Overpopulation

[CapelDodger]

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

I can see such factors affecting death-rates, but not birth-rates. Even at times of great stress (such as famines) women still have children

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

Birth-rates tend to drop when people are given the option, and have a high expectation of their offspring surviving infancy. People can then have fewer children with higher investment per child, rather than adopt a scatter-gun approach in the hope that some will survive.

The utility of children is also a factor, of course. People who depend on children for labour or for support in later life will tend to have more of them. People who can reasonably depend on society and/or their own financial resources to support them might well choose not to have any. (That would include the likes of me, as it happens.)

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

Indeed. They provide labour (directly or indirectly) and in extremis can be sold or (hat-tip to Jonathon Swift) eaten.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

Easily. Growth in demand from existing population can far outweigh growth in populations that are in no position to demand anything.

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

Property developers employ illegal aliens because their labour is cheap and unregulated. Those houses (or offices, malls, whatever) may not be sold, but the developers certainly expected that they would be. In the US that was a reasonable expectation until very recently, even if they were only bought speculatively.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

Hard to argue with any of that .

This is not a problem if, during their productive phase, the older generation sacrificed enough current consumption in favour of investment to improve the productivity of the later generation. Alternatively, immigration from less favoured societies can take up the slack. Some combination of the two is the most flexible policy.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

That's a short-sighted view, IMO. The overall problem is that humanity is living off capital, not income. That's not sustainable; all's fine for a while, then suddenly you hit a wall.

It's not clear to me that global warming is such a planet threatening problem at all.

Wait a while and it'll become clear.

And it seems silly to treat the rest of the problems as though they are insurmountable.

To me it seems even sillier to assume that they're not.

Certainly, water, food, energy shortages and environmental calamities have occurred many times in the past.

And entire civilisations have collapsed as a result.

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.

Not on Easter Island we wouldn't be. No trees left.

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 died on the spot. Where are we to move on to - Mars? Melting tundra? There are no new frontiers. There's only one region now, and it's global.

Or figured out other means of survival.

Or not. The dead only tell tales to archaeologists.

In more modern times, such crises become overpopulation problems when humans are prevented from moving on or developing new means of survival.

You assume there are new means of survival to develop (since there are no new frontiers) because it's happened before. Wishful thinking, IMO. Sure, we can live off hydroponics and vat-cultured meat, but we can't leap to it overnight.

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.

Our degrees of freedom are imposed by the size of the planet and by its non-renewable resources. For instance, China's problems (and by extention our problems) would be much worse without the imposition of a one-child policy on the majority population. Admittedly that's stored up some new problems, but unrestrained freedom would have been worse.

(Please don't take this post as being aggressive, it's not meant to be, but you are looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses. I've always looked at the world through glasses of a much browner tinge. "Stuff-tinted", perhaps, as in "Stuff Happens" .)

 

[AWPrime]

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.

Mostly untapped resources, which is the basis for its present/former prosperity.

While the prosperity of Europe is limited because of limited resources it has been rather efficient which leads to new ideas and technologies. As for the future prospects of the US it has a great cultural momentum that may decrease its ability to adapt, which could endanger its remaining prosperity.

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.

Soylent Green?


But anyway, I think you confuse opportunity with freedom.

 

[AWPrime]

I can see such factors affecting death-rates, but not birth-rates. Even at times of great stress (such as famines) women still have children

Because those factors are also disastrous to fertility. Also in most famine areas there is a distinct lack of anti-contraceptives.

 

[Cuddles]

To be honest, I think both extremes are just as silly as each other. Claiming that overpopulation is the cause of all our problems and that there is nothing we can possibly do about them except reduce the population is just plain wrong. Humans are perfectly capable of causing all kinds of problems even when there are just a few of us. Less humans might mean using less oil, or it might just mean that everyone uses more of it. Either way, the oil will all be used up eventually. Slash and burn farming, as already mentioned, is a perfect example of behaviour that can be extremely damaging even in relatively small amounts.

On the other hand, trying to claim that population cannot be a problem, or that all these problems will be solved without anyone having to actually think about it is equally wrong. You barely even need to think to realise that if population keeps increasing, you must eventually reach a point where it can't be sustained. In the extreme case, the mass of humans would have to be more than the mass of the Earth, which is just stupid. So clearly population can be a problem. Sure, we have reached points in the past where population grew beyond the ability to sustain it. So far, we've always managed to get past those points by developing new technology, but that technology did not come from the people who ignored the problem and hoped it would go away. Those people just died, and were replaced by those who recognised a potential problem and thought up ways to solve it.

