No one blames over-population for our diminishing natural resources! WHY NOT?

[charles brough]

Hay Paigetheoracle, we all three are on the same side, aren't we? Perhaps we have worn this thread down now. It may be time to stop.

chas.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by charles brough

Hay Paigetheoracle, we all three are on the same side, aren't we? Perhaps we have worn this thread down now. It may be time to stop.

chas.

...stumbles into the room. "Oh no, just when I have a few minutes...."
{Hey, did you see? The election is over; we made it to this side of Nov. 4th.
...and as it turns out: YESBAMA!}

Sorry, I've been busy... Gobama.

My friends.... {hehe} ...but seriously....
There's more to say here, isn't there?

Can't we support about 9 billion people here, if we manage our resources very effectively, in a sustainable way?

That is the task before us (...speaking of Obama), unless you opt for the easy solution of radical population reduction (which I know is very likely, etc., but still doesn't have to be the guiding principle).

Maybe later I can add more, but for now there is this rough draft of a poem that may ...say something. [Thanks for the inspiration, Charlie Rose....]

CONTINUATION
Such a shame, to lose a brain...
in the course of evolution.
Funny how smart people see, what needs to be...
and limit their contribution.

Well I just had to say, to my friends on the way...
you have to contribute to the conflagration.

There's grandeur in the Big Picture,
despite what Nostradamus saw.

To waste how most among us may,
enjoin sublimity to the sea...

...we may lose some right new angle,
...or Angel of our... ...to Be....
(y'know ...Being).



~ later....

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by Essay

...stumbles into the room. "Oh no, just when I have a few minutes...."
{Hey, did you see? The election is over; we made it to this side of Nov. 4th.
...and as it turns out: YESBAMA!}

Sorry, I've been busy... Gobama.

My friends.... {hehe} ...but seriously....
There's more to say here, isn't there?

Can't we support about 9 billion people here, if we manage our resources very effectively, in a sustainable way?

That is the task before us (...speaking of Obama), unless you opt for the easy solution of radical population reduction (which I know is very likely, etc., but still doesn't have to be the guiding principle).

Maybe later I can add more, but for now there is this rough draft of a poem that may ...say something. [Thanks for the inspiration, Charlie Rose....]

CONTINUATION
Such a shame, to lose a brain...
in the course of evolution.
Funny how smart people see, what needs to be...
and limit their contribution.

Well I just had to say, to my friends on the way...
you have to contribute to the conflagration.

There's grandeur in the Big Picture,
despite what Nostradamus saw.

To waste how some among us may,
enjoin sublimity to the sea,

...we may lose some right new angle,
...or Angel of our... ...to Be....
(y'know ...Being).



~ later....

Well it could be the hundredth monkey effect...um! (God only knows - that's especially for Charles; an in joke)

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by charles brough

Hay Paigetheoracle, we all three are on the same side, aren't we? Perhaps we have worn this thread down now. It may be time to stop.

chas.

Yeh, it's like arguing with yourself most of the time, with you especially and Sym. is like knowing what he means but still arguing anyway because....

[carlton-temple]

May I be permitted to make a few demographic observations.
In general, the population of Europe remained as far as we know, pretty much stable up to the 1700 century, regardless of wars, plagues appalling hygiene and so on. Then for reasons unknown the population suddenly began to steadily increase, again regardless of the appalling sanitary conditions and there were as yet no important medical advances. Why? This population increase seems, so far as what records there were, to have been common all over Europe. One of the main sources showing this increase, at least in England, were church registers which in general (for tax purposes), were well kept. Much the same in France, tax and soldiers ! The present situation in Europe seems to be equally odd. Number one political problem in Russia is the falling population. Mongolia's population has dropped so dramatically that huge swathes of land have been hire to the Chinese. In France, were it not for large "breeding" allowances and immigration the problem would be equally desperate, Germany likewise, I believe, but am not sure, eastern Europe is in a similar situation. Scandinavia, on the other hand, has remained demographically stable for generations? Where I live in rural France the "resident" population, which is not unusual, is down to 7/kilometre!

