Global overpopulation theories...

[Antiquehunter]

OK...

Over wine, my colleagues and I had a heated yet polite debate about global overpopulation pro/con. My two debaters were a Canadian and Australian. Their arguments (in a nutshell):

- Countries such as India and China are growing too rapidly for sustainability. Countries like Canada and Australia (specifically) should clamp down on immigration because too much immigration from these countries is a bad thing. Reasons being - people from India and China tend to be 'non-compliant' with Canadian/Australian laws and tend to be a drain on the local economy. (Specifcally - evaders of taxation laws and benders of immigration rules to bring in net-negative elderly family members who do nothing to contribute to economic growth.)

- Globally, current population growth is unsustainable, and all countries need to work together to stop the current rate of population growth. Otherwise we're going to hell in a handcart.

My arguments:

- The world is nowhere near its max level of population sustainability. I concur that the resources that we consume are unsustainable, and that we need to change our patterns of consumption - however population on its own is not the primary issue. Individual societies collapse because of a lack of ability to adjust to changing conditions - what we are facing are changing conditions - not a total disaster. But - do we WANT to adapt to these changing conditions? And if not, at what peril?

- My colleagues arguments are based on a fear of relative economic strength. Right now, they as average/above-average Australians / Canadians on an ecomonic scale feel threatened by immigration AT THE BASE LEVEL that immigrants will 'gain' at their 'loss'. The argument that growth is 'unsustainable' is simply a coverup for their real fear - that they won't be able to buy that BMW and retire at 55 while the immigrant may be able to get to the level of a Toyota and retirement at 65 with some hard work.

I concede that neither position was very strong (the wine was strong), however I really don't think their anti-immigration positions or position on global populace sustainbility is accurate. I throw the debate open here. Where are we at, and where are we going. What do 'Western countries' have to fear from immigration???

Looking specifically for links that will assist. Note - all three of us are relatively intelligent, and we have all read Jared Diamond's works (but apparently with different levels of understanding.)

-AH.

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Antiquehunter,

The basic pro-white argument against immigration is that it drowns white society, taking away its culture, language, religion, and, ultimately, race itself, leaving society with nothing keeping it together except the "diversity" police and economic self-interest. Immigration destroys countries, in other words. And what are we left with? High crime rates and "no tap back!" reverse discrimination against "evil whitey," along with anti-white hate crimes that are underreported for fear of waking white people up to the dangers that non-whites pose them.

On overpopulation, however, I have to agree with you (and the Jehovah's Witnesses) - this planet can be developed far more than it already has. We have plenty of wasteland that can be transformed into habitable land, besides intensifying population densities by replacing suburbs with high-density cities. We can support billions upon billions more people, and with style, not at despicable subsistence-level existences, either.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Tricky]

Yes, we could sustain this many people for some time, maybe even more. But I fear it would become an Orwellian hell, with only synthetic protein or seaweed to eat with your grain-based staple diet. Unless you were wealthy, there would be no way to travel beyond your small living space. Your whole life would be centered around what entertainment you could pipe into your home.

That's right. It would be like Japan.

 

[Azure]

I believe that the problem isn't a "lack" of resources, but a lack of availability for third world countries as far as food is concerned.

As for Oil; the world is not going to go through another 100 years running on natural resources. Eventually different methods of energy "will" be adopted.

As a population expands, renewable resources expand as well.

 

[Beerina]

My two debaters were a Canadian and Australian. Their arguments (in a nutshell):

- Countries such as India and China are growing too rapidly for sustainability. Countries like Canada and Australia (specifically) should clamp down on immigration because too much immigration from these countries is a bad thing. Reasons being - people from India and China tend to be 'non-compliant' with Canadian/Australian laws and tend to be a drain on the local economy. (Specifcally - evaders of taxation laws and benders of immigration rules to bring in net-negative elderly family members who do nothing to contribute to economic growth.)

In the US, at least, I believe (legal) immigrants are a net bonus to the country since they pay more in taxes than they consume in services. Of course our big argument is about illegal immigrants, to the tune of a million a year with 10 million in place already. But the fastest solution to that is citizenship, in which case they'll become a net bonus instead of net drain.

