Future, what future?

[locum76]

The first step would be to have a word with specific theological centres based in the west. That is, those who's leaders still think it is the correct thing to breed like bunnies, ban contraceptives and whom continue to propagate such tosh in regions of the world which are rife with overpopulation and riddled with STD's.

 

[Tadpole]

If we panic every time someone gives us half a story, we’ll never have any peace. The population explosion is not caused by to many kids being born it's caused by too many old people. By 2050 in the western world roughly 50% of the population will be older than 60 (it’s already roughly 45%)
If we follow the Japanese model of healthcare, by 2050 for every person under 20 there will be 120(ish) people over 65.
Given all that, I think by 2075 there will not be enough kids born to sustain economic growth; we will end up with billions of old folk and no one young and fit enough to look after them.
In China there is an economic fall out from the “one child per family policy” . They call it the 4-2-1 problem, where one child has to support two aged parent and four even older grandparents, In many South American countries, places like Chile, Costa Rica, and Brazil, fertility is already declining and depopulation is a real factor, there are just not enough people being born to maintain a stable population. Hardship is sure to follow, as more income is spent maintaining ill and aged relatives, money that could be spent on goods (providing the means for growth in the economy) is spent on medical care.

 

[BorderReiver]

The first step would be to have a word with specific theological centres based in the west. That is, those who's leaders still think it is the correct thing to breed like bunnies, ban contraceptives and whom continue to propagate such tosh in regions of the world which are rife with overpopulation and riddled with STD's.

It's not just them. There are several flavours of them that have an enormous amount of political clout and until we can wean ourselves away from bronze age superstition, we are scuppered.

 

[BorderReiver]

If we panic every time someone gives us half a story, we’ll never have any peace. The population explosion is not caused by to many kids being born it's caused by too many old people. By 2050 in the western world roughly 50% of the population will be older than 60 (it’s already roughly 45%)
If we follow the Japanese model of healthcare, by 2050 for every person under 20 there will be 120(ish) people over 65.
Given all that, I think by 2075 there will not be enough kids born to sustain economic growth; we will end up with billions of old folk and no one young and fit enough to look after them.
In China there is an economic fall out from the “one child per family policy” . They call it the 4-2-1 problem, where one child has to support two aged parent and four even older grandparents, In many South American countries, places like Chile, Costa Rica, and Brazil, fertility is already declining and depopulation is a real factor, there are just not enough people being born to maintain a stable population. Hardship is sure to follow, as more income is spent maintaining ill and aged relatives, money that could be spent on goods (providing the means for growth in the economy) is spent on medical care.

There is your answer.

WHY do we need to maintain economic growth? How many cars does one family need; how many 5 foot wide TVs; how many new sofas a year; new clothes; new electrical devices; gismoes ad infinitum?

Stop the relentless acquisition of consumer goods and you need fewer factories, less fuel, less people to produce disposable goods that no one actually NEEDS. We could return to a society where people were valued and looked after instead of being seen as competitors or burdens.

 

[British Red]

The population explosion is not caused by to many kids being born it's caused by too many old people.

Sorry thats just plain old fashioned wrong

1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion


A fourfold increase in the world poulation in a century is not caused by a life extension per capita measured in a decade or two. Its mathmatically impossible.

However even if such a flawed concept were correct, the only way to keep a population stable given an extended life expectancy would be to reduce the rate of reproduction

Of course there are short term difficulties in slowing population growth - but to carry on expanding is the worst choice of all - it merely increases the size of the problem to be adressed

Red

 

[BorderReiver]

Sorry thats just plain old fashioned wrong

1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion


A fourfold increase in the world poulation in a century is not caused by a life extension per capita measured in a decade or two. Its mathmatically impossible.

However even if such a flawed concept were correct, the only way to keep a population stable given an extended life expectancy would be to reduce the rate of reproduction

Of course there are short term difficulties in slowing population growth - but to carry on expanding is the worst choice of all - it merely increases the size of the problem to be adressed

Red

Tsk, BR, you're letting hard facts get in the way of a good discussion.

