|
Post by Christine Brook on May 2, 2012 17:02:21 GMT 9.5
Over at the Breakthrough Institute, Mark Lynas has an excellent critique on the Royal Society's report "People and the Planet". We have had a lot of discussion on BNC about reducing the World's population, how that could be done, could it solve climate change in time etc. Do you agree with the analysis of Mark and Barry?
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 2, 2012 17:31:05 GMT 9.5
If you're committed to solving global warming and not using nuclear power then you don't really have another option other than mass murder because renewable energy is simply not capable of supporting the current population. Ron Pittenger, Heretic had a very comment on the BNC blog: Nest time one of these (pejorative deleted) (people) asks that question, instead of answering directly, ask this question in return: “If you really believe the best answer is to reduce humanity’s numbers by X%, if you’re not a hypocrite, why haven’t you already killed yourself?”
When most people think of the Middle Ages, they imagine themselves as noble lords/ladies, not as peasants. Thus, many actually do approve slavery, since they expect to be the master. Only when they get slapped in the face by the reality that modern equality is just that–modern–that they begin to understand that life, liberty, et cetera were scarce to rare (when they existed at all) in the historical past. Those looking to reduce the population fall into the same category of self-decievers for the same reason. Oh and the link John Morgan provided is good. www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-look-onethird-of-the-human-race-has-to,27166/
|
|
|
Post by Christine Brook on May 2, 2012 18:04:54 GMT 9.5
I always ask how the proponents of population reduction plan to go about it, will they carry out the necessary actions and who will they choose to be first against the wall. They apparently hadn't thought that far and the question usually brings the conversation to an end pretty quickly.
The only way to reduce population is to increase educational opportunities for women - unfortunately we don't have the time to make that work.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 2, 2012 19:42:57 GMT 9.5
Let's s see the human population is increasing at a rate of 200,000 a day and as a result we are experiencing accelerated species die off and apparently that isn't any big deal. And no I am not planning to kill myself presently so there. Mark Lynas's point that Europe's population is much denser than Africa's and therefore Africa has a lot of room to grow is faulty logic. Europe's population is built to a great degree on the extraction of resources from other regions and a progressively overmined environment. If Britain had to grow and catch its own food most of the nation would starve to death. Where is an expanded Africa going to be able to seize resources beyond itself in 2050, the moon? And no a certain kind of economic development goes with urbanization, not necessarily a better one and probably, in the long run, a less sustainable one. Lynas seem to think that heavy western consumption is no big deal as long as we manage it right. Well on a micro level we have made some gains but on a macro level from what I've read the environment that has supported us for so long is going into the toilet. Either we don't know how to get it right or the political forces just aren't there. Reducing population is the one sure positive thing we can do. Folks who think population growth is no big environmental deal are not by inclination likely to see major bio-system break downs looming. I find over and over when it comes to water shortages, desalinization is trotted out as some kind of ace in the hole that's going to put that problem to rest. How much extra water do you contemplate from this panacea and how many of those plants are going to require additional fossil fuel burning? In addition the future loss of mountain snow and glacier melt due to global warming is going to put an additional restriction on our water supplies during the important dry summer months. Also major aquifers around the world are being depleted faster than their recharge rate. Simply invoking the nuclear holy grail as the one stop shop that somehow is going to supply the answer to all are problems is not a solution, it's a religion. I mean if you want major level nuclear replacement which is already problematic how can you not be absolutely desperate to deal with a population which will be continually out running your NPP production. As far as I can see if we don't deal with this population avalanche, too much pollution and our greed for steadily diminishing resources ie continuing growth not emulating nature in finding a sustainable steady state, then pretty soon it will be game over or maybe a few folks making do at the hunting and gathering level in a boiling savage environment. 7 billion people is already too many folks based on where we can presently see the supporting environment is headed. Putting your money on some sort of hoped 9 or 10 billion person limit down the road would seem to me an acceptance of collective suicide or at least a horrible mass die off, pick your scenario.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 3, 2012 7:26:13 GMT 9.5
The only way to reduce population is to increase educational opportunities for women - unfortunately we don't have the time to make that work. That does seem to be the key (also to a lot of problems more urgent than any concerns about overpopulation) and eventually we'll give almost every girl an education (Australia is basically already there). The World Values Survey has found that gender equality correlates very strongly with democracy. Let's s see the human population is increasing at a rate of 200,000 a day and as a result we are experiencing accelerated species die off and apparently that isn't any big deal. It's not our population size which is causing the problem though. Mark Lynas's point that Europe's population is much denser than Africa's and therefore Africa has a lot of room to grow is faulty logic. Europe's population is built to a great degree on the extraction of resources from other regions Such as? Though it isn't actually so much area as how much food you can grow that really provides the limit and in developed countries agricultural land is being returned to nature while food production increases. Though it's worth noting that EU agricultural policy is a real mess (their subsidies are causing the