szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (03/19/91)
Human population reached a cusp in the S-curve between 1965-1970 (about the time reasonable birth control became available in developed and, later to a growing extent, underdeveloped countries), and is predicted to reach an equilibrium of 10 billion sometime around 2050. However, these projections assume the equilibrium growth rate is zero, without explanation. As I have shown, the actual equilibrium growth rate is closer to -50% per generation. At this rate, assuming a generation time of 30 years and that lifespan increase reaches some limit, population will reach 2.5 billion in 2110, 150 million in 2230, 16 million in 2320, 1.7 million by 2410, 200,000 by 2500, etc. Most human cultures will die out over this period. This assumes no cataclysm, such as nuclear or biological war. Side note: many people have posted about the "overpopulation problem". The ratio of food:human population on the planet is higher now (by a factor of nearly 2) than at any time in human history, and keeps growing each year. What is meant by "overpopulation"? It surely can't mean we are racing ahead of the food supply. In article <7860@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: [I write] >> >>...the human race will _not_ expand, because >> >>the natural equilibrium population growth rate with reliable birth control >> >>is c. -50% per generation. This is regardless of any technology except >> >>that related to radically reducing the costs of having children in terms of >> >>money and women's health. > >For one thing, we recently have acquired such technology, and are in the >process of acquiring more. Examples, please? >For another, we can adopt taxation policies to >accomplish this; presumably a pioneering space colony would do so. There is no evidence taxation can help. France, for one, tried this without significant impact on the birthrate. With reliable birth control, birthrate is primarily a function of personal choice/psychology -- primarily women's choice -- and not so much a function of politics or economics. >> > The whole history of the human race is about expansion. Why stop now? > >Not only is this the history, this is essential humanity. I haven't seen any evidence that humans have an innate desire to procreate (as opposed to having sex and nurturing already existing offspring). Again, I am not questioning the "should" of off-planet expansion: I am quite in favor of it. I am questioning the assumption of its inevitability, when evidence to date indicates that it cannot occur. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with.
sbishop@desire.wright.edu (03/21/91)
In article <21376@crg5.UUCP>, szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: > Human population reached a cusp in the S-curve between 1965-1970 (about > the time reasonable birth control became available in developed and, > later to a growing extent, underdeveloped countries), and is predicted > to reach an equilibrium of 10 billion sometime around 2050. However, > these projections assume the equilibrium growth rate is zero, without > explanation. As I have shown, the actual equilibrium growth rate is > closer to -50% per generation. At this rate, assuming a generation time > of 30 years and that lifespan increase reaches some limit, population > will reach 2.5 billion in 2110, 150 million in 2230, 16 million > in 2320, 1.7 million by 2410, 200,000 by 2500, etc. Most human cultures > will die out over this period. This assumes no cataclysm, such as nuclear > or biological war. > What about all the third world countries where birth control is heavily fought by the religious sector which have their own agenda? Or the latin American countries where it is 'macho' to father many children. > Side note: many people have posted about the "overpopulation problem". > The ratio of food:human population on the planet is higher now (by a > factor of nearly 2) than at any time in human history, and keeps growing > each year. What is meant by "overpopulation"? It surely can't mean we > are racing ahead of the food supply. > Food is not the problem, pollution and destruction of the environment is the problem. I forget the exact numbers but the Amazon rain forest (the lungs of the world) is disappearing at an increasing and alarming rate due to the pressure of people expanding into the forest. > > In article <7860@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > [I write] >>> >>...the human race will _not_ expand, because >>> >>the natural equilibrium population growth rate with reliable birth control >>> >>is c. -50% per generation. This is regardless of any technology except >>> >>that related to radically reducing the costs of having children in terms of >>> >>money and women's health. >> >>For one thing, we recently have acquired such technology, and are in the >>process of acquiring more. > > Examples, please? > > >>For another, we can adopt taxation policies to >>accomplish this; presumably a pioneering space colony would do so. > > There is no evidence taxation can help. France, for one, tried this > without significant impact on the birthrate. With reliable birth control, > birthrate is primarily a function of personal choice/psychology -- primarily > women's choice -- and not so much a function of politics or economics. > > >>> > The whole history of the human race is about expansion. Why stop now? >> >>Not only is this the history, this is essential humanity. > > I haven't seen any evidence that humans have an innate desire to procreate > (as opposed to having sex and nurturing already existing offspring). Again, > I am not questioning the "should" of off-planet expansion: I am quite in > favor of it. I am questioning the assumption of its inevitability, when > evidence to date indicates that it cannot occur. Birth control SHOULD be available to all people. Right now it isn't. Maybe in the future but the Roman Catholic Church will need to make a total turnaround on their stance.
jhuyghe@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Julien Hyughe) (03/21/91)
The Amazon Rain Forest is important, but it isn't the lungs of the world.
