, as reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which referred to a United Nations projections forecast that China will lose 67 million working-age people by 2030, while simultaneously doubling the number of elderly. That could put immense pressure on the economy and government resources.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

 

I'm saying we shouldn't try to address overpopulation, we let society evolve naturally and concentrate on coping with whatever future we inherit.

[Strange]

Is anyone here advocating a one child policy, or something like it?

 

However the changing age profile is an inevitable result of any policy that will reduce population growth. (Well, any reasonable policy; obviously, such an imbalance could be avoid by culling people of all age groups. But that is even less acceptable than a one-child policy.)

 

So we are seeing the same thing in a number of European countries. The same will be seen in other countries in future. It is a problem, but it is a short term problem (one or two generations) and can be managed in various ways (migration, for example).

 

I don't know what "let society evolve naturally" means.

• We should never have domesticated plants? But that was a natural thing for us to do.
• We shouldn't use technology (e.g. fertilizers) to improve agricultural efficiency? In which case we could only sustain a fraction of the current population.
• Or we shouldn't provide improved health and education to developing countries? In which case there will be massive numbers of people living in poverty and dying prematurely, and continuing population growth until there is mass starvation.

So what, exactly, is your solution? Just sit back and wait for disaster to strike and solve the problems for us?

[StringJunky]

The only ethical solution is to enable the places that have the least and the highest populations. Poverty breeds ignorance which produces a disproportionately large number of children. The evidence is overwhelming that poverty is the cause of too many people. The hard, unpalatable bit is we need a more concerted effort towards more wealth distribution going their way instead of the First World nations.

Edited October 7, 2016 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

Is anyone here advocating a one child policy, or something like it?

 

However the changing age profile is an inevitable result of any policy that will reduce population growth. (Well, any reasonable policy; obviously, such an imbalance could be avoid by culling people of all age groups. But that is even less acceptable than a one-child policy.)

 

So we are seeing the same thing in a number of European countries. The same will be seen in other countries in future. It is a problem, but it is a short term problem (one or two generations) and can be managed in various ways (migration, for example).

 

 

So what, exactly, is your solution? Just sit back and wait for disaster to strike and solve the problems for us?

 

 

I was using the Chinese problems as an example of the futility of control, so my solution is don't try; that doesn't mean "Just sit back and wait for disaster to strike" because we simply don't know what the future will bring so let's stop being so frightened by the extrapolation of current trends into an unknowable future?

 

 

I don't know what "let society evolve naturally" means.

• We should never have domesticated plants? But that was a natural thing for us to do.
• We shouldn't use technology (e.g. fertilizers) to improve agricultural efficiency? In which case we could only sustain a fraction of the current population.
• Or we shouldn't provide improved health and education to developing countries? In which case there will be massive numbers of people living in poverty and dying prematurely, and continuing population growth until there is mass starvation.

 

 

 

It certainly doesn't mean any of that, it just means we leave well alone,

The only ethical solution is to enable the places that have the least and the highest populations. Poverty breeds ignorance which produces a disproportionately large number of children. The evidence is overwhelming that poverty is the cause of too many people. The hard, unpalatable bit is we need a more concerted effort towards more wealth distribution going their way instead of the First World nations.

 

 

Indeed +1

[Strange]

I was using the Chinese problems as an example of the futility of control, so my solution is don't try; that doesn't mean "Just sit back and wait for disaster to strike" because we simply don't know what the future will bring so let's stop being so frightened by the extrapolation of current trends into an unknowable future?

 

As the future is not unknowable (but it is uncertain) this seems a fairly negative reaction. You seem to be saying that because there is uncertainty, we shouldn't even attempt to predict what will happen.

 

On that basis, if we see one case of Ebola, we shouldn't be frightened by "unknowable" predictions that (just like previous epidemics) if it will spread throughout the population and kill thousands.

 

A large amount of effort is going into the study of population growth. It is quite possible to predict this because, for example, future population depends on current birth and mortality rates. And it also depends on the trends in those figures, which are not completely random.

 

 

It certainly doesn't mean any of that, it just means we leave well alone,

 

That sounds a lot like you are suggesting doing nothing. We shouldn't attempt to improve health and education in developing countries, then? Even though we know it has benefits an d will also reduce population growth?

 

 

Indeed +1

 

So we should do something? Like, for example, tackle poverty and education, maybe?

[Sensei]

I'm saying we shouldn't try to address overpopulation, we let society evolve naturally and concentrate on coping with whatever future we inherit.

I'm saying you should leave this planet and start colonizing solar system, and galaxy...

There is 100 billions of stars in this galaxy...

Peaceful colonization: don't kill living organisms on the other planets,asteroids,comets etc., if there exist any.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Sensei

[Memammal]

Uhmm, we have not yet worked out exactly how we intend to colonise Mars, which is easy going and just a stone throw away compared to other galaxies...and colonising stars will probably not feature on the short list of alternatives...

[Strange]

I'm not sure it helps, anyway. It isn't feasible to ship millions or billions of people off Earth, so it won't help here.