The point is, it's not population on its own that is the problem, it is the population compared to the resources available to sustain it. If you can get more resources, or make existing ones go further, then there is no problem with population growing further. We will eventually reach a point where that is not possible, but I don't think we've reached it yet. However, we have advanced enough to know that there is at least a potential problem, and we can't all sit back and relax and expect everything to be fine, since without continued advancement, the potential problem will rapidly become a real one within our lifetimes. And may do anyway if we're unlucky.

 

[shecky]

The overall problem is that humanity is living off capital, not income. That's not sustainable; all's fine for a while, then suddenly you hit a wall.

I don't really argue against this. But this point isn't really related to overpopulation.

Wait a while and it'll become clear.

It may or may not.

To me it seems even sillier to assume that they're not.

Perhaps. But that isn't my stance.

And entire civilisations have collapsed as a result.

Yes. Humanity for the most part goes on. There are many things which may have no solution, try as we may.

Not on Easter Island we wouldn't be. No trees left.

Or died on the spot. Where are we to move on to - Mars? Melting tundra? There are no new frontiers. There's only one region now, and it's global.

Or not. The dead only tell tales to archaeologists.

You assume there are new means of survival to develop (since there are no new frontiers) because it's happened before. Wishful thinking, IMO. Sure, we can live off hydroponics and vat-cultured meat, but we can't leap to it overnight.

I don't think this is wishful thinking at all. Look at where we are right now. Humanity as a whole is better off than it's ever been. At the same time, the world population is larger than ever. I don't expect hydroponics, or vat cultured meat or soylent green will happen tomorrow, if ever. But it will happen when the demand arises.

At the same time, there are things which may be out of our control. including global warming, disease, asteroid impact, etc. Humans really have no special place in the universe or on the planet. Humans do have a particularly good skill at adapting, however. If one contends that global overpopulation is indeed a problem, there is little evidence to support that notion.

Our degrees of freedom are imposed by the size of the planet and by its non-renewable resources. For instance, China's problems (and by extention our problems) would be much worse without the imposition of a one-child policy on the majority population. Admittedly that's stored up some new problems, but unrestrained freedom would have been worse.

I am concerned with the limitations of freedoms imposed by people, less than those imposed by nature. Limitations restrict the ability of people to thrive, limitations that prevent people from migrating to more prosperous regions, limitations that limit the ability of people to make the best decisions for themselves.

Defending China's limitation of personal freedoms strikes me as pretty crazy, though. I can't see how government choosing what one can do with an individual's body, particularly on such a personal level, is in any way commendable.

(Please don't take this post as being aggressive, it's not meant to be, but you are looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses. I've always looked at the world through glasses of a much browner tinge. "Stuff-tinted", perhaps, as in "Stuff Happens" .)

Really? I contend that humanity can be wiped out by means which may or may not be under our control. Is that really a rose colored view of the universe? I find that sort of thing tends to drive people to despair or deities. I do tend to think our destruction will not be our own doing. As awful as humans can be, the long trend has been more bright than bleak.

 

[shecky]

Mostly untapped resources, which is the basis for its present/former prosperity.

While the prosperity of Europe is limited because of limited resources it has been rather efficient which leads to new ideas and technologies.

The most valuable resource is human ingenuity.

As for the future prospects of the US it has a great cultural momentum that may decrease its ability to adapt, which could endanger its remaining prosperity.

Based on what evidence? Prosperity isn't a finite or zero sum resource. You speak of "remaining prosperity" as if it's all contained in a vat somewhere that's running dry, where portions are doled out in proportion to how many are getting theirs.

But anyway, I think you confuse opportunity with freedom.

Not really. Freedom has a neat ability to make it's own opportunity.

 

[CapelDodger]

Because those factors are also disastrous to fertility. Also in most famine areas there is a distinct lack of anti-contraceptives [sic].

I can't see where you're going with this, unless it's an exercise in sophistry. If fertility is disastrously compromised there's no need for contraceptives.