 

[Tadpole]

There is your answer.

WHY do we need to maintain economic growth? How many cars does one family need; how many 5 foot wide TVs; how many new sofas a year; new clothes; new electrical devices; gismoes ad infinitum?

Stop the relentless acquisition of consumer goods and you need fewer factories, less fuel, less people to produce disposable goods that no one actually NEEDS. We could return to a society where people were valued and looked after instead of being seen as competitors or burdens.

In my humble opinion there are "only" two meaninful states in economics, growth or recession, we grow or die.

 

[British Red]

So - things grow forever and never collapse...like house prices?

 

[Tadpole]

Tsk, BR, you're letting hard facts get in the way of a good discussion.

Let me see, BR 'opinion' or real hard facts...

In a document 2006 called World Population Prospects put out by the united nations, along side a similar study put out by with World health Organisation two years earlier, it was projected that by 2050 the world population will be 9.2 million, half of the increase will be made up of people over 65, and by 2050 one in six people will be over 65.
The growth rate of people over 65 is currently 2.5 % per year, and the growth rate of children as percentage of the population is .025% per year.

So - things grow forever and never collapse...like house prices?

House prices grew then collapsed, at no point were they stationary, you have an “either or situation”. If you want stability it has to be from stable growth not from wild fluctuations, unfortunately greed tends to get in the way.

 

[BorderReiver]

In my humble opinion there are "only" two meaninful states in economics, growth or recession, we grow or die.

OK, forget economics, which is after all an artificial concept.

Economics seem to generate wealth from nothing, moving "money" about and adding to the price of "real" things, like food. Futures markets are an abomination which benefit a tiny number of ultra rich people at the expense of everyone else.

Your economics won't help when the population grows large enough to trigger pandemics and mass migrations.

 

[British Red]

Growth and stability are not the same thing Tadpole. You simply cannot have a finite resource base that has to grow in output forever. Its wholly illogical. The same way you cannot have a growing population forever - its even more illogical. Sooner or later that growing population will starve.

Add the fact that the growth is based upon consumption of a finite resource (fossil fuels enabling both artificial fertiliser and cheap mechanised equipment) and you have a recipe for sudden catastrophic collapse.

You acknowledge population growth and I'm sure you cannot argue that population growth ad infitum is unsustainable. How do you suggest it should be addressed?

Its not an act of faith - just plain, simple logic.

Red

 

[xylaria]

Uncomfortable though it is there is too many humans for the planet to sustain. I have being sterilised because we think it is unethical to have more than two children. Saying that a large family in the third world would use less resources than my own family. I am no way advocating any form of eugenics as it leads to the really awful idea that those deemed less than perfect are barred from having a family, and the disabled, the old and the sick are drains on society and should be euthanized.

Modern medicine and a welfare state have removed nearly every tool nature has of limiting population growth in britian. In my peer group the birth rate is less than one child, but then my peer group are educated enough to think of consequences of having children. But quite a few of my childless friends buy a lot of "toys" for themselves and this is because they are often double income no children so they have a high income to waste, where as a large family in third with much lower income would use far less resources. In the long term the planet cannot sustain either, and that includes me.

Humans need to use less, breed less, what ever your personal take on the anthropogenic global warming, we are trashing the planet. We are felling too many rainforests to feed us all, and wreaking the environment to find metals to make the electronic toys of the west. The oceans have become a plastic soup, and that plastic travels all way through the food chain. These aren't facts that can be disputed by ice core samples or fed to us by Al Gore. Look at BODs posts of deforestation, look at stomach contents next time you go sea fishing, find out what metals go into your phone and look at Angola. Just think about that every time you pick up poly-bag of apples, buy a new gadget, or buy shampoo with sodium lauryl sulfate in. We all are responsible educated people , we can all make less pollution regardless of how many sprogs we chuck out. If this hobby teaches us all one thing is that we can all happily live by using less and knowing more.