The animals and decaying vegetable matter consume as much oxygen as is
produced by the plants.
All that is needed to stop the destruction (which is only 50% as widespread
as was thought) is to give the slash-and-burn farmers incentives to manage
the land intelligently. The rain forest can be very profitable without having
to destroy it. What they're going now is burning the goose that lays the
golden eggs.
--
Julien David Huyghe, Pomona College '93 [ C'etait il y a mille ans
Internet: pomona|spears|jarthur@claremont.edu [ C'est maintenant
GEnie: J.HUYGHE, CompuServe: 71760,3577 [ Et c'est pour toujours
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar20.125112.2920@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes: >In article <21376@crg5.UUCP>, szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >> ....the actual equilibrium growth rate is >> closer to -50% per generation. At this rate, assuming a generation time >> of 30 years and that lifespan increase reaches some limit, population >> will reach 2.5 billion in 2110, 150 million in 2230, 16 million >> in 2320,.... Most human cultures will die out over this period. >> This assumes no cataclysm, such as nuclear or biological war. >> > >What about all the third world countries where birth control is heavily >fought by the religious sector which have their own agenda? Or the latin >American countries where it is 'macho' to father many children. In nearly all countries, the birth rate has been declining over the last 10 or more years, as birth control is becoming more widely available. Religions seems to be only temporarily delaying this process in some areas. As birth control becomes more convenient and effective, the religious forces will lose out to women's choice, as they have in all developed countries, including the Catholic countries of Italy and Spain which already have birthrates below replacement levels. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with.
anlyyao@cdp.UUCP (03/28/91)
Interesting to find extrapolations until the year 2320 in this topic. Goetz Kluge, Seoul, Korea
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (03/28/91)
In article <1101300004@cdp>, anlyyao@cdp.UUCP writes: > > Interesting to find extrapolations until the year 2320 in this > topic. > > Goetz Kluge, Seoul, Korea Similar extrapolations, widely published and "accepted", made in the 1930s gave a peak US population of well under 200,000,000. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)
ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce) (03/29/91)
In article <21418@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >forces will lose out to women's choice, as they have in all developed >countries, including the Catholic countries of Italy and Spain which >already have birthrates below replacement levels. What about the countries which are prodominantly islam? In terms of world religions, Christianity comes in a solid second to Islam so this is not a trivial consideration. I don't know of any islamic countries off hand that I would really call "developed" with the possible exception of Turkey so the conclusion drawn above may be premature. Does anyone know what the standard policy concerning birth control under islamic religious law is? -Andy ajpierce@med.unc.edu or APIERCE@UNC.BITNET
sbishop@desire.wright.edu (03/30/91)
In article <3146@beguine.UUCP>, ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce) writes: > In article <21418@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >>forces will lose out to women's choice, as they have in all developed >>countries, including the Catholic countries of Italy and Spain which >>already have birthrates below replacement levels. > > What about the countries which are prodominantly islam? In terms of world > religions, Christianity comes in a solid second to Islam so this is not a > trivial consideration. I don't know of any islamic countries off hand > that I would really call "developed" with the possible exception of Turkey > so the conclusion drawn above may be premature. Does anyone know what the > standard policy concerning birth control under islamic religious law is? > -Andy > ajpierce@med.unc.edu or APIERCE@UNC.BITNET According to the World Population Data Sheet, the world pop. is doubling itself in forty years. That's an overall estimate, some regions are more, some are less.