The real solution is to end the Mexican government as a kleptocracy, though, so domestic (to there) businesses can develop without omnipresent predation by local officials.

- Globally, current population growth is unsustainable, and all countries need to work together to stop the current rate of population growth. Otherwise we're going to hell in a handcart.

In an economically free environment, the more, the better. A nation like the US, with 10 billion people, far from being a starving, collapsing economy that was "unsustainable", would actually be an economic and scientific juggernaut the likes of which only science fiction could conceive.

My arguments:

- The world is nowhere near its max level of population sustainability. I concur that the resources that we consume are unsustainable

I wouldn't concede that...

, and that we need to change our patterns of consumption - however population on its own is not the primary issue. Individual societies collapse because of a lack of ability to adjust to changing conditions - what we are facing are changing conditions - not a total disaster. But - do we WANT to adapt to these changing conditions? And if not, at what peril?

What environmental and other scientists don't understand is the economic concept of substitution, wherein the increasing costs drive economic and scientific alternatives to be developed. Oil is only now just getting to a level where it's mildly irritating enough that it's worthwhile to develop massive ethanol production -- of which there are something like 25-30 plants being constructed in the US, and more starting every month.

The point is that you need relative economic freedom to develope everything from alternative fuels to alternative engines, lighter materials, and a dozen ther things no command-and-control politician nor the environmental scientists who support them can remotely dream of.

- My colleagues arguments are based on a fear of relative economic strength. Right now, they as average/above-average Australians / Canadians on an ecomonic scale feel threatened by immigration AT THE BASE LEVEL that immigrants will 'gain' at their 'loss'. The argument that growth is 'unsustainable' is simply a coverup for their real fear - that they won't be able to buy that BMW and retire at 55 while the immigrant may be able to get to the level of a Toyota and retirement at 65 with some hard work.

The only reason they would not be able to continue to do so would be with government intervention in the economy which would weaken it. Additional people would increase the economic strength, not decrease it. Americans, in spite of losing manufacturing jobs hand over fist for decades, have homes more jammed with electronig s***, and are fatter, than ever before.

People don't like the immigration in the US, but from an economic viewpoint, Bush is doing the right thing.

 

[Beerina]

Yes, we could sustain this many people for some time, maybe even more. But I fear it would become an Orwellian hell, with only synthetic protein or seaweed to eat with your grain-based staple diet. Unless you were wealthy, there would be no way to travel beyond your small living space. Your whole life would be centered around what entertainment you could pipe into your home.

That's right. It would be like Japan.

Meat is expensive in Japan because they outlaw importation from the US, Australia, etc., for fraudulent reasons like "mad cow disease" or "the sensitive Japanese stomach", or what the hell ever.

 

[American]

I think China has done a commendable job of managing their population, given the menace of unchecked growth.

One real danger is if citizens significantly stratify into class-based consumerism, which is just where they seem to be heading unfortunately. I don't think they could comfortably live as Westerners do in such numbers.

Although India has always been modelled by castes, but I don't know to what effect except very much river pollution.

 

[Earthborn]

I think using China and India as examples of countries that should curb their population growth is rather problematic. India has been pretty big on family planning campaigns and China even has a one-child policy. So their population growth is probably not caused by too many births, but rather by improvement of healthcare access and access to clean drinking water and healthy food. People in these countries are more likely to live long lives causing population growth, and that brings up the question: if this population growth is 'unsustainable', what should be done about it? Make sure people die sooner?

Decreasing reproductive rates is not quickly going to solve the population growth caused by longer average life expectancies, but it going to cause a whole lot of other problems: a population that is consistantly aging is not sustainable either.

 

[President Bush]

A nation like the US, with 10 billion people, far from being a starving, collapsing economy that was "unsustainable", would actually be an economic and scientific juggernaut the likes of which only science fiction could conceive.

Something tells me we're not going to do it through immigration.

 

[Rob Lister]

Nations with over populations all have one thing in common, lack of economy. Fix the economy and the population problem will take care of itself...or so the theory goes. Even Japan, as crowded as it is, only has a .02% population growth. There's something about being comfortable, safe and secure that takes all the fun (read: necessity) out of having babies.