 

[locum76]

If this hobby teaches us all one thing is that we can all happily live by using less and knowing more.

 

[gregorach]

In my humble opinion there are "only" two meaninful states in economics, growth or recession, we grow or die.

In our current growth-based economic paradigm, yes. However, there are other systems of economics. The payment of interest is not an unchangeable fact of life, it's a policy we've chosen as a society. We could, if we wanted, try a steady-state economy based on demurrage instead.

If i recall correctly, in the early Middle Ages (when usury was illegal), the price of a loaf of bread remained more-or-less constant for about 400 years. Growth is only essential if you need it to pay the interest on the loans you took out to enable the growth in the first place.

 

[Wallenstein]

How much of the current inability to sustain the current population is due to population numbers, and how much to do with politics?

Vast areas of Russia and Canada have very few people in them and could support a lot more cities / fields / fisheries etc.

Or consider the UK... huge bits of Scotland with no-one around, and lots of people in the South East. Make a few more cities up north and ease the pressure?

We have grain mountains, wine lakes etc, more food than we can eat, but there's no cheap and easy way to distribute that.

Many of the poorest parts of the world could sustain themselves if the wars stopped and farming started.

The no. of children you have is not an ethical decision... you owe nothing to future generations (despite what cheesy red indian proverbs might say), if you can afford lots of kids then fair enough, as long as you can pay for the resources they consume.

The world is selfish, just as the natural world is selfish - foxes will eat rabbits until there are no rabbits left; then the rabbits will increase in number. Humans are like the foxes... we'll consume resources until we can't carry on, our numbers will drop and the world wil recover. No ethics involved, just biology (which is all there is when you get down to it).

At lot of these posts seem to be looking well into the future, but the fact is we'l be dead by then so it won't matter to us at all. Our kids will adapt as we have done, as has every generation since the dawn of history.

 

[BorderReiver]

How much of the current inability to sustain the current population is due to population numbers, and how much to do with politics?

Vast areas of Russia and Canada have very few people in them and could support a lot more cities / fields / fisheries etc.

Or consider the UK... huge bits of Scotland with no-one around, and lots of people in the South East. Make a few more cities up north and ease the pressure?

Then where do you go?

We have grain mountains, wine lakes etc, more food than we can eat, but there's no cheap and easy way to distribute that.

Production in search of profit. Part of the problem, a drive for growth.
Many of the poorest parts of the world could sustain themselves if the wars stopped and farming started.

Wars due to expansion of population and reduction of resources.

The no. of children you have is not an ethical decision... you owe nothing to future generations (despite what cheesy red indian proverbs might say), if you can afford lots of kids then fair enough, as long as you can pay for the resources they consume.

Purely selfish thinking which would change instantly if circumstances changed.

The world is selfish, just as the natural world is selfish - foxes will eat rabbits until there are no rabbits left; then the rabbits will increase in number. Humans are like the foxes... we'll consume resources until we can't carry on, our numbers will drop and the world wil recover. No ethics involved, just biology (which is all there is when you get down to it).

Wrong. Left to it's own devices, nature reaches a balance.
"our numbers will drop", bland statement which ignores horrendous suffering. I'm not impressed.

At lot of these posts seem to be looking well into the future, but the fact is we'l be dead by then so it won't matter to us at all. Our kids will adapt as we have done, as has every generation since the dawn of history.

We'll be dead so it won't matter? That's all right then.