third world a lot of problems, given that agriculture is one of the few areas the developing world has an advantage in). and a progressively overmined environment. Mines don't take up that much of any country. If Britain had to grow and catch its own food most of the nation would starve to death. Vertical farming could even be used if they got desperate enough (though importing food from New Zealand on the other side of the planet makes sense compared to that). Where is an expanded Africa going to be able to seize resources beyond itself in 2050, the moon? Increased crop productivity would help a lot (I suspect that Africa could feed its entire population on food grown there) and they could also buy from other places. Growing food in space will probably only be for local consumption (though someone may create a recipe that can only be prepared in freefall which earthlings may want to import as a luxury). And no a certain kind of economic development goes with urbanization, not necessarily a better one and probably, in the long run, a less sustainable one. Urbanisation is for the most part significantly more energy efficient for the same standard of living and also makes it easier to deal with waste (since you get a whole together instead of being dispersed). Lynas seem to think that heavy western consumption is no big deal as long as we manage it right. The evidence does appear to indicate that. Well on a micro level we have made some gains but on a macro level from what I've read the environment that has supported us for so long is going into the toilet. Compare air or water quality of now and the 1960s and you'll see massive improvements. We've also managed to grow the numbers of some endangered species. The fact is that when we want to we can clean up the environment. Either we don't know how to get it right or the political forces just aren't there. I suspect things just haven't gotten bad enough to motivate us to overcome those who profit off of causing environmental problems. Reducing population is the one sure positive thing we can do. I ask you again, how do you propose to reduce population? Folks who think population growth is no big environmental deal are not by inclination likely to see major bio-system break downs looming. Did you consider that we might not see it coming because it isn't actually looming? I find over and over when it comes to water shortages, desalinization is trotted out as some kind of ace in the hole that's going to put that problem to rest. How much extra water do you contemplate from this panacea and how many of those plants are going to require additional fossil fuel burning? Enough potable water for everyone on the planet to use water the way a person in a western country not under water restrictions would. With nuclear fission available we don't need any of those plants to burn fossil fuels. In addition the future loss of mountain snow and glacier melt due to global warming is going to put an additional restriction on our water supplies during the important dry summer months. Also major aquifers around the world are being depleted faster than their recharge rate. Then we build more pipelines to carry water from the coastal desal plants inland (converting old oil and methane pipelines no longer needed due to increased electrification of transport might also work and be a bit cheaper). Simply invoking the nuclear holy grail as the one stop shop that somehow is going to supply the answer to all are problems is not a solution, it's a religion. I mean if you want major level nuclear replacement which is already problematic how can you not be absolutely desperate to deal with a population which will be continually out running your NPP production. We could build reactors at a rate of one a day if we really wanted to (Boeing can build airliners faster than that). As far as I can see if we don't deal with this population avalanche, too much pollution and our greed for steadily diminishing resources ie continuing growth not emulating nature in finding a sustainable steady state, then pretty soon it will be game over or maybe a few folks making do at the hunting and gathering level in a boiling savage environment. Most of our resources are not even close to diminishing, if you think otherwise then show which resources we are running out. Besides, there's no such thing as a sustainable steady state, if we end up in a steady state economy either it'll start to grow again or it will go extinct. 7 billion people is already too many folks based on where we can presently see the supporting environment is headed. Because we are still using obsolete technology, get the Luddites out of the way and then we can fix the planet. Putting your money on some sort of hoped 9 or 10 billion person limit down the road would seem to me an acceptance of collective suicide or at least a horrible mass die off, pick your scenario. There will be ≈10 billion people unless there is a mass die off, those of us who are proposing that we find a way to feed all of them are the ones who are refusal collective suicide, it is you who is saying that is too many who is proposing the mass die off (besides, when do we need to reduce population numbers?).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 3, 2012 7:59:27 GMT 9.5
Anon I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my posts. Generally they help underline my points. However here I think there was a point of confusion. Mines don't take up that much of any country. "Undermined environment" is referring to the environment, not particularly mining.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 3, 2012 8:58:25 GMT 9.5
"Undermined environment" is referring to the environment, not particularly mining. Ah, in that case I should note that many environmental indices are actually getting better in the developed world.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 4, 2012 5:22:54 GMT 9.5
"Undermined environment" is referring to the environment, not particularly mining. Ah, in that case I should note that many environmental indices are actually getting better in the developed world.[/size][/quote] In the broader macro category give me some examples. I'm not talking about saving a lake or preserving a species. The acidifying ocean, the warming climate, the disappearing rain forests, accelerated species loss, the dying coral reefs, rising ocean, greater extreme weather events, degrading of land and sea habitats, melting glaciers - just where are the broader environmental indices getting better?