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Mar29.112327.3031@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes: >According to the World Population Data Sheet, the world pop. is doubling itself >in forty years. That's an overall estimate, some regions are more, some are >less. This is incredibly simplistic, since the _rate_ of population growth has been cut nearly in half in just the last 20 years, and continues to fall at a rate that is itself accelerating. The people who have the most $$$ to lose/gain (and $$$ to spend studying) world population growth, the World Bank, show world population "leveling off" at less than 10 billion people. In other words, _today's_ rate of food supply is more than enough to feed future populations, even with no technology advance. Of course, tech advance is not slowing; the green revolution continues, and genetic engineering for massive productivity gains is just around the corner. The hoped-for day of ending world starvation may soon arrive, if it hasn't already. For a 100% end to starvation, however, local distribution, not global food supply, is the limiting factor. The World Bank's time-line is limited by their loan horizon, of course: they have not yet started projecting what happens after the "leveling off". I will certainly agree that overpopulation has been a problem, and continues to be so in some pockets of the world. However, increasingly underpopulation is becoming a problem -- in Japan, where there is a severe shortage of young workers, in Hungary, where population is rapidly decreasing (by over 1%/year), in Amazonian tribes that are being given birth control and driven off their lands at the same time, and increasingly across most of the developed world, where retirement funds are coming under severe pressure as a first symptom. We should not let overpopulation problems, severe as they have been and still are, keep us from seeing the problems of underpopulation that are starting to occur. We pretty much know how to lick overpopulation; underpopulation is a difficult problem with which we have not yet come to grips. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with.
karl@quercus.gsfc.nasa.gov (Karl Anderson) (04/04/91)
In article <21472@crg5.UUCP>, szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: |> In article <1991Mar29.112327.3031@desire.wright.edu> |> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes: |> |> >According to the World Population Data Sheet, the world pop. is |> >doubling itself in forty years. That's an overall estimate, |> >some regions are more, some are less. |> |> This is incredibly simplistic, since the _rate_ of population |> growth has been cut nearly in half in just the last 20 years, and |> continues to fall at a rate that is itself accelerating. The people |> who have the most $$$ to lose/gain (and $$$ to spend studying) world |> population growth, the World Bank, show world population "leveling |> off" at less than 10 billion people. So whom should we believe, the World Population Data Sheet or the World Bank? Are they related? Who publishes the WPDS? Does *anybody* have credible data on current world population growth rates? Inquiring minds want to know 8^). -- Karl A. Anderson | Internet: karl@forest.gsfc.nasa.gov NASA/GSFC code 923 (STX) | voice: (301) 286-3815 Greenbelt, MD 20771 | #include "std_disclaimer"
vamg6792@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Vincent A Mazzarella) (04/04/91)
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >This is incredibly simplistic, since the _rate_ of population growth >has been cut nearly in half in just the last 20 years, and continues >to fall at a rate that is itself accelerating. The people who >have the most $$$ to lose/gain (and $$$ to spend studying) world >population growth, the World Bank, show world population "leveling off" >at less than 10 billion people. Yeah, right. Malthus also envisioned the world population levelling off. > In other words, _today's_ rate of food >supply is more than enough to feed future populations, even with no >technology advance. Of course, tech advance is not slowing; the >green revolution continues, and genetic engineering for massive productivity >gains is just around the corner. The hoped-for day of ending world >starvation may soon arrive, if it hasn't already. You've got to be kidding. World starvation almost ended ? What planet are you from? Take a junket travelling -- it will do you some good. On PBS recently there was an excellent program on the "Green Revolution" and its shortcomings. Besides the shaky foundations of reliance on pesticides, the green revolution also has brought about a restriction in the number of species used in the food supply. Only a handful of species of grains, for example, make up virutally all of the grain supply in the US. This makes the crops susceptible to a singular disaster or pest, as the program pointed out happened to half the corn (?) crop in 1974. By cultivating the few species that "green revolution" farmers are comfortable with at the expense of indiginous species, species loss occurs rapidly. This makes the world food supply more fragile, not more robust. In addition, the species that are developed for the US grain belt are hardly suitable for more than a short period in other situations. Dry soils, irregularly irrigated lands, and other problems make crop selection a region-by-region problem. The "green revolution" does not, in its present incarnation, have the breadth to address these issues. > For a 100% end to >starvation, however, local distribution, not global food supply, is the >limiting factor. This is quite true. >The World Bank's time-line is limited by their loan horizon, of course: >they have not yet started projecting what happens after the "leveling off". >I will certainly agree that overpopulation has been a problem, and >continues to be so in some pockets of the world. However, increasingly >underpopulation is becoming a problem -- in Japan, where there is a >severe shortage of young workers, in Hungary, where population is rapidly >decreasing (by over 1%/year), in Amazonian tribes that are being given birth >control and driven off their lands at the same time, and increasingly >across most of the developed world, where retirement funds are coming >under severe pressure as a first symptom. We should not let overpopulation >problems, severe as they have been and still are, keep us from seeing the >problems of underpopulation that are starting to occur. We pretty much >know how to lick overpopulation; underpopulation is a difficult problem with >which we have not yet come to grips. I think that the world is underpopulated by clones of me. But that doesn't mean there aren't too many other people in the world. The small-minded, parochial view that one segment of society is more worthwhile than another segment leads to all the racial, sexist, age-discriminatory, etc. problems of our society. It also contributes to the overpopulation problem as a whole. Another problem of underpopulation we have is of the animals of this planet. And there is no question that the disappearance of non-human life on this planet is directly related to the overpopulation of human life. The disappearance of the great apes, rhino, elephant, and other species daily is the direct result of overpopulation of humans. Many species can co-exist, but not with an attitude that the world is under- populated. The facts are otherwise. >-- >Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com >"If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty "If you want lots of pollution, burn the oil."