 

[mr dazzler]

No one has yet suggested any practical ways that people could be persuaded to stop, or reduce, their reproductive efforts. I personally reckon it cant be done voluntarily, there would inevitably need to be an element of coercive force. If they cant sucessfully control immigration, or stop people thieving, or killing each other, how on earth do you think they will control human reproduction, one of mankind's most basic deep rooted functions? Unless of course we are looking at mass involuntary sterilisation, bromide in the water, or whatever? And it would just open up new possibilities for a massive new black market enterprise "baby offsetting". Good people from rich countries would pay cash money to those in the poorest ones for their baby quotas.
Talk about logic, reason etc, as far as the german national socialists were concerned, setting up an aryan master race was entirely rational and reasonable, as was their plan to phase out certain sections of society. It didnt seem illogical, they had a heroic visionary fuhrer who told them so.

 

[BigShot]

I always find this a strange topic.
Stick myth overpopulation into google and have a read.
Or just click THIS LINK if you can't be bothered doing that.

As is normal both sides of the debate are crammed with biased arguments, either various shades of human-hating claptrap from people who'll spew forth any scary story just as long as it says humans are a disease, killing them planet and need culling/sterilising/controling or others who'll say the exact opposite through the same logical process.

Me?
I don't buy it, though few of you will be surprised to hear that.

The problems we face aren't due to too many people spending cold winter nights baby-making to keep warm - they are due to packaging goods in fancy packaging that serves only to form a large part of landfill contents, due to wasteful food practices, frighteningly bad fishery policies (non-target species, upsizing and so on), due to littering, due to inadequately treated sewage, due to fertilizer runoff and so on.

These are not issues caused by overpopulation, these are issues caused by a society which acts in a completely irresponsible way.

We don't need to follow some insane program of population control or eugenics, we need to straighten out the way our society works and reduce our impact.
We need to return to a more natural way of living, encouraging people to use their gardens to grow food rather than relying on The Big 4 for every morsel.
We need to force local councils to eliminate waiting lists for allotments by freeing up the disgusting amounts of wasted, council-owned land and turning them over to the private food production that thousands upon thousands of people want to do but can't due to lack of space and inadequate numbers of allotments.
We need to stop wrapping rubbish in the least biodegradable materials known to man.
We need to stop chipping tons and tons of "unwanted" trees at the sides of roads when they could be used to provide (amongst other things) firewood for domestic use, for power generation and so on.

There are so many things we could do which would entirely remove the negative impact the human race has on the planet and without any need for people getting on their high horse because they have chosen not to have kids.

Anyone telling me I shouldn't have kids, or limit them to a number chosen by anyone other than myself, or trying to tell me I'm doing something wrong by having a family would, on a very very good day be laughed at. On a bad day they would probably be offended or upset.

Don't want kids? Don't have them.
Think humans are a disease? Do the world a favour and cure yourself.

We don't need population control.
I for one will be aiming to have spares. If any of you feel that's a bad thing, feel free to remove your genes from the pool to compensate, I certainly won't be.

 

[British Red]

You see I for one have no problem with those who choose to have kids. Its their life.

I absolutely do have a problem however with someone who does more than replace both parents and then proceeds to feel they can lecture others about their behaviour on consumption.

I can only assume they have no basic grasp of mathematics

The logic of cutting down or packaging or use of fossil fuels or whatever and then increasing the number of people producing / consuming gives me a headache to think down to that degree of inconsistency,

The truth, sadly is as others have said. Mankind will consume until the planet cannot support that degree of consumption. Then mankind will die off to a sustainable level. However to increase overpopulation whilst decreasing per capita consumption is an exercise in stupidity worthy of an Ozymandian memorial.

Red

 

[gregorach]

No one has yet suggested any practical ways that people could be persuaded to stop, or reduce, their reproductive efforts. I personally reckon it cant be done voluntarily, there would inevitably need to be an element of coercive force.

There is ample evidence that if you provide women with basic education and healthcare, access to family planning measures, and protection from coercion by men, that they have many fewer children. It turns out that most women don't actually want to pop out kid after kid until they die of infected fistulas in their early '30s. It's called the demographic transition. Most of the "developed" world is already reproducing at below the replacement rate.