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 4, 2012 9:31:18 GMT 9.5
The big example would be the ozone layer, we've basically stopped the use of CFCs so it'll fix itself over time (we've got to wait for all that chlorine to leave the stratosphere which is going to take a while).
What about lead concentration in air? Sulphur oxide emissions?
Oh and it isn't just one lake that's been saved or one species that's been preserved.
Not that the problems we're facing aren't real, just that we have a record for being able to solve environmental problems when we want to and have the motivation to do so.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 4, 2012 11:11:47 GMT 9.5
Fine as far as they go but against the broader background of degrading eco-systems, a number of them heading us toward a 6th extinction event, pretty much just a dent.
As a worldwide average I seriously doubt it. But if you have evidence otherwise, I'd like to see it. Certainly the oceans haven't improved.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 4, 2012 12:47:42 GMT 9.5
I said developed world (if you look at the cities with the worst air quality you'll find that they are all in the developing world).
Yes, with the exception of the ozone hole the improvements have been local (or at least I can't think of any global problems other than that we've made significant progress on) but they do show that we can solve problems if we think it's important enough (one thing that does cause problems with dealing with global warming is actually proving harm from it).
|
|
|
Post by John Rogers on May 17, 2012 7:13:02 GMT 9.5
In response to David M's list of environmental degradation issues... (ocean acidification, rising sea level, etc...),
The problems you cite are primarily a result of fossil fuel combustion and it's concomitant global-warming ramifications, a problem that pro-nuclear environmentalists (both pro- and anti- climate change types) are attempting to address. I very much doubt, if you take the time to drill down deep enough, that you will find much argument amongst this crowd that over-population represents one of the foundational issues of global sustainability. At some point though, you have to ask the questions, "How is the matter of over-population best solved? Are there historical precedents that we KNOW provide insight into the matter?"
As it happens, history provides 4 (and only 4) reliable, time-tested methods by which population control is achieved... War, pestilence, starvation, and prosperity. Take your pick.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 17, 2012 14:45:31 GMT 9.5
The world from a narrow human perspective is the most prosperous it has ever been and we are increasing at a rate of 80 million folks a year and every major ecosystem appears in a worldwide sense to be moving south. Maybe there is an association, you think?
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 28, 2012 20:11:01 GMT 9.5
Interesting graph here showing a rough correlation between population growth and rate of species extinction. There are many articles tying loss of biodiversity to loss of critical environmental services. It would seem this is one more way we are playing Russian Roulette with our future.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 29, 2012 5:34:37 GMT 9.5
Correlation does not mean causation (in this case it is likely not so direct as to require us to reduce our population).
Besides, and I ask again, how do you plan to get the population down to the level you think it needs to be?