[Symbology]

Originally Posted by carlton-temple

May I be permitted to make a few demographic observations.
In general, the population of Europe remained as far as we know, pretty much stable up to the 1700 century, regardless of wars, plagues appalling hygiene and so on. Then for reasons unknown the population suddenly began to steadily increase, again regardless of the appalling sanitary conditions and there were as yet no important medical advances. Why? This population increase seems, so far as what records there were, to have been common all over Europe. One of the main sources showing this increase, at least in England, were church registers which in general (for tax purposes), were well kept. Much the same in France, tax and soldiers ! The present situation in Europe seems to be equally odd. Number one political problem in Russia is the falling population. Mongolia's population has dropped so dramatically that huge swathes of land have been hire to the Chinese. In France, were it not for large "breeding" allowances and immigration the problem would be equally desperate, Germany likewise, I believe, but am not sure, eastern Europe is in a similar situation. Scandinavia, on the other hand, has remained demographically stable for generations? Where I live in rural France the "resident" population, which is not unusual, is down to 7/kilometre!

Assuming what you say is accurate, it sounds like it's time to migrate the overpopulated groups of the America's over there.

However from what I know it is still over populated in Great Britain.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Because it is an inconvenient problem which would interfere withe the dreams of all those wannabe mommies (and daddies and idiots that feel that they shouldn't have to use birth control) out there who feel it is not only their right to breed but their duty just like it's our duty to support them and their offspring while they claim the right to pay less into the system they they are imposing an additional burdon on...whether it be tax funded schools and medical care or employee/employer paid for medical insurance....BTW never ever ever try to argue any of this with a woman they will simple dismiss you as a sexist pig and refuse to accept the reality of the situation...I've learned that one the hard way through many discussions with supposedly rational women...it's their right to make babies if they want and our privelage to pay for it.

Wanna see pregnencies fall off? Make it the responsibility of the parties involved in the process of procreation to pay not only all of the medical bills out of their own pockets, and do away with schools funded by robbing homeowners and taxpayers at gunpoint and make mommy and daddy pay for it out of their own packets as well...and while you're at it do away with the related tax breaks associated with having offspring in the house.

Won't happen here in the states anytime soon....sadly...but I can dream.

[lemit]

Thanks, DD, for reviving this thread, which has itself been illustrating the response to the vital issue of overpopulation, which we solved thirty years ago, didn't we? Isn't that why nobody pays attention to it anymore?

Overpopulation is kind of the eight hundred baby gorillas in the room that everyone ignores for a bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that in the marketplace of ideas, those which have the greatest ability to generate interest are called sexy. The most obvious solution to overpopulation is, well, asexy. I think I might have a solution, though. We should promote all the forms of sexual congress which do not produce issue. We should do this as pervasively and as graphically as possible. After all, it is better to use the carrot, so to speak, than the stick--although some people do seem to prefer the stick. Never been one of those myself.

Any suggestions? No, wait! Maybe we shouldn't do this here. Maybe we could start something in the "Club" forum, which is for those people who have paid their dues. Or, it could lend a new meaning to the "Hypography Backroom" forum.

Just trying to help the planet.

--lemit

p.s. But seriously, there are all kinds of things you can do that are lots of fun and don't generate children. And separate from that, if you need to nurture and pass on your surname, adopt a child--maybe even an older one. There seem to be enough to go around. If having a person named after you isn't that vital, adopt a pet. They can be pretty challenging and rewarding too, as my adopted cat has been reminding me while I've been writing this.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by lemit

which we solved thirty years ago, didn't we? Isn't that why nobody pays attention to it anymore?

Well, a lot of it has to do because it's getting better. Russia's number one problem is that their population is actually *declining*.