 

[tyr_13]

Yes, overpopulation is a problem, that aggravates other problems. Saying it is THE cause of all the other things is silly oversimplification.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't really argue against this. But this point isn't really related to overpopulation.

No, it's related to "Global warming, rain forest depletion, over fishing, energy-crisis, water shortage, food shortage, etc." and your personal "So far, so good" attitude as you plummet past the second floor.

It may or may not.

You'd be well advised, IMO, to apply a bit more judgement than that to global warming (and the other things that we're collectively doing).

Perhaps. But that isn't my stance.

Yet it appears to be. We seem to have a communication problem.

Yes. Humanity for the most part goes on.

Which is no comfort to the part that doesn't go on. Which may include you and yours, remember.

There are many things which may have no solution, try as we may.

Best we not cause any more problems, then.

I don't think this is wishful thinking at all. Look at where we are right now. Humanity as a whole is better off than it's ever been.

And plummeting past the second floor. Living on capital, not income. So far, so good ...

At the same time, the world population is larger than ever. I don't expect hydroponics, or vat cultured meat or soylent green will happen tomorrow, if ever. But it will happen when the demand arises.

It will happen after the necessity arises, which will be too late for most people.

At the same time, there are things which may be out of our control. including global warming, disease, asteroid impact, etc. Humans really have no special place in the universe or on the planet. Humans do have a particularly good skill at adapting, however. If one contends that global overpopulation is indeed a problem, there is little evidence to support that notion.

That paragraph lacks a unifying theme. You might want to work on that.

I don't myself contend that global population is a problem; my contention is that the apparently prospering population is the problem because it's living on capital, with no thought to the future.

I am concerned with the limitations of freedoms imposed by people, less than those imposed by nature.

Nature's authority is a damn' sight more imposing than any social authority will ever be until we cut ourselves off from it entirely, living under domes in an entirely artificial environment, and how much freedom can you expect in such a situation?

Limitations restrict the ability of people to thrive, limitations that prevent people from migrating to more prosperous regions, limitations that limit the ability of people to make the best decisions for themselves.

It's the freedom of people to make short-term decisions for themselves (and screw everybody else) that will lead to the survivors living under domes.

Defending China's limitation of personal freedoms strikes me as pretty crazy, though.

Is it less crazy than Mao's idea that population creates its own means of survival? Which, funnily enough, seems to be your position.

I can't see how government choosing what one can do with an individual's body, particularly on such a personal level, is in any way commendable.

Following Mao's path there'd be two billion Chinese today, except that the Chinese population would have collapsed spectacularly unless it had expanded beyond China's current borders. It wouldn't just be Tibet that took the strain, it would be Russia, India, and South-East Asia. Which would not be a good thing.

Really? I contend that humanity can be wiped out by means which may or may not be under our control. Is that really a rose colored view of the universe? I find that sort of thing tends to drive people to despair or deities. I do tend to think our destruction will not be our own doing. As awful as humans can be, the long trend has been more bright than bleak.

A trend you project into the future on no basis at all, as far as I can see.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, overpopulation is a problem, that aggravates other problems. Saying it is THE cause of all the other things is silly oversimplification.

I agree, and will go further : oversimplification is inherently silly. I adhere to Murphy's Three Laws, the first of which is "Nothing is as simple as it seems".

 

[soylent]

The most valuable resource is human ingenuity.

[...]

Based on what evidence? Prosperity isn't a finite or zero sum resource. You speak of "remaining prosperity" as if it's all contained in a vat somewhere that's running dry, where portions are doled out in proportion to how many are getting theirs.

That's very true.

Coal couldn't be mined effectively until pumps and other equipment was invented and it was viewed as an inferior fuel to wood. Coal wasn't widely useful until it could be shipped using rail roads with coal-fired steam locomotives to consumers. With every invention; more efficient steam engines, coking of coal so it can be used in blast furnaces, gasification into towngas for use in lighting and cooking, more efficient coal fired stoves, the invention of the electric generator and steam turbine etc.; coal became more and more useful, the coal resource that could be found and extracted grew and the utillity that could be derived from a given quantity of coal increased.

The same sort of progression from useless curiosity to vital resource occured for natural gas and oil.