On the issue of species which provide critical environmental services, if there are so few that they are endangered then they aren't going to be providing much in the way of services.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 29, 2012 16:13:35 GMT 9.5
I ask again, how do you plan to get the population down to the level you think it needs to be? I have had that question repeatedly asked and I've repeatedly answered. What about turning the matter over to experts don't you guys get? Yelling mass murder at every turn doesn't do anything to advance the conversation but comes off more as an emotionalized diversion from an unavoidable issue. Of course before you get to "how", the first question is whether a proactive program of depopulation is necessary to assure our future survival. If the answer is yes, then I hope it would be dealt with as responsibly and democratically as possible, but dealt with.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 30, 2012 7:18:38 GMT 9.5
I have had that question repeatedly asked and I've repeatedly answered. What about turning the matter over to experts don't you guys get? So you don't actually have a clue how to do it? Look, we need real solutions, not just platitudes and at the every least we need some evidence that there's a workable way of actually carrying out your solution. Yelling mass murder at every turn doesn't do anything to advance the conversation but comes off more as an emotionalized diversion from an unavoidable issue. It looks like the fact that your population control idea must involve mass murder is the unavoidable issue and that you're the one who is trying to divert from it. I mean what evidence is there that the population numbers you say we need are even possible without mass murder? Of course before you get to "how", the first question is whether a proactive program of depopulation is necessary to assure our future survival. If the answer is yes, then I hope it would be dealt with as responsibly and democratically as possible, but dealt with. I don't think it matters what the answer would be for the simple fact that there's just nothing a population control advocate could offer that would be acceptable to the public.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 30, 2012 11:07:32 GMT 9.5
I don't know whether or not an aggressive proactive program of voluntary lowering of population is possible and I don't think you do either. That's why I would like to get some experts in on the matter. Obviously education and incentives would be part of the picture.
The fact that you aren't even interested in whether dropping population significantly is a necessary survival strategy is interesting and helps explain why I usually run into a wall of accusation rather than discussion from you.
I might add as I've indicated before that the cause of nuclear power is better served by getting serious about overpopulation. Without getting a handle on population nuclear advocates will never achieve their goal of fossil fuel replacement. And given that obvious fact folks on the fence will just say who cares.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 30, 2012 14:14:54 GMT 9.5
I don't know whether or not an aggressive proactive program of voluntary lowering of population is possible and I don't think you do either. All right, we've got 7 billion people now, what would it take to reduce that to 1 billion by 2100? At the very least it won't have any chance of happening if our life expectancy goes over 100 (which may well happen and would be desired by the majority of the public) nor is it going to happen without a global one child policy (and even then I'd be surprised if it does). Besides, do you really think everyone is going to go along with you? There'll always be natalists who insist on pumping out as many children as possible (prosperity does tend to reduce the incentives towards that, urbanisation does tend to make children a cost rather than an asset). That's why I would like to get some experts in on the matter. How would you determine who is an expert on the matter? Obviously education and incentives would be part of the picture. Education can be better justified on other grounds (e.g. reproductive rights). But what would you do about people who insist on having ten kids even despite your education campaign and incentives to have less? The fact that you aren't even interested in whether dropping population significantly is a necessary survival strategy is interesting and helps explain why I usually run into a wall of accusation rather than discussion from you. I consider it irrelevant because it is a solution worse than the problem it is claimed to solve (and it's doubtful if it can even solve the problems in the first place, eventually someone is going to recreate the industrial megastate). I might add as I've indicated before that the cause of nuclear power is better served by getting serious about overpopulation. Without getting a handle on population nuclear advocates will never achieve their goal of fossil fuel replacement. And given that obvious fact folks on the fence will just say who cares. It's not at all obvious (we already know that nuclear can provide all the energy we'll need for a very long time even if our population reaches 10 billion, I did the calculations in another thread) and given that we're already making enough food to feed 7 billion (though we're not getting that food to everyone who needs it but we are getting better at that part) and haven't really gotten very far into genetic engineering we can be confident of being able to feed 10 billion as well. I don't think it's a good idea to associate nuclear with the overpopulation nonsense (all it'd do is serve to discredit the pro-nuclear movement). EDIT: Correct link to account for change to different thread.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 30, 2012 15:44:47 GMT 9.5
Is there anybody out there in the nuclear advocacy world who gets the importance of lowering our population or do they think nuclear power is some sort of one stop shop for all that ails us?
