The Over-Population Myth

[lemur]

Because it's not a matter which is determined by looking at sloppy business practices. It's a matter which is determined by studying the appropriate ecological models and applying them to the available data.

 

It doesn't matter to the carry capacity of the planet whether or not the fish gets eaten. Once it's out of the water and its head gets stoved in, it's out of the game.

 

No offense, but it is typical of someone who only analyzes resource-utilization on paper to not be able to make the connections between business-practices, supply-chain management, aggregate demand, and resource waste. If fish is getting thrown away constantly in food-service facilities to ensure product-freshness, many times more fish could be getting thrown away as eaten. That could translate into multiple ship-loads of fish caught for every ship-load actually eaten. You are assuming that overfishing is the result of too many people eating fish, but I think you're failing to consider that it's not the amount of fish being eaten but the amount being wasted that is causing the overfishing.

 

Instead of more birth control, you should consider advocating on-demand food-service. Currently food-service tends to work according to the principle that customers want prompt service when they are hungry and if they don't get it at your store/restaurant they will go someplace else where they do get served promptly. This leads businesses to keep a constant supply of prepared food on hand ready to be served, and it is always better to have too much than not enough, and this results in waste. Also, health-codes and business standards require that hot food be thrown away after a few hours. No one wants to eat food that's been sitting under a heat lamp for hours (I don't mind it that much, actually, but many people find the thought distasteful). Anyway, the point is don't underestimate how much waste is caused by a culture of entitlement where consumers have loads of food being thrown away hourly while waiting for them to decide when to come in and make their selection according to their convenience.

Edited October 21, 2010 by lemur

[Moontanman]

Well Moon, you would have to ask those living in Mumbia or Kalkate, that are living under those conditions today. Since India is a reasonably free country, those folks are not forced to live there and must be happy.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with the argument, I'm sure they are happy as clams, but i know i would not be happy living like that and being free to go does not equate with being able to go.

 

I'm not sure where you picked up a "point" on my beliefs for human "breeding". However IMO, this should be up to the Society, but limited to discussion, HONEST education and NOT mandated. For instance in the US, we give tax deductions for EACH child born or supported. Would you like to go on record to dissolve that deduction?

 

Yes i would.

 

 

Poor argument; Today most resources already come from distant places. Most food products you use any one day, has come from some distant place, fuels for your heat/auto sometimes water (Southern California for instance) comes from distant places and even parts of your car, TV or dishwasher were produced overseas.

 

Yes but eventually those places will either run out of resources to ship out or their own population will grow to the point that have none to spare.

 

 

 

Your a retired(?) 55 year old and I'm somewhat older. Some "over population" advocates have been saying population growth was not sustainable, since there were 2B people on this earth (you know this), it was a MYTH then and remains one today, title of the thread.

 

This has already be addressed in this thread but population growth is not sustainable long term for many reasons, when those predictions were made they relied on peak things that proved to be technologically surmountable. Yes i am 55 and retired, how is that part of this discussion?

 

Now it is remotely possible that at some point some bright boy will come up with replicator technology like star trek and we will no long need farms factories or raw materials other than mass but it's a very long shot. The fact remains that with out some technological save we will exceed the resources of the earth eventually. I am quite sure that technology will help us out in our efforts to stave off the collapse, that's why the prediction you noted did not come to pass but there is a limit to what technology can do and if we keep going the way we are we will find that limit eventually.

 

No doubt, there is a number where humans could not support increasing populations. My objection is what that number might be and those continuing to try and establish their own number, for some personal reason or fit into there political/social agenda.

 

Then why do say it's a myth? No one is saying that we cannot support more people, just that eventually the limit will be reached and it's best to plan ahead. A private agenda is a part of everyone Jackson, even you, ignoring reality because you have to agree with someone you don't like is weak. as for the numbers, i agree that there are people who are pushing their own numbers for various reasons, some, like the church say there is no limits, have babies until we go to see god, others say it's already happened, we are doomed and the collapse is inevitable. Surely the truth must lay somewhere in between and to attain the goals we need to know the truth depends on every one acknowledging that we will run out, Like have a back account with a million dollars, WOW! a million dollars, i can buy any thing i want and live any way i want

for the rest of my life.... Well when you go to the bank to with drawl money and it say you have none available it's too late to think I should have spent my money more wisely.

 

That's a lot of ants and felt it was an interesting item to throw in. Think about it, if you weigh 250 pounds, there might be 12,500 pounds of ants sustaining life on the same planet, then the 30% of land mass (opposed to oceans).

 

If ants had no predators they too would overwhelm the planet eventually, bacteria make up the largest biomass on the planet by far both in total numbers and weight.