william@lorien.newcastle.ac.uk (William Coyne) (04/05/91)
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >In article <1991Mar29.112327.3031@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes: >I will certainly agree that overpopulation has been a problem, and >continues to be so in some pockets of the world. However, increasingly >underpopulation is becoming a problem -- in Japan, where there is a >severe shortage of young workers, in Hungary, where population is rapidly >decreasing (by over 1%/year), in Amazonian tribes that are being given birth >control and driven off their lands at the same time, and increasingly >across most of the developed world, where retirement funds are coming >under severe pressure as a first symptom. We should not let overpopulation >problems, severe as they have been and still are, keep us from seeing the >problems of underpopulation that are starting to occur. We pretty much >know how to lick overpopulation; underpopulation is a difficult problem with >which we have not yet come to grips. The problem in Japan and other rich countries is not underpopulation, it is there are an increasing number of old people and a decreasing proportion of younger people, so fewer workers to pay the taxes which are used to finance benefits for the old and very young. Potentially it could be a very good thing that there are not enough young people in the richer countries if it means their companies will transfer some work to the poorer countries.
sbishop@desire.wright.edu (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr4.090846@quercus.gsfc.nasa.gov>, karl@quercus.gsfc.nasa.gov (Karl Anderson) writes: > In article <21472@crg5.UUCP>, szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: > |> In article <1991Mar29.112327.3031@desire.wright.edu> > |> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes: > |> > |> >According to the World Population Data Sheet, the world pop. is > |> >doubling itself in forty years. That's an overall estimate, > |> >some regions are more, some are less. > |> > |> This is incredibly simplistic, since the _rate_ of population > |> growth has been cut nearly in half in just the last 20 years, and > |> continues to fall at a rate that is itself accelerating. The people > |> who have the most $$$ to lose/gain (and $$$ to spend studying) world > |> population growth, the World Bank, show world population "leveling > |> off" at less than 10 billion people. > > So whom should we believe, the World Population Data Sheet or the World > Bank? Are they related? Who publishes the WPDS? Does *anybody* have > credible data on current world population growth rates? Inquiring minds > want to know 8^). > -- > Karl A. Anderson | Internet: karl@forest.gsfc.nasa.gov > NASA/GSFC code 923 (STX) | voice: (301) 286-3815 > Greenbelt, MD 20771 | #include "std_disclaimer" The WPDS is from the class I am currently taking in Population Demographics. I'll have to dig it out and give more info on it. Actually there are three projections on the sheet as to possible world population growth. I'll get back to the net with all the info.... sue
sbishop@desire.wright.edu (04/07/91)
In article <1991Apr5.074139.23484@newcastle.ac.uk>, william@lorien.newcastle.ac.uk (William Coyne) writes: > szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: > >>In article <1991Mar29.112327.3031@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes: > >>I will certainly agree that overpopulation has been a problem, and >>continues to be so in some pockets of the world. However, increasingly >>underpopulation is becoming a problem -- in Japan, where there is a >>severe shortage of young workers, in Hungary, where population is rapidly >>decreasing (by over 1%/year), in Amazonian tribes that are being given birth >>control and driven off their lands at the same time, and increasingly >>across most of the developed world, where retirement funds are coming >>under severe pressure as a first symptom. We should not let overpopulation >>problems, severe as they have been and still are, keep us from seeing the >>problems of underpopulation that are starting to occur. We pretty much >>know how to lick overpopulation; underpopulation is a difficult problem with >>which we have not yet come to grips. > > The problem in Japan and other rich countries is not underpopulation, it is > there are an increasing number of old people and a decreasing proportion of > younger people, so fewer workers to pay the taxes which are used to finance > benefits for the old and very young. > > Potentially it could be a very good thing that there are not enough young > people in the richer countries if it means their companies will transfer some > work to the poorer countries. Some how this got edited so that my statement was omitted and the entire posting looks like I wrote it. I didn't. That was the reply to my posting. sue Bishop
pamela@bu-bio.bu.edu (Pamela Hall) (04/07/91)