|
|
|
Post by Janne M. Korhonen on May 30, 2012 18:54:58 GMT 9.5
Is there anybody out there in the nuclear advocacy world who gets the importance of lowering our population or do they think nuclear power is some sort of one stop shop for all that ails us? I for one happen to think that world population needs to be lowered to - perhaps - around 1-5 billion (I don't want to speculate about the exact number). But this must be achieved by lowering fertility: all the alternatives boil down to mass killings, which I'm implacably opposed to on both moral and pragmatic counts. The moral case against mass killings should be self-evident; the pragmatic case is that I do not for a moment believe there would be a way to kill selectively upwards of a billion people. The fundamental problem is that there is no world dictatorship that could do this, and no single country can make a meaningful impact even if it killed its every citizen. Any attempts to perpetuate a global genocide - provided that a government insane enough to try can be found - would provoke a mutually genocidal conflict which would assuredly escalate to whatever weapons would be available. The damage to biosphere would in all likelihood exceed anything caused by growing human population. The way I envision population reductions happening is through increased standard of living and attendant reduction of fertility, i.e. in the only permanent way that has - so far - been demonstrated to work. As this method is too slow to have a meaningful impact to our current environmental crisis, it logically follows that we cannot count on population reductions to achieve meaningful reductions in humanity's footprint. Hence, while acknowledging that long-term solutions will probably involve population levels somewhat lower than today, I do not see population reductions as a solution for the crisis of the first part of this century. David M, if you are unwilling to kill yourself, I suggest you empirically test your idea of population reductions by trying to convince some of your closest friends or relatives that they should voluntarily euthanatize themselves when reaching the age of, say, 50 or 60. Let's talk more about lowering population as a strategy for the planet after you can demonstrate success.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 30, 2012 19:22:50 GMT 9.5
David M, if you are unwilling to kill yourself, Pretty much the standard line when one tries to be serious on the matter of overpopulation; that and of course genocide. It's like everybody is reading from the same playbook. The idea that voluntary approaches might be possible once folks are educated to the stark choices isn't even considered. Well at least you appreciate the value of a lower population.
|
|
|
Post by Janne M. Korhonen on May 30, 2012 21:11:45 GMT 9.5
David M,
without any quantification, this debate is going in circles. I suggest you to substantiate your arguments by calculating - or finding existing calculations - what reduction rates are needed to stabilize population to some sustainable level (1 billion, 2 billion, 3 billion and so on) in a meaningful timeframe (before 2050, say) and then outlining how those rates are to be achieved.
You may find the aforementioned calculation enlightening, as everyone I know who has done so has concluded that the meaningful reduction of human population in meaningful timeframe would require premature deaths on a vast scale. Voluntary or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 31, 2012 1:29:42 GMT 9.5
David M,
without any quantification, this debate is going in circles. I suggest you to substantiate your arguments by calculating - or finding existing calculations - what reduction rates are needed to stabilize population to some sustainable level (1 billion, 2 billion, 3 billion and so on) in a meaningful timeframe (before 2050, say) and then outlining how those rates are to be achieved.
You may find the aforementioned calculation enlightening, as everyone I know who has done so has concluded that the meaningful reduction of human population in meaningful timeframe would require premature deaths on a vast scale. Voluntary or otherwise. Part of the reason the conversation keeps going around in circles is I am always asked how we are supposed to reduce the population as if I could detail out a solution which I can't. In any case that question jumps the gun. The first appropriate question is whether a serious drop in population is necessary to avoid disaster. Given what I've read about what is happening to the biosphere and its relationship to population growth I'd say the answer is yes. Simply saying it is impossible or too draconian begs the question. The only real alternative solution I hear is nuclear is coming to the rescue. Well good luck. Barry Brook spells out the various population scenarios and about anything that would seem to be "pragmatic" appears to me too little too late. But what do I know? That's why I'd like to see some wise folks with a range of expertise in these matters give us a comprehensive road map to a sustainable future. If they think we can handle 10 billion folks by 2100 and spell out how that is achieved(Vegetarianism and nukes or whatever) I guess I'll have to defer to their expertise. On the other hand if they say we have to lower the population to say 1 billion folks by 2100 I expect you to sign on if you are going to maintain a scientific objective perspective. The important thing is the population matter be seriously addressed and not simply shoved into the closet because people have looked at a graph and announced "impossible, there must be another way." Here a genesis is described and the modern challenge layed out pretty starkly. www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.htmlI can't help but think "modify our behavior" would include lower our presence.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 31, 2012 8:55:16 GMT 9.5