 

 

 

Probably not and I should probably take this to a new thread; I was trying to soften your religion comments, when no one had mentioned religion. I would agree that leaders in many religions oppose any form of birth control, but would argue their right to those opinions/preaching's. As think 'need' mentioned, there is no reason to abort a child because someone FEELS the planet is over crowded, it's simply not true and a MYTH.... Living older has probably more to do with population growth than ANYTHING else, but I'm not going to support euthanasia.

 

This thread is not about abortion, i have not advocated abortion as the answer, it is not the answer, religion is only peripherally involved in this, they do indeed contribute to the problem by saying birth control is wrong but ultimately it is a human problem not a religious problem.

 

eventually humanity will have to decide when it is time to throttle back on population growth, i would like to see it happen before we are alone on this planet packed into cities like sardines.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Moontanman

[Pangloss]

No offense, but it is typical of someone who only

 

Lemur, do you and I need to have another conversation about your posting habits?

 

 

That's just my view (pulled out of nowhere, really), though I am curious if you could elaborate a bit because I am quite interested in the basis for your view.

 

There are just too many unaccounted-for possibilities in that particular question. My hesitance to reply at length is due to the regular thrashing given to anyone around here who even hints at disagreeing with the "consensus" on global warming. I don't dispute global warming, I just don't share some of the extrapolations that seem to stem from it. In this case, I don't presently accept the phrase "straining the world's capacity to support current human populations".

 

The world is a really big place. I think our arrival at global communication has caused us to forget our previous understanding that it's hubris to overestimate our impact on it. That having been said, the fact that we have an impact is clear. The problem is arriving at the correct assessment of that impact. That's produced a new hubris: Believing that we fully understand what our impact is.

 

That new hubris is even more dangerous than the older one, IMO.

[zapatos]

Since India is a reasonably free country, those folks are not forced to live there and must be happy.

Um, could you add a few steps to this line of reasoning?

 

I spent a little time in Mumbai, and the vast majority of people I saw were living in 10x10 shacks made of whatever it was they could find in the pile of trash and garbage they were living next to, taking baths in puddles of muddy water, and squatting in the streets to defecate. I'm not sure where they did their grocery shopping although I did see quite a few women competing with dogs for the best of what was in the garbage pile.

 

I guess I should have thought to ask if they were happy but I failed to do so. I'm sure if they were unhappy they would have just jumped on the internet, pulled out their American Express cards, and booked thier move to someplace in the mountains. Maybe Switzerland!

 

Then again, maybe the people generating the garbage piles were the happy ones.

Edited October 21, 2010 by zapatos

[Sayonara]

No offense, but it is typical of someone who only analyzes resource-utilization on paper to not be able to make the connections between business-practices, supply-chain management, aggregate demand, and resource waste.

You're kidding, right?

 

If fish is getting thrown away constantly in food-service facilities to ensure product-freshness, many times more fish could be getting thrown away as eaten. That could translate into multiple ship-loads of fish caught for every ship-load actually eaten. You are assuming that overfishing is the result of too many people eating fish, but I think you're failing to consider that it's not the amount of fish being eaten but the amount being wasted that is causing the overfishing.

No, actually I'm saying it doesn't make any difference if the fish is eaten or not if it is removed from the population in either case. As far as the consumption of natural resources goes, once a resource is irreversibly sourced it can be considered "used"; the details of how it is used are irrelevant (unless of course you are stockpiling it, but this tends to happen with things like gold, not with halibut or mackerel). I really don't see how that could be made more simple.

 

And yes, you could increase utilisation efficiency by attempting to ensure that close to 100% of all harvested fish are eaten, but as I said before this only shifts k. I have already explained why this is significant to the thread topic in post #38.

 

Instead of more birth control, you should consider advocating on-demand food-service.

I don't think I have ever advocated birth control in my life (nor opposed it for that matter), so I am not sure why you think I did so in this thread.

 

...Anyway, the point is don't underestimate how much waste is caused by a culture of entitlement where consumers have loads of food being thrown away hourly while waiting for them to decide when to come in and make their selection according to their convenience.

Please go back and look at my post, #38.

 

I replied to you because you were querying whether Padren really attributed resource paucity to overpopulation rather than wasteful practices. Do you think that a percentage wastage per capita plays the larger role, or do you think it might be the fact that there are billions of 'capitas' that has the more significant part to play? How about if we double the human population, but keep resource utilisation the same? What if we double it again? Again? How about if instead of doubling it, we halve it? At what point do you think the significance of resource utilisation efficiency will become more important than raw population size? Any idea?