[Airbrush]

Uhmm, we have not yet worked out exactly how we intend to colonise Mars, which is easy going and just a stone throw away compared to other galaxies...and colonising stars will probably not feature on the short list of alternatives...

 

Interesting long-term view, but what about the near future? Education. When people are aware of the challenges of supporting larger populations, the growth would probably decline. Maybe the large number of TV series about a post apocalypse is a preparation of people mentally for the unknown prospects for the future. With the unknown, emergent, challenges from global warming, sustaining a very large population becomes more dangerous. Populations tend to grow very dense in cities which increases the risk of more mass casualties in a nuclear, bio, or chemical weapon attack.

 

We can tunnel into asteroids and build cities inside then rotate the asteroid so you have one g gravity. The asteroid is a rich source of water-ice and metals. From ice you get water, air, and fuel. With metals you have everything you need to build industry inside the asteroid. But this is now off topic.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Airbrush

[dimreepr]

 

As the future is not unknowable (but it is uncertain) this seems a fairly negative reaction. You seem to be saying that because there is uncertainty, we shouldn't even attempt to predict what will happen.

 

On that basis, if we see one case of Ebola, we shouldn't be frightened by "unknowable" predictions that (just like previous epidemics) if it will spread throughout the population and kill thousands.

 

A large amount of effort is going into the study of population growth. It is quite possible to predict this because, for example, future population depends on current birth and mortality rates. And it also depends on the trends in those figures, which are not completely random.

 

 

That sounds a lot like you are suggesting doing nothing. We shouldn't attempt to improve health and education in developing countries, then? Even though we know it has benefits an d will also reduce population growth?

 

 

So we should do something? Like, for example, tackle poverty and education, maybe?

 

 

 

"Fear is the mind killer" History should indeed be learnt from, "One often meets ones destiny on the path we choose to avoid it" has many examples and is often inspired by fear.

[Sensei]

Uhmm, we have not yet worked out exactly how we intend to colonise Mars, which is easy going and just a stone throw away compared to other galaxies...and colonising stars will probably not feature on the short list of alternatives...

When do you want to start?

When there will be 10 bln people? 20 bln people? 50 bln people? 100 bln people? Tell me..

 

I'm not sure it helps, anyway. It isn't feasible to ship millions or billions of people off Earth, so it won't help here.

It worked in the past with Australia and America..

 

"Time to go on"..

Edited October 7, 2016 by Sensei

[dimreepr]

 

So we should do something? Like, for example, tackle poverty and education, maybe?

 

 

We should try but we know how resolutely the wealthy grip their prize.

[EdEarl]

Uhmm, we have not yet worked out exactly how we intend to colonise Mars, which is easy going and just a stone throw away compared to other galaxies...and colonising stars will probably not feature on the short list of alternatives...

Reducing population by moving people to Mars isn't feasible anytime soon. Elon Musk intends to build a rocket capable of carrying 100-200 people per trip at less than $200,000, and estimates it will take 40 or more years to increase the population of Mars to 1M, partly because the trips must be scheduled when the Earth-Mars trip is shortest or about every 2 years.

[Strange]

 

"Fear is the mind killer" History should indeed be learnt from, "One often meets ones destiny on the path we choose to avoid it" has many examples and is often inspired by fear.

 

 

So which is it: fear is the mind killer? Or we should be inspired by fear?

 

I don't think choosing either of those platitudes is as effective as getting on with the tasks we know will make a difference.

When do you want to start?

When there will be 10 bln people? 20 bln people? 50 bln people? 100 bln people? Tell me..

 

 

On Earth? I doubt there will ever be that number.

 

 

 

It worked in the past with Australia and America..

 

Really? How many people emigrated? What proportion of the population was that? I don't believe that had any effect on population levels in the Old World.

 

 

We should try but we know how resolutely the wealthy grip their prize.

 

We have made massive improvements in tackling poverty in the developing world in the last few decades. This doesn't require the money to come from the wealthy (economics is not a zero sum game). Although many of the wealthiest people are helping to fund and promote these programmes.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Strange

[Memammal]

When do you want to start?

When there will be 10 bln people? 20 bln people? 50 bln people? 100 bln people? Tell me..

Start with what? Just so that we are clear...you do realise that colonising stars is a pretty horrific way to fix overpopulation, no?

[EdEarl]

Three quarters of the world's mega cities are by the sea. Climate change and rising sea levels will destroy the homes of billions of people and cause a mass migration, which will result in many deaths. Other effects of climate change, for example crop failures from drought, will increase the migration. All this movement will result in violence that reduces world population significantly; some say by 50%, and a few believe man will become extinct. I think we are not in serious trouble from overpopulation. Our troubles are elsewhere and our efforts to abate climate related deaths is more important than efforts to lessen overpopulation. The UN says we have already lost 100M people from climate change, and I believe the Earth’s population will decrease by 25%, if we work to save as many as possible.

[dimreepr]

 

 

So which is it: fear is the mind killer? Or we should be inspired by fear?

 

 

They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

I don't think choosing either of those platitudes is as effective as getting on with the tasks we know will make a difference.

 

 

 

 

They're only platitudes when we stop looking for meaning, for instance how do we know what difference those tasks will make?