 

[Lucky]

Decreasing reproductive rates is not quickly going to solve the population growth caused by longer average life expectancies, but it going to cause a whole lot of other problems: a population that is consistantly aging is not sustainable either.

Really? I wonder whether you can justify that assertion.

 

[Tricky]

Nations with over populations all have one thing in common, lack of economy. Fix the economy and the population problem will take care of itself...or so the theory goes. Even Japan, as crowded as it is, only has a .02% population growth. There's something about being comfortable, safe and secure that takes all the fun (read: necessity) out of having babies.

Not true. China has overpopulation so bad that they have taken measures that here would be considered unthinkable. Yet their economy is threating that of the US. However, you are mostly correct.

 

[Rob Lister]

Not true. China has overpopulation so bad that they have taken measures that here would be considered unthinkable. Yet their economy is threating that of the US. However, you are mostly correct.

China's economy is just beginning. It hasn't much trickled down to the population yet. When it does, their growth will also come to a screeching halt.

 

[Elind]

- Countries such as India and China are growing too rapidly for sustainability. Countries like Canada and Australia (specifically) should clamp down on immigration because too much immigration from these countries is a bad thing. Reasons being - people from India and China tend to be 'non-compliant' with Canadian/Australian laws and tend to be a drain on the local economy. (Specifcally - evaders of taxation laws and benders of immigration rules to bring in net-negative elderly family members who do nothing to contribute to economic growth.)

These points are not necessarily "global" facts. Population growth in India and China are dropping, for some of the same reasons they are dropping in the west. Economic improvement seems to create less desire for many children, and of course China has had some upleasant enforcement of that sort also. The biggest exceptions on the planet seem to be the oil rich Muslim countries where the birth rate is still much higher than anyone else (read status of women, easy money, free services, and religion in general).

Immigrants in the US are not considered a drain. Most studies show that they are productive and support themselves, legal or illegal. However social services are less than in Canada, and perhaps Australia, which means that they don't come to the US and end up on the "dole", nor do they come and expect to. Sink or swim, as it were, has some advantages.

As to non-compliant, sure there are such issues in the US also but they seem to be less obvious or concentrated, perhaps because the country is large and the society is more mobile. Indians and Chinese that you mention are among the MOST successful ethnic groups in the US. Why would they not be in Canada or Australia? From what I have seen they certainly seem to be so in Canada also.

- Globally, current population growth is unsustainable, and all countries need to work together to stop the current rate of population growth. Otherwise we're going to hell in a handcart.

And how do you propose to "work together" to stop fornication in any one country? OK, we could have a little less of GWB preaching about the evils of birth control, but frankly I think such changes have to come from within to make a difference.

My arguments:

- The world is nowhere near its max level of population sustainability. I concur that the resources that we consume are unsustainable, and that we need to change our patterns of consumption - however population on its own is not the primary issue. Individual societies collapse because of a lack of ability to adjust to changing conditions - what we are facing are changing conditions - not a total disaster. But - do we WANT to adapt to these changing conditions? And if not, at what peril?

Patterns of consumption will change automatically as a result of market forces. When the price of metals means that a VW costs the same as a RR today, then we will drive less. Adaptation automatically implemented. Problem solved.

- My colleagues arguments are based on a fear of relative economic strength. Right now, they as average/above-average Australians / Canadians on an ecomonic scale feel threatened by immigration AT THE BASE LEVEL that immigrants will 'gain' at their 'loss'. The argument that growth is 'unsustainable' is simply a coverup for their real fear - that they won't be able to buy that BMW and retire at 55 while the immigrant may be able to get to the level of a Toyota and retirement at 65 with some hard work.

So, in what way is that fear the result of immigrants? Do they just want to x amount better than immigrants on principle?

I concede that neither position was very strong (the wine was strong), however I really don't think their anti-immigration positions or position on global populace sustainbility is accurate. I throw the debate open here. Where are we at, and where are we going. What do 'Western countries' have to fear from immigration???