 

Probably not. This is because you have not done the stuffy old boring analysis "on paper". Well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that's the actual work in understanding the situation right there. The commercial and economical modelling will only ever explain why the situation is the way it is, and give ideas about how our behaviours can change. It won't force the underlying ecological principles to be different. Sorry. No matter how efficient our technologies make us, humans are still subject to the same types of ecological constraints as every other species on this rock. Now pardon me for having a working understanding of them.

[lemur]

You're kidding, right?

Not at all. See the following quote for why.

 

No, actually I'm saying it doesn't make any difference if the fish is eaten or not if it is removed from the population in either case. As far as the consumption of natural resources goes, once a resource is irreversibly sourced it can be considered "used"; the details of how it is used are irrelevant (unless of course you are stockpiling it, but this tends to happen with things like gold, not with halibut or mackerel). I really don't see how that could be made more simple.

You only fish as much out of the ocean as you have orders to fill. If demand is 100 tons, you don't fish 150 tons. If 50 tons is eaten and 50 tons thrown away, the demand is still 100 tons. If 50 tons are eaten and nothing is thrown away, the demand goes down to 50 tons OR you can feed twice as many people with the 100 tons.

 

And yes, you could increase utilisation efficiency by attempting to ensure that close to 100% of all harvested fish are eaten, but as I said before this only shifts k. I have already explained why this is significant to the thread topic in post #38.

 

 

I don't think I have ever advocated birth control in my life (nor opposed it for that matter), so I am not sure why you think I did so in this thread.

 

 

Please go back and look at my post, #38.

I don't see numbers on the posts. Could you repost? What are you advocating then if you think that humans are spreading resources too thin?

 

 

I replied to you because you were querying whether Padren really attributed resource paucity to overpopulation rather than wasteful practices. Do you think that a percentage wastage per capita plays the larger role, or do you think it might be the fact that there are billions of 'capitas' that has the more significant part to play? How about if we double the human population, but keep resource utilisation the same? What if we double it again? Again? How about if instead of doubling it, we halve it? At what point do you think the significance of resource utilisation efficiency will become more important than raw population size? Any idea?

I'm sorry if I'm too quick to analyze your argument, because I've seen so many like it so many times. All you are really implying is that some level of population control will be necessary one way or the other and so you might as well limit it more and have less resource-strain. I don't appreciate that perspective because there are real people struggling for resources and the privilege of reproducing. To say that reproduction is going to have to be limited one way or the other eventually so it might as be now ignores the fact that some people are granted more freedom to decide for themselves than others.

 

Personally, I don't see how anyone dares to advocate any kind of population limitations without first maximizing the efficiency of resource-utilization. Anyone is free to have as few children as they want, but what right do they have to suggest other people have less kids so they don't have to wait a half-hour for their fried fish?

 

Probably not. This is because you have not done the stuffy old boring analysis "on paper". Well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that's the actual work in understanding the situation right there. The commercial and economical modelling will only ever explain why the situation is the way it is, and give ideas about how our behaviours can change. It won't force the underlying ecological principles to be different. Sorry. No matter how efficient our technologies make us, humans are still subject to the same types of ecological constraints as every other species on this rock. Now pardon me for having a working understanding of them.

You haven't posted any specific data, only conclusions and assumptions. You can cite your precious data-analysis as proof of your point of view, but it's really insufficient and lacks rigor to do this. In fact, statistical analyses tend to magnify the assumptions in modeling and data-collection. So you end up making conclusions based on assumptions from your model instead of paying adequate attention to what is actually going on in practice on the various work-floors and consumption venues of supply-chains.

 

 

 

[jackson33]

Um, could you add a few steps to this line of reasoning?[/Quote]

 

zapatos; I'm sure there are still some very large slum areas in Mumbai, just as there are in any metropolitan area, even in the US, also relative to the National Economy. Then beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder and of course what your comparing it to, is important.

 

Here is one tourist opinion and some pictures...

 

Friday, July 27, 2007

 

Mumbai Trip

This post contains pictures of my most recent trip to Mumbai in July 2007. I think July is the worst time to visit Mumbai as at time the monsoon season is at its peak and Mumbai is badly flooded and it becomes really difficult to move around the city. However despite all this I had a lovely time in Mumbai take a look at some of the pictures I took: [/Quote]

 

http://myworldthroughmylens.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html?gclid=CL_Hmu_V5KQCFRhrgwodqxYJJQ

 

A couple other picture, the second one could be mistaken for any number of Cities in the US.

 

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Mumbai+india+pictures&wrapid=tlif12876878510271&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=u47ATPX8M4vSsAOJsszzCw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQsAQwAA&biw=782&bih=416

 

To your argument, although somewhat better today. Remember India until around 1946 was an English Colony. IMO they have done a fantastic job and India in general is ahead of China in improving life style for it's people.

