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

[Noaidi]

Orcel, folk here have given numerous reasons for why a decrease in population is a desirable thing. Can you tell us why you appear to be in favour of an increase?

 

[orcel]

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...

Exactly, our current economic systems require growth, limiting the size of the next generation will just backrupt the system. More people is a hugh resource that we ought not abandon so quickly. Instead we ought embrace growth and better manage the land, food and energy sources necessary to support growth as well as invest in alternitive energies.

 

[orcel]

Orcel, folk here have given numerous reasons for why a decrease in population is a desirable thing. Can you tell us why you appear to be in favour of an increase?

1) We need more people in the work force to support the growing number of retiring people that are pulling benifits from SSA and other pension systems.

2) We need a stronger larger middle class to continue to grow the economey. 80% of the US economy is bassed on the spending of the middle class.

3) We need more people to compete with other countries like China and India. Of course this assumes that we want to compete with other countries. I suggest that a valid argument can be made to limit or balance or check China's growing international influence.

4) We need more people because as polulations decline the first to give up reproducing are the higher educated and better economicaly stable families. Leaving only the lower classes and under-educated reproducing. And while no person is worth more then another, studies proove that lower educated parents do not properly equip their kids for success as often. So we wind up with more people needing assistence then people able to offer assistence. a higher population % of under educated lower classs people results in a less innovation and less improvement.

This is just a few quick points.

 

[not nom]

So your solution is less people???

no, the solution is TEN BILLION TRILLION times more people .. just stretched out over a *much* longer period of time

why do all the people have to get born at once? do you really need so many around at the same time?

though I have to say, population seems hardly to be the real problem to me? I mean, aren't we doing a LOT of stuff badly -- if we didn't, maybe we could sustain even a lot more. I dunno, but just making it a numbers game about people seems weird.. it's not about how many people there are, but what those people do, and what kinds of resources they use. but yeah, a lot of problems of arise simply from there being so many of us, and all want a TV and a cellphone. not to mention cars, etc. so why not consider curbing both a little. when it turns out we were too conservative, yay, baby boom ^^

 

[orcel]

no, the solution is TEN BILLION TRILLION times more people .. just stretched out over a *much* longer period of time

why do all the people have to get born at once? do you really need so many around at the same time?

though I have to say, population seems hardly to be the real problem to me? I mean, aren't we doing a LOT of stuff badly -- if we didn't, maybe we could sustain even a lot more? I dunno, but just making it a numbers game about people would be insane. it's not about how many people there are, but what those people do, and what kinds of resources they use.

LOL - Does anybody ever actually read what I am saying. All along I have been calling for correcting resource development and distribution with a dedication to both social and enviromentally conscience action. I believe this is dificult, but attainable and much easier to accomplish while minimizing government intrution into people's choices on procreation.

 

[Noaidi]

1) We need more people in the work force to support the growing number of retiring people that are pulling benifits from SSA and other pension systems.

2) We need a stronger larger middle class to continue to grow the economey. 80% of the US economy is bassed on the spending of the middle class.

3) We need more people to compete with other countries like China and India. Of course this assumes that we want to compete with other countries. I suggest that a valid argument can be made to limit or balance or check China's growing international influence.

4) We need more people because as polulations decline the first to give up reproducing are the higher educated and better economicaly stable families. Leaving only the lower classes and under-educated reproducing. And while no person is worth more then another, studies proove that lower educated parents do not properly equip their kids for success as often. So we wind up with more people needing assistence then people able to offer assistence. a higher population % of under educated lower classs people results in a less innovation and less improvement.

This is just a few quick points.

....and all of them concerning money or economics.

This planet isn't here simply as a resource base for one species, Orcel.

 

[orcel]

....and all of them concerning money or economics.

This planet isn't here simply as a resource base for one species, Orcel.

True, but that's not an argument against humanity making the best of things. We have a economic system that needs more people, now we can revamp the system, but that's usually very dificult and often bloody, or we could reevaluate how we are supporting that system and work to create a more social and enviromental balance that's good for everyone (oncluding other species).

 

[Father Heathen]

1) We need more people in the work force to support the growing number of retiring people that are pulling benifits from SSA and other pension systems.

2) We need a stronger larger middle class to continue to grow the economey. 80% of the US economy is bassed on the spending of the middle class.

3) We need more people to compete with other countries like China and India. Of course this assumes that we want to compete with other countries. I suggest that a valid argument can be made to limit or balance or check China's growing international influence.

4) We need more people because as polulations decline the first to give up reproducing are the higher educated and better economicaly stable families. Leaving only the lower classes and under-educated reproducing. And while no person is worth more then another, studies proove that lower educated parents do not properly equip their kids for success as often. So we wind up with more people needing assistence then people able to offer assistence. a higher population % of under educated lower classs people results in a less innovation and less improvement.

This is just a few quick points.

You realize that most of those issues were caused by irresponsible and excessive breeding, right? Your solution is like dumping gasoline on a fire in an attempt to put it out.

 

[orcel]

You realize that most of those issues were caused by irresponsible and excessive breeding, right? Your solution is like dumping gasoline on a fire in an attempt to put it out.