In article <1991Apr5.074139.23484@newcastle.ac.uk> william@lorien.newcastle.ac.uk (William Coyne) writes: >szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: > >The problem in Japan and other rich countries is not underpopulation, it is >there are an increasing number of old people and a decreasing proportion of >younger people, so fewer workers to pay the taxes which are used to finance >benefits for the old and very young. > > Potentially it could be a very good thing that there are not enough young >people in the richer countries if it means their companies will transfer some >work to the poorer countries. I believe that one of the problems in Japan is the very restrictive immigration laws. In other countries, vacant jobs that the citizens are unwilling to hold, for a large variety of reasons often to do with low wages and educational requirements, are filled by immigrants, often from countries with larger and increasing numbers of young adults. Japan's underpopulation problem, as I read it, is mostly a lack of young adults willing to work at low paying jobs that require little education. Increasing the number of indigneous Japanese will not solve this problem as these children will most likely also be educated and then also unwilling to hold unskilled jobs. Perhaps Japan needs to follow the examples of other countries and invite immigrant laborers. Of course one can argue that all sorts of problems arise from such political policies or on the other hand lots of good can come from a more culturally diverse country. As for companies moving sites to other countries in search of a labor pool, there is at least one industry in Japan for which this is not possible. On a recent visit to Japan, I was told by Japanese foresters that much of the Japanese timber production was under utilized because of the lack of labor to care for and cut plantations. Of course Japan has partially "solved" this by importing huge quantities of timber from southeast Asian countries that not only have forests, but large labor pools to fell the forests. Pamela Hall pamela@bu-bio.bu.edu
dr@ducvax.auburn.edu (04/09/91)
A very long time ago (at the beginning of this thread), In article <21376@crg5.UUCP>, szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: [population model stuff deleted] > > I haven't seen any evidence that humans have an innate desire to procreate ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > (as opposed to having sex and nurturing already existing offspring). Again, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I am not questioning the "should" of off-planet expansion: I am quite in > favor of it. I am questioning the assumption of its inevitability, when > evidence to date indicates that it cannot occur. > > > -- > Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com > "If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty > The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any > organization I may be affiliated with. What constitutes evidence? The desire to have children, particularly one's *own* children, is the most consistently occurring, most strongly stated goal of adults throughout society. This desire is so pervasive, so inescapably self-evident that it is absolutely overwhelming. Writers throughout the ages have addressed this desire; it is a reasonable inference that they felt it is the very core of the human experience. Of course, one could argue that this is merely a personal impression, and does not constitute evidence. Still, this impression holds across social and cultural classes, and this impression is held by almost everyone I've chanced to meet, talk to, overhear, read postings of, etc. etc. Admittedly, one can avoid this impression by being a rock guitarist, or by socializing exclusively with college students during mating season :). D.R. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Roller Bitnet = dr@auducvax Internet = dr@ducvax.auburn.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (04/11/91)
In article <1991Apr9.094513.3914@ducvax.auburn.edu> dr@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: > >In article <21376@crg5.UUCP>, szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >[No evidence that humans have innate desire to have children] >What constitutes evidence? The desire to have children, particularly one's >*own* children, is the most consistently occurring, most strongly stated goal >of adults throughout society. More than love, job, money, status, religion, even cars, houses, vacations? I don't think so. It would be interesting to see polls on this topic, though even a cultural desire to have children, or a cultural norm that assumes one should want to have children, does not necessarily imply an innate desire. The decline of birth rates with effective birth control, well below the maximization of offspring and even below replacement levels, is strong evidence that there is no such innate instinct. In the non-birth-control environment in which our species evolved, there was no need for such an instinct. What we know about the genetics and embryology of behavior indicates that the simplest solutions to a problem will evolve, without foresight, rather than the more complex, genetically improbable structures an abstract child-desire instinct would require. The desire for sex, up until this century for most people, was sufficient for procreation. It no longer is. >This desire is so pervasive, so inescapably >self-evident that it is absolutely overwhelming. A pre-birth-control cultural assumption, actually based on emotions and behaviors that come _after_ a child has been born. The desire seems to be rather underwhelming when birth control enters the picture. Where birth control is most available, birth rates have dropped to at or below replacement levels. With fully reliable birth control, we reach a rate of -50%/generation. Hardly overwhelming. > Writers throughout the ages >have addressed this desire; Writers and poets have written about sex and romance at least a thousand times more often then they have written about a desire to have children. At least. I can't even think of an example of the latter. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with.
