Overpopulation

[CapelDodger]

This is just one example of a way in which stewardship, planning, and movement of information avoids what is called the "tragedy of the Commons" in which no one has incentive to protect a common resource--so they don't. It was true of grazing sheep on common land in England two centuries ago, and it remains true today. The same is true of the human component of global warming, and of recycling, petroleum use, etc.

In medieval Britain common land was carefully managed by local communities, who were instinctively stewards and understood what was sustainable. People don't normally soil their own homes; real damage is usually done at a distance or by transient populatons.

(There's an excellent book, The Voices of Morebath, which provides a wonderful flavour of how this operated http://www.amazon.co.uk/Voices-More...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223847936&sr=1-1)

 

[tesscaline]

The human species isn't fully self-conscious, we are still being controlled by our instincts.

These instincts drive us to reproduce/consume until we hit a limit (disease, food, water). So even if we fight ignorance, arrogance, and negligence the human species would still strive to maximize the use of resources (with each culture competing with another).

If we accepted your premise as true, the bolded part of the statement would tend to mean that we would waste as little as possible. Which we don't. You may wish to re-think your reasoning, as it is in no animal's "instincts" to waste that which is necessary to life.

 

[AWPrime]

How, then, do you account for the falling birth rates in europe and (I think) the US?

Partly because we are hitting the limit, technology have hidden the effects from plain view but they didn't go away.

If we accepted your premise as true, the bolded part of the statement would tend to mean that we would waste as little as possible.

Wrong many species don't do this, but they take the easy way.

 

[Fiona]

Partly because we are hitting the limit, technology have hidden the effects from plain view but they didn't go away.

That doesn't make sense to me, I am afraid. Can you elaborate a little, please?

 

[AWPrime]

That doesn't make sense to me, I am afraid. Can you elaborate a little, please?

Oke lets try it like this.

Pre industrial: Humanity kept in check by disease and limited resources.

Population boom: New technology comes along and 'removes' the old limits. Everything becomes cheaper and easier, creating more opportunity for people to breed offspring. The population explodes towards new limits (just like with any other species).

Current situation: The human species search to these new limits has severely damaged the environment. This damages the carrying capacity of that environment. This makes it harder for technology to produce enough resources. One way that this is expressed is that, its relatively becoming more expensive to produce offspring with good chances of succeeding.

So while other species will directly starve, we by use of technology can delay the problem while feeling the side-effects.

 

[soylent]

AWPrime; why then is it the people who least can afford it that have the most children?

 

[AWPrime]

AWPrime; why then is it the people who least can afford it that have the most children?

They don't really care if their children have a good chance of success.

 

[Fiona]

No I don't think I can accept that. The people with the most resources have fewer children. This observable fact appears to be in direct contradiction of your hypothesis. I may well be missing something, though

 

[AWPrime]

No I don't think I can accept that. The people with the most resources have fewer children. This observable fact appears to be in direct contradiction of your hypothesis. I may well be missing something, though

That would be history. The most resources came available just after WW2, and it helped to create a massive population increase. One mustn't see resources as trivial matters such as mp3 players, etc.

 

[Fiona]

Well I cannot follow that either

Population has been growing, certainly. In England and Wales these are the figures

1901.........................38.2 million
1951..........................50.23 million
2001..........................59.05 million

Despite a large increase in immigration the rate of increase seems to be slowing down after the war

 

[CapelDodger]

That would be history. The most resources came available just after WW2, and it helped to create a massive population increase. One mustn't see resources as trivial matters such as mp3 players, etc.

In the developed world the baby-boom followed a period of reduced fertility (fecundity? Not quite sure what the right term is) caused by many men being away from home and by choice. The more general increase from the 50's onwards must have been influenced by the development of antibiotics.

It's incontrovertible that increased prosperity (more resources available) is almost always accompanied by a fall in birth-rate. Given the choice people seem to choose to have fewer but higher-quality children.

 

[AWPrime]

Well I cannot follow that either
Population has been growing, certainly. In England and Wales these are the figures
1901.........................38.2 million
1951..........................50.23 million
2001..........................59.05 million
Despite a large increase in immigration the rate of increase seems to be slowing down after the war

There are some major problems that that interpretation. First of all during that century there was a lot of emmigration, also its a bloody island, it doesn't have an infinite amount of of resources. And why you start at 1900, it has been going on for a lot longer.


Use this

For most of the species existence we have been quite stable very slowly growing more numerous as we discover more land and food. Then came iron tools which allow us to quickly number over 100 million and then we resumed our slow climb. Then came the age of discovery and the rate increased. Only to be followed by the industrial revolution which send the rate to plague like proportions. And to top it off we had the Green Revolution. And now we are on our way for a nice crash.