We're just at the beginning of starting to exploit uranium and we have barely touched thorium. Your average piece of crust, not an ore-body, contains 10 ppm of thorium and 3 ppm of uranium. In an efficient reactor, such as a molten salt reactor, this corresponds to ~150 barrels of oil equivalent of heat per tonne of rock.

Spent fuel from light water reactors is potentially an enormous resource; it's sort of hanging in limbo between waste and resource as it sits in pools and dry storage casks and time will tell if it can make the transition. Most of the energy is still in there; CANDU's can take it for a second spin and extract a bit more energy, you can extract valuable elements(e.g. platinum group metals, radioactive isotopes for RTGs and technetium with unique catalytic properties) but the big prize is extracting the rest of the 99% of the energy that wasn't used.

The fusion resource is even bigger, but much harder to extract.

If an efficient, cheap and dense storage technology were to come along, wind turbines would be transformed from a way to greenwash fossil fuels to a truly viable means of generating electricity in many locations. It would vastly increase the utillity derivable from electrical power in a myriad of ways which aren't necessarily forseeable; it could single-handedly kill the ICE, make portable electronics cheaper and allow them to go longer without charging, give enough power density to allow exoskelleton type devices to flourish and give back full mobillity to the old folks.

Even something as useless as landfills are increasingly moving towards being considered a resource; providing biogas or valuable raw materials. Everything from taking the organic matter and producing something like oil to mining the metals.

Before the necessary technology is well understood it's difficult to say whether or not something is a resource; but it's very easy to see that the potential resources are very, very large and open ended.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

I wish to offer a clarification, since at least two posters have misunderstood what I meant by the term "tragedy of the Commons". Please check the source below.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html

To paraphrase, when a good is held in common and used by all--as grazing land for a community--but the benefits accrue to individuals, over time the good will be overused because the gain for an individual of taking more of the common good will be greater than their share of the loss due to the overall degradation of that. It is in the villager's interest to add another sheep or cow to the common grazing ground; the damage that overgrazing does will be shared among all the animals (and their owners) but the benefit of the additional animal will be solely his.

Hope this clarified it, MK

 

[CapelDodger]

I wish to offer a clarification, since at least two posters have misunderstood what I meant by the term "tragedy of the Commons". Please check the source below.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html

To paraphrase, when a good is held in common and used by all--as grazing land for a community--but the benefits accrue to individuals, over time the good will be overused because the gain for an individual of taking more of the common good will be greater than their share of the loss due to the overall degradation of that. It is in the villager's interest to add another sheep or cow to the common grazing ground; the damage that overgrazing does will be shared among all the animals (and their owners) but the benefit of the additional animal will be solely his.

Hope this clarified it, MK

What the argument leaves out is that communities will impose themselves on individuals in defence of common interests. Sustainability is a common interest.

 

[CapelDodger]

Coal couldn't be mined effectively until pumps and other equipment was invented and it was viewed as an inferior fuel to wood.

On the contrary, coal has been exploited as a superior fuel since at least Roman times. Check out the energy density. Coal was only in competition with charcoal, not wood, and only in regard to iron-smelting.

Coal wasn't widely useful until it could be shipped using rail roads with coal-fired steam locomotives to consumers.

The Steam Revolution preceded railways; it was that revolution which created the demand that ultimately led to railways and the engines that worked them. You have the situation turned almost exactly backwards.

 

[Nogbad]

Global warming, rain forest depletion, over fishing, energy-crisis, water shortage, food shortage, etc.

They're fundamentally caused by overpopulation.

when will the world wake up and face this fact?

Revered Malthus is that you?

 

[AWPrime]

The most valuable resource is human ingenuity.

No, that would be air and food. The most basic necessities.

Based on what evidence? Prosperity isn't a finite or zero sum resource. You speak of "remaining prosperity" as if it's all contained in a vat somewhere that's running dry, where portions are doled out in proportion to how many are getting theirs.

Simple, prosperity is the net return of the economy. The economy is the conversion of resources, however while some methods are more extensive/efficient then others they can't break physics.

The problem with the US economic engine is that its set on large amounts of cheap resources. The shear scale and momentum of the country is slowing or preventing adaptation. Also the US benefited from its status as global superpower/hegemony, that status has breaking down for years.

Not really. Freedom has a neat ability to make it's own opportunity

Opportunity must present itself before it can be seen and chosen.