doug@eris.berkeley.edu (Doug Merritt) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr4.153035.13052@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> vamg6792@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Vincent A Mazzarella) writes: >szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: > >>population growth, the World Bank, show world population "leveling off" >>at less than 10 billion people. > >Yeah, right. Malthus also envisioned the world population levelling off. Malthus is completely discredited, you know. Simplistic model. That's not to say that the planet can support an infinite population, of course! Just that mentioning Malthus is unhelpful. Same with Club of Rome's "The Limits to Growth". Nick was completely correct in everything he said explicitly, although you seemed to read some "politically incorrect thought" into his posting. In particular, it's been observed empirically for fifteen to twenty years that the rate of approach to zero population growth in countries is directly proportional to the level of industrialization of the country. This trend has continued in countries that have begun industrialization since the observation was made, so it does not appear to be a coincidence of statistics. The standard explanation is that, in preindustrial societies, it is beneficial to have many children. The kids help with farming or milking or hunting and gathering etc, and when the parents are old, the kids take care of them. When the society is industrialized, the economics change, and it is no longer necessary to have kids for economic reasons, and so people tend to have fewer. I am aware that many people find this economic reasoning unintuitive, and for all I know it may be wrong. But it is a fairly widely held view, and the empirical facts remain even if the explanation is wrong. Bottom line: empirically, it has been observed that the world is approaching zero population growth, and the rate of approach is increasing. Figures of a stable population near 10 billion have been accepted for a decade or two. Don't substitute "common sense" for research. >You've got to be kidding. World starvation almost ended ? What planet are >you from? Take a junket travelling -- it will do you some good. Since you both agree that the problem is one of food distribution, not production, quibbling over his hope that this will be fixed soon seems like a minor nitpick. Prior to the end of the Cold War, we all had reason for general cynicism. Now there seems to be reason to hope for progress in previously insoluble social problems, which is what food distribution is/was. >By cultivating the few species that "green revolution" farmers are comfortable >with at the expense of indiginous species, species loss occurs rapidly. This >makes the world food supply more fragile, not more robust. Agreed. This could be solved, though. >I think that the world is underpopulated by clones of me. But that doesn't >mean there aren't too many other people in the world. The small-minded, >parochial view that one segment of society is more worthwhile than another >segment leads to all the racial, sexist, age-discriminatory, etc. problems >of our society. It also contributes to the overpopulation problem as a whole. His claim that *underpopulation* is a problem does not warrant this attack on his views as "small-minded" and "parochial". He's probably right, but you'll never find out why he thinks so by replying with that sort of knee- jerk emotional reaction! >And there is no question that the disappearance of non-human life on this >planet is directly related to the overpopulation of human life. The >disappearance of the great apes, rhino, elephant, and other species daily >is the direct result of overpopulation of humans. > >Many species can co-exist, but not with an attitude that the world is under- >populated. The facts are otherwise. Incorrect. This is an assumption, or if you prefer, a theory. The "facts" are that human activities are causing despeciation of the planet. Claiming that the necessary and sufficient cause of such activities is "overpopulation" is taking far too wild a leap. You would have to demonstrate that it is impossible for the current world population to cease despeciation to establish such a link, and I, for one, believe it's possible to maintain our current population without causing further despeciation. It would simply be very expensive (but worthwhile, IMO). Doug -- -- Doug Merritt doug@eris.berkeley.edu (ucbvax!eris!doug) or uunet.uu.net!crossck!dougm