 

[AWPrime]

In the developed world the baby-boom followed a period of reduced fertility (fecundity? Not quite sure what the right term is) caused by many men being away from home and by choice.

Don't forget stress, pollution and other side effects.

It's incontrovertible that increased prosperity (more resources available) is almost always accompanied by a fall in birth-rate. Given the choice people seem to choose to have fewer but higher-quality children.

No, birth rates drop is caused by giving better education to men and women.

 

[bruto]

AWPrime; why then is it the people who least can afford it that have the most children?

One way I've seen it explained (sorry, no refererences here): If you're very poor in a society that is very poor, you do not calculate the cost of braces and college tuition. You calculate how many hands will be available to help produce your subsistence. In poor societies, children are a resource.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Can an argument be made that reducing population growth would not significantly ease our current problems?

A population that is free to completely glass and parking lot viable ecosystems, or a population that encourages building of huge areas of houses noone will buy just to keep illegal aliens employed is certainly not helping

 

[Delvo]

Population decline tends to mean either severe trauma inflicted on the population (disease, genocide, famine) or a reduction of reproduction rate below death rate. In the latter case, it means the population shifts toward older age; greater fractions of the population are in the older age groups and lower fractions are in lower age groups, the average age goes up, and the result is a downward shift in the ratio of productive workers to unproductive consumers for those workers to support.

 

[shecky]

Too many humans is the cause of almost all our problems on Earth.

It seems if there were twenty people on the planet engaged in extremely destructive activities, then DD might conclude that twenty people represented an overpopulation of Earth.

Yet, the problem of "too many humans" doesn't seem to be causing me any problems. I'd wager that today's world, with it's population larger than it's ever been, has never been more prosperous, for so many people, across boundaries. Even with Global warming, rain forest depletion, over fishing, energy-crisis, water shortage, food shortage, etc.

It's not clear to me that global warming is such a planet threatening problem at all. And it seems silly to treat the rest of the problems as though they are insurmountable. Certainly, water, food, energy shortages and environmental calamities have occurred many times in the past. Yet, here we are, communicating in a way that was science fiction just twenty years ago. It would seem that humans are pretty clever when it comes to solving problems. Were we not, we would probably be still hanging from trees.

Many overpopulation problems are regional, and turn into serious problems when freedoms are limited. Traditionally, when hunting grounds were overhunted, lands overgrazed, waterholes dried up, etc, humans moved on. Or figured out other means of survival. In more modern times, such crises become overpopulation problems when humans are prevented from moving on or developing new means of survival. In reality, overpopulation isn't the cause of the problem. It's a result of the problem. The cause being lack of freedoms suffered by the population.

 

[shecky]

Can an argument be made that reducing population growth would not significantly ease our current problems?

Which problems would those be?

A population that is free to completely glass and parking lot viable ecosystems, or a population that encourages building of huge areas of houses noone will buy just to keep illegal aliens employed is certainly not helping

Ah, I wondered why all those houses got built... to keep illegal aliens employed. Yeah, that's it!

 

[AWPrime]

Many overpopulation problems are regional, and turn into serious problems when freedoms are limited. Traditionally, when hunting grounds were overhunted, lands overgrazed, waterholes dried up, etc, humans moved on. Or figured out other means of survival. In more modern times, such crises become overpopulation problems when humans are prevented from moving on or developing new means of survival. In reality, overpopulation isn't the cause of the problem. It's a result of the problem. The cause being lack of freedoms suffered by the population.

Those freedoms you mention here is basicly the freedom to not give a $%^ and look to wreck some other place. But because all the spots have been taken, we have less freedom?

 

[shecky]

Those freedoms you mention here is basicly the freedom to not give a $%^ and look to wreck some other place. But because all the spots have been taken, we have less freedom?

To a certain degree, yes. But your reading is too simplified to be useful.

Think of the United States. It has been largely populated because it offers things and ideas to people that the old country could not provide. This continues to be the case. America is the place folks go to in order to "wreck". But what did people leave behind? Wastelands? Europe, a source for much of America's population, isn't exactly wrecked, except, perhaps, for it's political/social momentum that allows for less enterprise and prosperity. Similarly, the situation with Latin America, which provides many immigrants to the US, isn't really wrecked save for the political environment that often stifles economic development. Despite the huge increase in population of North America over a relatively short period of time, it's prosperity is vast and standard of living among the highest in the world. Some of it's resources have dwindled as a result. But they've been replaced by others, often offering greater value to itself and the world.

Environmentally, there isn't much to be so gloomy about. When resources are in short supply, humans always find alternatives. This has always been the case. When water, food, energy is scarce, people always find alternatives. This does often require change. Perhaps change is really the scariest concept of all.