The only real issue we have in the US is that between legal and illegal immigration; otherwise we are almost all immigrants from relatively few generations back. It has worked well here, but if there is a "fear" as you say, it is that the nature of immigration changes character and the formula that has worked well for a few hundred years falls apart. In essense that come down to the type of immigration that Europe seems to have had; namely immigrants who retain their main loyalties, languages and identities of wherever they came from instead of becoming citizens first. That is not always the result of discrimination, it can also be the result of allowing immigration for the wrong reasons.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Thanks all for your comments - I have some more ammo now when we re-engage over wine again tonight.

Some background that may help to explain their position on the 'non-compliance' argument. My colleagues are also tax professionals with extensive backgrounds in the revenue departments of Canada and Australia. Their experience on the relative non-compliance of certain ethnic groups are, I'm sure, based on anecdotal evidence at best. I suggested that perhaps the reason why so many Vietnamese-owned jewellery shops had tax compliance issues in their jurisdiction was that perhaps... there were more Vietnamese-owned jewellery shops than honky-owned jewellery shops. This argument was greeted with much derision - they truly feel that certain ethnic groups are more likely to engage in criminal / non-compliant activity as a result of their country of origin. I suggested that what we have is an enforcement issue (if they are correct) not an immigration issue. They responded that why should 'we' have to pay for extra enforcement for 'them'?

Beerina - you took issue with my comment

- The world is nowhere near its max level of population sustainability. I concur that the resources that we consume are unsustainable, and that we need to change our patterns of consumption - however population on its own is not the primary issue. Individual societies collapse because of a lack of ability to adjust to changing conditions - what we are facing are changing conditions - not a total disaster. But - do we WANT to adapt to these changing conditions? And if not, at what peril?

But in reading your response I don't think we're far off. My point was that I agree we are consuming certain commodities such as fossil fuels much faster than they can be replaced, and we will need to look to alternatives to address this shortage. However, the changes we have to make may be unpalatable to some.

 

[Beerina]

But in reading your response I don't think we're far off. My point was that I agree we are consuming certain commodities such as fossil fuels much faster than they can be replaced, and we will need to look to alternatives to address this shortage. However, the changes we have to make may be unpalatable to some.

Maybe, but my point was we won't have to make any drastic, sudden changes since the known alternatives (electrical, biodiesel, ethanol85, pure ethanol, etc.) are all just a little expensive, but will not be once people switch en mass to them. And that won't happen until gas becomes even more expensive, though it appears to be happening now with the construction of large numbers of industrial ethanol plants. Some people in a free society with money have decided the time is ripe to start making money off it.

Which is why a freedom-based economy smashes command-and-control in this sort of thing, regulation not only unnecessary, but frequently harmful.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Yes, we could sustain this many people for some time, maybe even more. But I fear it would become an Orwellian hell, with only synthetic protein or seaweed to eat with your grain-based staple diet. Unless you were wealthy, there would be no way to travel beyond your small living space. Your whole life would be centered around what entertainment you could pipe into your home.

That's right. It would be like Japan.

Nominated.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think the reason for overpopulation is that people have more children than there are people dying.

Of course, that's only a theory.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm personally looking forward to my Soylent Green.

Australians have traditionally felt uncomfortable about being a small group of white people on the edge of Asia, and for years we had the White Australia Policy.

Despite some progress at overcoming such a racist basis to our immigration policy, the current PM has told everyone it is once again OK to hate refugees and immigrants. He has been so successful, we even had large race riot in Sydney not long ago.

In terms of Australia and Canada having low population densities, that is something that Australia has to have, it's not a matter of keeping out immigrants. Australia has one of the lowest rainfalls on the planet, and most of it is desert. Recent long term droughts have only exacerbated the problem. It is going to be difficult enough to support the existing population without trying to encourage more people to come and provide them with even the most basic necessity of water.

 

[Chaos]

I think the reason for overpopulation is that people have more children than there are people dying.

Of course, that's only a theory.

That´s a bit like saying "The reason why the ocean is so wet is that it´s full of water". I.e. you´re right, technically, but you didn´t really explain anything we didn´t know already.