Is there anybody out there in the nuclear advocacy world who gets the importance of lowering our population or do they think nuclear power is some sort of one stop shop for all that ails us? Nuclear can solve the energy and freshwater problems for any feasible population size for at least the next hundred years (and it doesn't look as if population will grow much after that) and given that we're already able to feed 7 billion and can likely make significant improvements in crop yield I don't see any problem with feeding 10 billion. Population lowering appears to the completely unnecessary. The way I envision population reductions happening is through increased standard of living and attendant reduction of fertility, i.e. in the only permanent way that has - so far - been demonstrated to work. As this method is too slow to have a meaningful impact to our current environmental crisis, it logically follows that we cannot count on population reductions to achieve meaningful reductions in humanity's footprint. Hence, while acknowledging that long-term solutions will probably involve population levels somewhat lower than today, I do not see population reductions as a solution for the crisis of the first part of this century. Exactly what the population will end up being is an open question (the growth will likely slow significantly, though another possible factor is an increased generation time as people decide to have kids later). There's also the question of just how far you'll reduce population using that method. Pretty much the standard line when one tries to be serious on the matter of overpopulation; that and of course genocide. It's like everybody is reading from the same playbook. Did you ever consider whether great minds might indeed think alike? :-p The idea that voluntary approaches might be possible once folks are educated to the stark choices isn't even considered. It just goes against human nature too much to be workable. Besides, I strongly suspect that the survivors of any such programme to reduce human population would not be the kind of people who you'd want looking after the planet (i.e. you'd end up with a world full of sociopaths). Part of the reason the conversation keeps going around in circles is I am always asked how we are supposed to reduce the population as if I could detail out a solution which I can't. You claim it is the solution and yet you can not actually provide an acceptable means of implementing it. If you want it taken seriously you've got to at least show that it's possible. In any case that question jumps the gun. The first appropriate question is whether a serious drop in population is necessary to avoid disaster. Which has not been shown to be the case. Maybe if we've converted all our energy production to nuclear and pushed genetic engineering and other biotech to its limits to fed as many people on as little land as possible we may still find that we've got too many people (though I'd be surprised) but solutions as drastic as mass murder should not be considered if there are other plausible ways to solve the problem. Given what I've read about what is happening to the biosphere and its relationship to population growth I'd say the answer is yes. Yet no one has actually shown that it is population growth which is the problem and not something else? Simply saying it is impossible or too draconian begs the question. The only real alternative solution I hear is nuclear is coming to the rescue. Nuclear can do the job if we let it and we've got a much better chance of being allowed to do it then being allowed to kill most of the people on the planet. Well good luck. Barry Brook spells out the various population scenarios and about anything that would seem to be "pragmatic" appears to me too little too late. But what do I know? Yes, anything which could actually be close to acceptable won't get population down to the numbers you want. That's why I'd like to see some wise folks with a range of expertise in these matters give us a comprehensive road map to a sustainable future. It sounds to me that you just can't face up to the reality that your plan can't work and are trying to save it by appealing to some unknown experts who you hope could somehow figure out how to make it work. Besides, which experts would you appoint (don't need names, just a description of what areas of expertise you'd be looking for)? If they think we can handle 10 billion folks by 2100 and spell out how that is achieved(Vegetarianism and nukes or whatever) I guess I'll have to defer to their expertise. We're going to have to figure out how to handle 10 billion by then because our population may end up that size, the alternative is too bad to be worth contemplating. On the other hand if they say we have to lower the population to say 1 billion folks by 2100 I expect you to sign on if you are going to maintain a scientific objective perspective. We the people of Earth will mine every coal vein, burn every drop of oil and cut down every last tree before we allow that to happen. But then again, experts are sometimes wrong, just like Malthus. The important thing is the population matter be seriously addressed and not simply shoved into the closet because people have looked at a graph and announced "impossible, there must be another way." No, just because you wish there were another way doesn't mean there is one, it may very well be impossible. If you think we need less people on Earth the only way I can think of to do it without committing mass murder and violations of reproductive rights would be to move most of the population into space.
