"7 Billion: How did we get so big so fast?"

[orcel]

But population growth is rapidly outpacing technological development.

I'm not sure about this. Its rather hard to compare as population and technology are drastically different things and both have exploded over the last 2 centuries. Can you site a source to substantiate this claim?

Not only is population growth a huge strain on society, resources and infrastructure, it's undesirable and unnecessary.

I disagree that by default more people is an undesirable. China is expected to overtake the USA as the global economic force BECAUSE of its immence population.

I read a while back and will have to research to see if i can find the source, but .. in India the top 10% of the their students in their equivelent of the USA's high school system, is greater then the entire population of the USA. That just the top 10%. How can USA compete when India's smartest, most motovated and best educated kids outnumber the entire counrty?

Perhaps more people is a good thing.

Is it really wroth jeopardizing the state of the world just to humor what some ancient primitives wrote in some book? Humanity isn't an insect colony.

I have yet to make any claim that we out fill the Earth merely because the Bible suggests that we ought. You're making assumtions here. And ya remember what happens when you assume, right?


Finally: I will again reiterate that I am not calling for everyone to run out and have lots of kids, merely that we have both the resources and ability to better take care everyone, if only we had the will power.

 

[not nom]

NPR had a report about 7 billion people. They said all 7 billion can fit within the city of London (with enough room to dance). Back when there was 6 billion I did the math and "fit" the entire population of the planet inside Texas with everyone grouped into families of 4 and each family given 1/8 of an acer of land.

Of course neither of these measures account to roads, schools and other infastructure, but it demonstrates how underpopulated the planet is. Lets expand from texas and we'd fit everbody within north America with plenty of rooom to spare, then we'd have the entire rest of the planet for farming and industry. While this may not be practical we find that we do not have population problem, rather a resourse distrobution problem.

[youtube]OV8QpqF2VNM[/youtube]
Mitchell and Webb - Stacking - YouTube

 

[Awoon]

People like to F...

 

[orcel]

People like to F...

Another reason to focus on resources rather then fight nature.

 

[Father Heathen]

Another reason to focus on resources rather then fight nature.

Contraceptives are cheaper.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not sure about this. Its rather hard to compare as population and technology are drastically different things and both have exploded over the last 2 centuries. Can you site a source to substantiate this claim?



I disagree that by default more people is an undesirable. China is expected to overtake the USA as the global economic force BECAUSE of its immence population.

I read a while back and will have to research to see if i can find the source, but .. in India the top 10% of the their students in their equivelent of the USA's high school system, is greater then the entire population of the USA. That just the top 10%. How can USA compete when India's smartest, most motovated and best educated kids outnumber the entire counrty?

Perhaps more people is a good thing.



I have yet to make any claim that we out fill the Earth merely because the Bible suggests that we ought. You're making assumtions here. And ya remember what happens when you assume, right?


Finally: I will again reiterate that I am not calling for everyone to run out and have lots of kids, merely that we have both the resources and ability to better take care everyone, if only we had the will power.

It seems to me that people who are optimistic about the future of humanity base their opinion on very little evidence. There's something to be said for a sunny disposition of course, but you wouldn't want to be so cheery that you are completely unprepared for, say, an inevitable famine, would you? Those of us who are pessimistic seem to be basing our dire predictions on quite a lot of evidence. We are particularly interested in peak oil and climate change, and the symbiosis between energy abundance and climate stability and our economic system - a system that only knows how to grow.

Here are a few of the books I've read in the last couple years that have significantly influenced my opinion on what this century is likely to be like for us. You might find them interesting:

The End of Food: Amazon.ca: Paul Roberts: Books
A Short History of Progress: Amazon.ca: Ronald Wright: Books
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/142620213X
The Vanishing Face Of Gaia: Amazon.ca: James Lovelock: Books
Climate Wars: Amazon.ca: Gwynne Dyer: Books
Amazon.com: Water: The Causes, Costs, and Future of a Global Crisis (9780753513248): Julian Caldecott: Books

Since fair is fair, I'd be more than happy to look at the basis for your optimism.

 

[orcel]

It seems to me that people who are optimistic about the future of humanity base their opinion on very little evidence. There's something to be said for a sunny disposition of course, but you wouldn't want to be so cheery that you are completely unprepared for, say, an inevitable famine, would you? Those of us who are pessimistic seem to be basing our dire predictions on quite a lot of evidence. We are particularly interested in peak oil and climate change, and the symbiosis between energy abundance and climate stability and our economic system - a system that only knows how to grow.

Here are a few of the books I've read in the last couple years that have significantly influenced my opinion on what this century is likely to be like for us. You might find them interesting:

The End of Food: Amazon.ca: Paul Roberts: Books
A Short History of Progress: Amazon.ca: Ronald Wright: Books
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/142620213X
The Vanishing Face Of Gaia: Amazon.ca: James Lovelock: Books
Climate Wars: Amazon.ca: Gwynne Dyer: Books
Amazon.com: Water: The Causes, Costs, and Future of a Global Crisis (9780753513248): Julian Caldecott: Books

Since fair is fair, I'd be more than happy to look at the basis for your optimism.

Agreed that I'm rather optimistic. But I'm not calling for blindly martching without working for a solution. Rather I suggest we invest on solving the problems that those book you mentioned reference.

 

[Alceste]

Agreed that I'm rather optimistic. But I'm not calling for blindly martching without working for a solution. Rather I suggest we invest on solving the problems that those book you mentioned reference.