Wrong, irresponsible resource managment maybe, but not breeding.

 

[Father Heathen]

Wrong, irresponsible resource managment maybe, but not breeding.

So the need to get into a baby making race with overcrowded china and india, parents bringing a multitude of mewling cabbages into the world while unfit to do so, and the need for more young people to take care of the growing number of old people, and then the young will become old too so then we'll need even more young, etc. are not the results of breeding?

 

[Noaidi]

True, but that's not an argument against humanity making the best of things. We have a economic system that needs more people, now we can revamp the system, but that's usually very dificult and often bloody, or we could reevaluate how we are supporting that system and work to create a more social and enviromental balance that's good for everyone (oncluding other species).

I agree with this, but it has to be done within the current population limit. It's obvious that governments and nations aren't doing enough to address the environmental situation, so it's unwise to advocate an increase in population numbers whilst nothing is being done to address the other issues.

New UN Population Report Reveals Planet Changing in More Ways Than One
New UN Population Report Reveals Planet Changing in More Ways Than One | RH Reality Check

 

[Alceste]

Exactly, our current economic systems require growth, limiting the size of the next generation will just backrupt the system. More people is a hugh resource that we ought not abandon so quickly. Instead we ought embrace growth and better manage the land, food and energy sources necessary to support growth as well as invest in alternitive energies.

I agree with FH that your solution is not a solution. I think we need to come to terms with a few basic realities:

1) We live in a (as far as we are concerned) closed system with limited resources.

2) Despite the ballooning popularity of totally imaginary economic units like "credit default swaps", all our economic activity is totally resource-dependent at the root.

3) Most of our destruction of resources is unavoidable with a growing population purely because each individual organism must consume a certain amount of stored energy to survive.

4) The rate of our destruction of resources, like the population, grows exponentially, which means that not only is the destruction of our habitat spreading every year, it is spreading faster every year.

5) Therefore, it is inevitable that we - like every object that consumes energy in a closed system - will eventually reach a limit beyond which we can no longer draw energy from resources.

Or, to put it more simply: everything that grows, dies. It's only a question of when.

There seems to be no real basis for your optimism. What SPECIFIC technology do you feel is going to allow our population to grow beyond the natural limits of our closed system? Why do you feel we must maintain a growth-based economic system as opposed to controlling population growth to preserve our habitat for future generations and switching to some other economic system?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Also, this isn't an either/or. We need to be both controlling population as well as being more efficient using and distributing the resources we do have. I mean, assuming we want human civilization to meaningfully continue.

 

[Noaidi]

Also, this isn't an either/or. We need to be both controlling population as well as being more efficient using and distributing the resources we do have. I mean, assuming we want human civilization to meaningfully continue.

Nah, we're blowing all our chances. We know we are waist-deep in our own ****. yet we continue regardless. Time to phase ourselves out, methinks.

 

[Alceste]

Also, this isn't an either/or. We need to be both controlling population as well as being more efficient using and distributing the resources we do have. I mean, assuming we want human civilization to meaningfully continue.

Quite a grandiose assumption, considering how we actually behave.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Quite a grandiose assumption, considering how we actually behave.

Yeah, that's why I added that last sentence as a qualifier.

 

[orcel]

I agree with this, but it has to be done within the current population limit. It's obvious that governments and nations aren't doing enough to address the environmental situation, so it's unwise to advocate an increase in population numbers whilst nothing is being done to address the other issues.

Humanity, like most species have a genetic call for procreation, a biological drive instilled by our creator and /or evolution. Plus as has been mentioned here many believe we have religious requirment to increase in number. Do you really think we can control that inpulse across the entire poputaion? And when people refuse?

I suggest the more logical solution is to address the real problem and something we might actually be able to accomplish social and enviromentally sound resource managment and not waste resources on trying to control people's most basic drives.

 

[InChrist]

I'd say now is the time for humanity to admit we need a Savior and seek His wisdom since doing things our own way seems to fail so miserably.

 

[Skwim]

I'd say now is the time for humanity to admit we need a Savior and seek His wisdom since doing things our own way seems to fail so miserably.

Isn't he aware of the mess, or is it that he just likes to be asked?

 

[Noaidi]

Humanity, like most species have a genetic call for procreation, a biological drive instilled by our creator and /or evolution. Plus as has been mentioned here many believe we have religious requirment to increase in number.

At any cost? You can't stop and think about the implications of your actions based on an ancient text written when the global population and its resource consumption were significantly less than they are today?

Do you really think we can control that inpulse across the entire poputaion? And when people refuse?

Yes, of course we can control it. It takes a bit of forethought and determination but, yes, many can over-ride their urge to breed. Regarding some people's refusal - well, fair enough. I've no control over that (nor would I want to have it).

I suggest the more logical solution is to address the real problem and something we might actually be able to accomplish social and enviromentally sound resource managment and not waste resources on trying to control people's most basic drives.

You've said this before. What do you propose? What are you personally doing to achieve this outcome?

Edit: as I've said before, I agree with your previous points on resource distribution and consumption, but that's only part of the problem. Addressing the population issue isn't a side issue to this - it's central to it.