|
|
|
Post by Janne M. Korhonen on May 31, 2012 18:12:26 GMT 9.5
Part of the reason the conversation keeps going around in circles is I am always asked how we are supposed to reduce the population as if I could detail out a solution which I can't. In any case that question jumps the gun. The first appropriate question is whether a serious drop in population is necessary to avoid disaster. What is necessary and what is possible are not always the same thing. As an analogue, suppose a heavy truck is just about to hurtle off a cliff. What would be necessary to avoid a disaster would be to temporarily suspend the law of inertia. Problem solved? As e.g. the calculations by Barry Brook you quoted show, population growth has an inertia of its own, and even very heroic assumptions about reducing fertility and increasing mortality - even complete sterilization of entire human species within this decade - will not meaningfully alter the population levels before 2050. By which time it's too late for climate change, for example. Population reduction as an answer is a chimera. It is all very well and good to assert that population reductions would solve the environmental crisis. In theory, you are right. But given the inertia of population growth, lacking an answer to the "how" question means your solution is about as helpful as to suggest the solution to world hunger would be to let the poor eat more cake. Obviously, that would solve the hunger problem, so let's just leave it to the "experts" to figure out how to do it - problem solved! Given what I've read about what is happening to the biosphere and its relationship to population growth I'd say the answer is yes. Simply saying it is impossible or too draconian begs the question. The only real alternative solution I hear is nuclear is coming to the rescue. There are obviously a range of alternatives far less draconian than depopulation to sustainable levels. To outline just a few, these include massive reductions in affluence, massive outlays of renewable energy, and technofixes like geoengineering and off-world mining and manufacturing. Or a combination of these and other alternatives. What puzzles me to no small extent is that you seem to categorically discount every alternative to draconian population reductions (in other words, mass murder) as unfeasible or unlikely to succeed. This begs the question, do you really believe it is easier to force people to submit to death than it is to force them to live within the means of the planet? After all, the planet could probably support upwards of 40 billion people if their standard of living would approximate that of some African subsistence farmers and herders. Surely most people would find even that preferable to being put to death?
|
|
|
Post by davidm on May 31, 2012 19:13:53 GMT 9.5
What's this problem with experts? Do folks take their tooth problems to a plumber?
Saying over and over mass murder is the only way to achieve a population drop doesn't make it so. I'll stick with my voluntary approach. It seems to me if we can send millions off to die in stupid wars we can agree to alter some life styles for a good cause. Thinking of my recently deceased mom I would for instance opt for a focus on pain management over interfering with the natural progression of death associated with old age.
It seems to me that you establish the necessity of an action before you ask how to proceed. Apparently some folks don't agree which makes for a strange conversation.
Around here nuclear power is pretty much THE option. Everything else is a side show. As a Darwinian with all those examples before us and behind us from our fellow animals I see an appropriate population balance between ourselves and our rapidly degrading environment as the center piece to a sustainable future.
African subsidence farmers did not live at the kind of density that you imagine they could now if we all joined them. Many of them if they are not being murdered are starving to death.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 1, 2012 9:18:36 GMT 9.5
What's this problem with experts? No problem, but I wouldn't mind knowing what your problem with not saying which areas of expertise would be needed to come up with your preferred solution is? Besides, get a bunch of demographers together (good experts if you want to see what might be possible with respect to population reduction) and they'll probably be unable to come up with a way to reduce population quickly without mass murder. Saying over and over mass murder is the only way to achieve a population drop doesn't make it so. We know that mass murder and involuntary sterilisation could potentially work if you had a sufficiently oppressive government. We do not know any other way to achieve such a massive population drop in such a short time and you have not shown that one exists. I'll stick with my voluntary approach. You haven't even said what that is! It seems to me if we can send millions off to die in stupid wars we can agree to alter some life styles for a good cause. There's much less change possible from lifestyle alteration than many think (and talk that it is needed is probably driving a significant part of the global warming denialist movement). Thinking of my recently deceased mom[sic] I would for instance opt for a focus on pain management over interfering with the natural progression of death associated with old age. Hey, if you want to die that's your choice and you are free to do so but that doesn't mean everyone is going to follow you. www.aleph.se/Trans/Individual/Life/turkey.txtYes, I would join the escape committee. It seems to me that you establish the necessity of an action before you ask how to proceed. Apparently some folks don't agree which makes for a strange conversation. You haven't shown that we need to reduce population or that we can't continue our civilisation with what is likely to happen to population if we take a hands off approach (and as far as I'm concerned it's already been proven that we can provide enough energy, water and food for all those people for a long time). Around here nuclear power is pretty much THE option. Everything else is a side show. Yes, many of our current environmental problems come from CO 2 emitting energy sources and nuclear fission is the best energy source which doesn't emit CO 2 we have right now (it's also the one one that we can count on to supply the energy we need to run our civilisation). As a Darwinian with all those examples before us and behind us from our fellow animals I see an appropriate population balance between ourselves and our rapidly degrading environment as the center piece to a sustainable future. You seem to be Malthusian before Darwinian. Oh and those animals find the appropriate population balance by starvation and predation, how nature does things is not how we should do things (it's likely that human evolution will take on a more Lamarckian character due to genetic engineering technology).