So do those books. The trouble is, nobody of significance anywhere in the world is doing one single thing that any of these authors recommend. In fact, just about every country in the world is doing the exact opposite of what is needed.

Canada is a good example - we could supply just about all our domestic power needs using geothermal power, according to a recent study. The rational thing to do would be for Canada to invest heavily in geothermal energy in an effort to meet emissions targets. Instead, the federal government has chosen to put all our collective eggs in the tar sands basket - this is the dirtiest, least efficient, most polluting oil on the planet.

Whether blind or not, you're marching in the same direction as the rest of us, so why not open your eyes?

 

[orcel]

So do those books. The trouble is, nobody of significance anywhere in the world is doing one single thing that any of these authors recommend. In fact, just about every country in the world is doing the exact opposite of what is needed.

Canada is a good example - we could supply just about all our domestic power needs using geothermal power, according to a recent study. The rational thing to do would be for Canada to invest heavily in geothermal energy in an effort to meet emissions targets. Instead, the federal government has chosen to put all our collective eggs in the tar sands basket - this is the dirtiest, least efficient, most polluting oil on the planet.



Whether blind or not, you're marching in the same direction as the rest of us, so why not open your eyes?

So, I suggest we influence our respective governments to begin to change.

 

[orcel]

Contraceptives are cheaper.

Are you suggesting that we force people to use contraceptives?

 

[Alceste]

So, I suggest we influence our respective governments to begin to change.

You're a little behind the curve with that suggestion. Do you see any sign that governments are listening? I don't.

 

[Quintessence]

*sigh* This single environmental issue is probably the one that angers me the most, primarily because it's the elephant in the room that everybody likes to ignore. Nobody is going to do anything about it, because individuals and governments aren't willing to make the needed sacrifices. It's charmingly similar to our pathetic response to global climate change and resource management (including but not limited to energy).

 

[Me Myself]

I disagree that by default more people is an undesirable. China is expected to overtake the USA as the global economic force BECAUSE of its immence population.

His immense underpaid and exploited population.

Wheter you call it "china" or "U.S" I just see more people suffering than they need be.

 

[Noaidi]

*sigh* This single environmental issue is probably the one that angers me the most, primarily because it's the elephant in the room that everybody likes to ignore. Nobody is going to do anything about it, because individuals and governments aren't willing to make the needed sacrifices. It's charmingly similar to our pathetic response to global climate change and resource management (including but not limited to energy).

Yep. Like many issues of concern, population growth doesn't have the immediate impact of, say, an earthquake or a flood. It's an issue that's there, but to be dealt with "later" by "someone else", or to be addressed in due course with technology that is either in its infancy or doesn't yet exist.

Elephant in the room is an apt phrase, Quintessence.

 

[Father Heathen]

Are you suggesting that we force people to use contraceptives?

I suggest we strongly encourage the use of contraceptives, vasectomies/tubectomies and abortions. Perhaps the state could offer them for free. It would actually be cheaper than what it costs the state to feed the innumerable litters of impoverished single mothers via welfare.

 

[Noaidi]

I suggest we strongly encourage the use of contraceptives, vasectomies/tubectomies and abortions. Perhaps the state could offer them for free. It would actually be cheaper than what it costs the state to feed the innumerable litters of impoverished single mothers via welfare.

Yes, plus not paying additional child benefit for families with more than two kids. Any family with more than two children shouldn't get paid for any additional children they may have. This way, the choice to have more children is not being removed, but the family has to determine if they can support having more children.

 

[Alceste]

I suggest we strongly encourage the use of contraceptives, vasectomies/tubectomies and abortions. Perhaps the state could offer them for free. It would actually be cheaper than what it costs the state to feed the innumerable litters of impoverished single mothers via welfare.

Caution is necessary, though, to maintain a labour force capable of generating enough wealth to support your generation in its dotage in the lifestyles to which you have become accustomed. When the percentage of people in a population over 60 outweighs the percentage of the population under 30, there are going to be some serious road bumps ahead.

OTOH, if we were serious about reining in in our population growth we could always abandon our growth-based economic system...

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, plus not paying additional child benefit for families with more than two kids. Any family with more than two children shouldn't get paid for any additional children they may have. This way, the choice to have more children is not being removed, but the family has to determine if they can support having more children.

It would be great to see some policies through taxes that penalize people who have too many children and reward those who have few or none. It would also require free (or nearly free) birth control and abortion services to be reasonable. It'd be nice as well to have massive tax rebates on sterilization procedures. While it is relatively inexpensive for males, it's females that really need it and it costs thousands of dollars for the procedure. Culturally, we need to quit telling women that their lives aren't complete unless they have a kid and be a mother. I can't see any of this ever happening in America, though.

In the meantime, I just try to make people aware of the situation. I'm to the point I consider it immoral to have children of your own. Or something more like this: three or more is sinful, two is not ideal; one is acceptable, zero is a hero. There are so many lives here NOW that need taking care of... why add more to it? I've met a surprising number of young people who say they don't want kids (or only one or two). Whether or not they stick to that remains to be seen.

 

[Noaidi]

There are so many lives here NOW that need taking care of... why add more to it?

Yes. If the urge to have a family is strong, then adopting or fostering children that need a family is an option, rather than having children of one's own.

 

[orcel]

His immense underpaid and exploited population.

Wheter you call it "china" or "U.S" I just see more people suffering than they need be.

So your solution is less people???