How do we reconcile medical research with excessive population growth?

[Kilgore Trout]

read my other posts I have already covered many of those topics. And no we don't need petroleum any more, we refuse to move past it.

I understand that many people engage in wishful thinking when it comes to energy production. However, they are generally highly ignorant of the energy requirements it would take to replace petroleum, and that there are currently no energy production methods which could come close to replacing that amount.

 

[Iti oj]

So is it time to start colonizing space?

 

[Iti oj]

I understand that many people engage in wishful thinking when it comes to energy production. However, they are generally highly ignorant of the energy requirements it would take to replace petroleum, and that there are currently no energy production methods which could come close to replacing that amount.

Again so the problem is greed and lack of investment and research. Ohh and remove the oil subsidiaries and tell me its still viable

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So is it time to start colonizing space?

Do you think the vaccum of space is a viable living environment for humans?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

well...in the past people used to make children because agriculture was not mechanized and arms were necessary to increase the production.

now that agriculture is completely automatized, what are people for?
People make babies just because they think they are supposed to. actually nobody forces them to do them.

Security in places with poor social safety nets. I once heard it broken down this way:

- you want a child to take care of you when you're too old to work yourself.
- there's a high likelihood that a child won't live until you need him, so for one ADULT child, you'd better have 2 babies.
- there's a 50/50 chance that a child will be a girl (and therefore end up with her husband supporting her in-laws, not you), so for one adult SON, you'd better have 4 babies.
- there's a distinct possibility that your son might just decide not to take care of you, so to have one SUPPORTIVE adult son, you'd better have 8 babies.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Again so the problem is greed and lack of investment and research.

I realize many people ascribe magical properties to "research," and think all problems are instantly solved by the magic of "research" if you simply throw enough money at it. However, research isn't magic, and all problems aren't easily solvable, if at all solvable.

Ohh and remove the oil subsidiaries and tell me its still viable

I assume you mean "subsidies." Regardless, I'd suggest doing some research into all the roles petroleum plays in the production, storage, packaging, transporting, and distribution of food before blithely dismissing it as necessary to the process.

 

[Iti oj]

I realize many people ascribe magical properties to "research," and think all problems are instantly solved by the magic of "research" if you simply throw enough money at it. However, research isn't magic, and all problems aren't easily solvable, if at all solvable.



I assume you mean "subsidies." Regardless, I'd suggest doing some research into all the roles petroleum plays in the production, storage, packaging, transporting, and distribution of food before blithely dismissing it as necessary to the process.

Perhaps you should get your head out off your *** and realize that the way we do things not is not the only way to do them and its not even the best way of doing them.

 

[Iti oj]

In regards to food we need to have a permaculture revolution and eat more locally and be more responsible for our own food.

 

[HonestJoe]

Most biologists work in medicine and the justification in their grant applications is saving lives.

I'm not convinced that's fair actually. A lot of medical research is more about quality of life that simple longevity. We've become pretty good at having the ability to just keep people alive - in a lot of cases we could theoretically do it almost indefinitely. Keeping people active, healthy and happy is the challenge that's really being addressed now.

Of course much of that focuses on the West (where the money is). Frankly if the primary interest was in actually saving lives, there'd be a lot more investment in the developing world than there is.

Do we all just ignore the problem and let someone else decide what to do later because "what if that research saves your mom"?

I don't think new medical research is a major factor in global populations. The biggest increase is in the developing nations where, among other things, they're getting access to our medical research of decades ago. One of the major issues with addressing global population growth is that the increase is low, even stagnant in Western nations. That makes it difficult to sell the concept of the problem here.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Perhaps you should get your head out off your *** and realize that the way we do things not is not the only way to do them and its not even the best way of doing them.

I'll take it by your response that you're content remaining ignorant about the realities of energy needs and production in regards to sustaining a population of 7 billion humans.

 

[Iti oj]

Right because Germany hasn't shown we can break fossil fuel addiction. Its a lie you have been feed. Its simply not "economically viable"

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Right because Germany hasn't shown we can break fossil fuel addiction. Its a lie you have been feed. Its simply not "economically viable"

They haven't shown that by a long-shot yet.

Germany has shown that with incredibly massive subsidies that they've been able to produce about 7% of their energy requirements via solar power and about 10% through wind power. So after their massive and incredibly expensive push for renewable energy, 83% of their energy requirements are still filled by non-renewable energy sources.

Of course, being one of the most economically strong nations in the world, Germany can afford this. Whose going to pay for all the solar panels and wind turbines throughout most of the world, which doesn't have billions of extra dollars to spend?

 

[Iti oj]

They haven't shown that by a long-shot yet.

Germany has shown that with incredibly massive subsidies that they've been able to produce about 7% of their energy requirements via solar power and about 10% through wind power. So after their massive and incredibly expensive push for renewable energy, 83% of their energy requirements are still filled by non-renewable energy sources.

Of course, being one of the most economically strong nations in the world, Germany can afford this. Whose going to pay for all the solar panels and wind turbines throughout most of the world, which doesn't have billions of extra dollars to spend?

Ive been reading it at more like 75% and again you bring up the price demonstrating my point.

 

[Ouroboros]

Most biologists work in medicine and the justification in their grant applications is saving lives.

All biologists and most people will tell you that you need to have a balance between life and death in a population or really bad **** starts to happen.

A population biologist can show how excessive population booms can result in a crash that brings the population level back down to way below that max population threshold before it begins to recover again, if ever.

Do we all just ignore the problem and let someone else decide what to do later because "what if that research saves your mom"?

Do we scoop up the healthy but hungry 120 year-olds protesting in the streets into soylent green trucks?

Here's the strange thing.

In countries with well developed medicine, the birth rate is low, while in the countries with poor medicine, the birth rate is high.

So I don't think that's the problem. Perhaps by increasing medical help, we actually decrease population growth? It seems like it. Maybe it's because people with good health and surviving children aren't as eager to make more children?

Essentially, what I'm saying is that good medicine is not in conflict with population growth, but rather possibly is the answer to reduce it.

Also, the rate of increase has gone down, i.e. it's still increasing but not as fast anymore:

Malthus wasn't quite right. We know today that industrial countries tend to have a more balanced growth than developing or under-developed countries. Malthus missed some parameters.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ive been reading it at more like 75% and again you bring up the price demonstrating my point.

How does the prohibitively high investment cost of solar and wind energy demonstrate your point?

 

[Iti oj]

How does the prohibitively high investment cost of solar and wind energy demonstrate your point?

How does it demonstrate anything other than a resource management issue?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How does it demonstrate anything other than a resource management issue?

By showing that it's an issue of economics and resources. Okay, your turn, answer the question now.

 

[Iti oj]

By showing that it's an issue of economics and resources. Okay, your turn, answer the question now.

Why, you just answered it for me, though you left out the lack of return on investment.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why, you just answered it for me, though you left out the lack of return on investment.

You left out an actual answer to the question. Please answer it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Our leftish little town once installed electric solar panels on the farmer's market.
They did this expecting a 1% return on investment, which equalls (roughly) a 100 year pay back.
The expected life was 30 years.
They saw no problem with this decision.