|
|
|
Post by jasonk on Jun 12, 2012 7:44:28 GMT 9.5
Well it seems that David M. had a question in there that I think is the most important question of this century but it quickly falls through the cracks. David M,
The first appropriate question is whether a serious drop in population is necessary to avoid disaster. Given what I've read about what is happening to the biosphere and its relationship to population growth I'd say the answer is yes. I agree that the debate must first be about if population is a problem and why. I think that the side of the argument that sees how humans can live with less impact and more people should stick with why they reached such conclusion. Just ignore the whole depopulation cannon fodder arguments. What is the counter argument to the information that David M has about the IMPACT of humans? What are the specific activities that we do as humans that negatively impact the environment? What metrics do we use to measure these activities? What can we do to reduce them? For example, species lost per acre of farmland. How does this vary throughout the world? If it is low in some places and high in others then why? If we know why, then going forward we have a how to solve our problem. If we don’t know why or how then lets put our creativity toward coming up with ideas on how to do so. There is an underlying assumption that human activity is bad for the environment. Then the rational argument that more humans = more human activity. Then the conclusion that more humans = bad for the environment. I’m not saying it isn’t true, but it doesn’t have to be if we choose for it not to be the case. We have efficiency and density as tools to aid us in this challenge. If each person is more resource efficient and lives more densely then we can reduce our impact. This is the reason above all else that I support nuclear energy. It is the densest form of energy extraction we have available to us. As a side effect access to cheap energy raises standard of living which reduces population growth. Check out Hans Rosling’s presentation on ted.com on how.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 12, 2012 13:43:11 GMT 9.5
Well it seems that David M. had a question in there that I think is the most important question of this century but it quickly falls through the cracks. I would say it's only important if there's any hope of actually being able to reduce population (and keep it reduced). If nothing (or at least nothing we'd be willing as a species to do) can stop it then it becomes a moot point (kind of like debating whether a pole of η Carinae is pointed at us). I agree that the debate must first be about if population is a problem and why. I think that the side of the argument that sees how humans can live with less impact and more people should stick with why they reached such conclusion. I would say that the burden of proof of showing that there is a problem does rest with those who claim the problem exists and that it hasn't been met by the overpopulation movement. Of course once a problem is found the burden of proof is on those who offer solutions, whether they be nuclear power, genetic engineering, vertical farming, bird blending or population reduction. Just ignore the whole depopulation cannon fodder arguments. That the proposed solution is basically completely unacceptable to most people is not something that should just be swept under the rug. What is the counter argument to the information that David M has about the IMPACT of humans? I'm going to come out and say something that many would find offensive and that is that it is legitimate to hold some things as more important than the environment and also that it is perfectly legitimate to accept environmental damage (i.e. that drastic population reduction is a cure worse than the disease). Of course I happen to think that we can indeed support 10 billion people with minimal impact on the environment if we would just stop listening to Luddites but if I were made to choose between the environment and human lives the environment would lose almost all the time. We have efficiency and density as tools to aid us in this challenge. If each person is more resource efficient and lives more densely then we can reduce our impact. Most of our land use is agriculture so raising yields there looks like it's the most productive approach to using less land, trying to cram people into high-rise apartments instead of detached houses whilst it could help on some measures isn't going to save anywhere near as much land as even a modest increase in crop yield.
|
|