Oddly enough this topic was the cover piece for The Economist a couple of weeks ago, in which they say:

Originally Posted by The Economist, "Falling Fertility" Oct 31, 2009

Modern Malthusians tend to discount the significance of falling fertility. They believe there are too many people in the world, so for them, it is the absolute number that matters. And that number is still rising, by a forecast 2.4 billion over the next 40 years. Populations can rise while fertility declines because of inertia, which matters a lot in demography. If, because of high fertility in earlier generations, there is a bulge of women of childbearing years, more children will be born, though each mother is having fewer children. There will be more, smaller families. Assuming fertility falls at current rates, says the UN, the world’s population will rise from 6.8 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050, at which point it will stabilise (see chart 1).

Behind this is a staggering fertility decline. In the 1970s only 24 countries had fertility rates of 2.1 or less, all of them rich. Now there are over 70 such countries, and in every continent, including Africa. Between 1950 and 2000 the average fertility rate in developing countries fell by half from six to three—three fewer children in each family in just 50 years. Over the same period, Europe went from the peak of the baby boom to the depth of the baby bust and its fertility also fell by almost half, from 2.65 to 1.42—but that was a decline of only 1.23 children. The fall in developing countries now is closer to what happened in Europe during 19th- and early 20th-century industrialisation. But what took place in Britain over 130 years (1800-1930) took place in South Korea over just 20 (1965-85).

Things are moving even faster today. Fertility has dropped further in every South-East Asian country (except the Philippines) than it did in Japan. The rate in Bangladesh fell by half from six to three in only 20 years (1980 to 2000). The same decline took place in Mauritius in just ten (1963-73). Most sensational of all is the story from Iran.

When the clerical regime took over in 1979, the mullahs, apparently believing their flock should go forth and multiply, abolished the country’s family-planning system. Fertility rose, reaching seven in 1984. Yet by the 2006 census the average fertility rate had fallen to a mere 1.9, and just 1.5 in Tehran. From fertility that is almost as high as one can get to below replacement level in 22 years: social change can hardly happen faster. No wonder the explosion on the streets of Iran this year seemed like a clash between two worlds: 15-29 year-olds, one-third of the population, better educated and with different expectations, against the established regime and the traditionalists.

And have this great graph:

Why is this happening in spite of the fact that Malthus actually predicted that richer, more advanced countries would have *higher* birth rates (and was thus behind his dire predictions for the future)?

We have all heard the explanation behind why poor, independent people have lots of kids: you need them to help harvest the food and take care of you when you get old, but as the article explains, things get quite different as societies get richer:

Originally Posted by ibid.

Now imagine you are a bit richer. You may have moved to a town, or your village may have grown. Schools, markets and factories are within reach. And suddenly, the incentives change. A tractor can gather the harvest better than children. Your wife may get a factory job—and now her lost wages must be set against the benefits of another baby. Education, thrift and a stake in the future become more important, and these middle-class virtues go hand in hand with smaller families. Education costs money, so you may not be able to afford a large family. Perhaps the state provides a pension and you no longer need children to look after you. And perhaps your wife is no longer willing to bear endless offspring. Higher living standards, better communications and more education enable you to rely on markets and public services, not just yourself and your family.

Macroeconomic research bears out this picture. Fertility starts to drop at an annual income per person of $1,000-2,000 and falls until it hits the replacement level at an income per head of $4,000-10,000 a year. This roughly tracks the passage from poverty to middle-income status and from an agrarian society to a modern one. Thereafter fertility continues at or below replacement until, for some, it turns up again

Now obviously having another 3 billion people around in 40 years is probably not going to be a piece of cake, especially if they all want to drive Hummer's, so we do have some work to do....

Ain't got no place to lay your head, somebody came and took your bed,
Buffy

[lemit]

I hadn't thought about it before, but I guess I'm probably a Modern Malthusian. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I believe that I am the very model of a Modern Malthusian.

--lemit