 

Slum population

According to the results of Census of India, 2001, 5,823,510 people lived in the slums of Mumbai or 48.88% of the population of Mumbai. This is by far the largest slum population in any city of India. 72.48% of this slum population was literate. Also, Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata are the only 3 cities in India where over 1 million people live in slums.[/Quote]

 

http://www.archidev.org/article.php3?id_article=275

 

As for right to move and moving; As what's going on in China today, people living in poverty probably have moved from rural areas for various reasons, where in all likelihood things were in fact worse.

[padren]

Btw: Posts are numbered on the top bar to the right of each post. They are not visible in the reply's "topic summary" but are in the thread.

 

Personally, I don't see how anyone dares to advocate any kind of population limitations without first maximizing the efficiency of resource-utilization. Anyone is free to have as few children as they want, but what right do they have to suggest other people have less kids so they don't have to wait a half-hour for their fried fish?

So if a family of three wastes 50% of the fish they harvest, and a family of eight wastes 0% of the fish they harvest, and both harvest the same number of fish per person - which is responsible for more consumption?

 

It seems to me, it's the family that doesn't understand how baby is formed is responsible for more consumption, even if they manage to achieve 100% efficiency in their fish harvest utilization. It's not like they can magically achieve 110% efficiency - the limit is 100%, but populations grow exponentially.

 

Btw, it's not nearly so daring to suggest to someone they have less kids, it's not like people are demanding they do. Unless you have some stellar mathematical solution I missed the suggestion does seem to be a more immediate means to mitigate the high rate of consumption of resources that bother you so much.

 

 

Considering that children consume, how are they not a luxury? Isn't having even one child an act of dedicating resources to something other than your survival, and thus unnecessary waste?

[tomgwyther]

To refer back to the OP. i remembered a piece of information regarding how much land a person needs to sustain his or herself.

it doesn't - per se - assert that one person requires 'X' amount of land to survive and that the optimum number of people is 'Y'. But ir describes how many people the Earth can sustain depending on their various living standards. it does however give an average amount of land needed.

 

Here is the link. it's from an episode of BBC Horizon. you'll need to watch the part 7:00 minutes into the video to watch the piece I refer to.

 

My link

 

A general paraphrased synopsis goes something like this:

William Reese has said that you might have 10bn people living at one level or 1 bn people living at a more comfortable level. carrying capacity is a flexible idea: you simply divide the total number of people with the productivity of the Earth. Reese has worked out that the productive biomass of the Earth can be divided into 'Global hectares' and that fairly distributed, there would be two global hectares each.

Africa uses 1.37 Global hectares: India uses 0.89: China uses 2.11: Europe uses 4.45 with Britain using 5.33 and USA using 9.42

 

I would also strongly advise watching the entire documentary as it covers many of the various topics, questions, opinions and ideas raised in this thread. On Youtube its divided into six part which should be easily navigable via the link I've posted.

 

 

p.s I have read all posts on this topic; but only very quickly. I apologise if something is raised in the youtube link which has already been mentioned.

[jackson33]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the argument, I'm sure they are happy as clams, but i know i would not be happy living like that and being free to go does not equate with being able to go. [/Quote]

 

Moon; ALL people hypothetically living in Texas and the Myth of overpopulation!!!

 

Yes i would.[/Quote]

 

Then your entire political ideology has self destructed. Most everything in American Politics is designed to encourage children (not discourage), from the deduction, to education, school lunches, health care, all the welfare programs and hundreds of other items. Good luck with this. I'd like to see people actually responsible for every child they bring into the world. Do you know how many people pay some very high school taxes, that never have children, or Taxes that are paid for child welfare.

 

Yes but eventually those places will either run out of resources to ship out or their own population will grow to the point that have none to spare. [/Quote]

 

Round and round we go; Moon in the business world business change sources and resources run out in one place or another, all the time. A current and good example, Russia had problems with their wheat this season, requiring them to keep their normal exports, probably even importing some. Prices went up, are still up, use is declining, farmers in both hemispheres are adjusting their wheat planting and everything will work out.

 

This has already be addressed in this thread but population growth is not sustainable long term for many reasons, when those predictions were made they relied on peak things that proved to be technologically surmountable. Yes i am 55 and retired, how is that part of this discussion?[/Quote]

 

OK, then you know my opinion, no reply needed. I have never met a 55 YO retired. I've known many that were in the military, retired and working elsewhere or something along that line, but most people just don't retire before 55. In the 4 years or so we have been adversaries, I had not noticed your "Hypo" profile (was checking rep points). Those that are not working have generally been on some kind of disability or maybe looking for work, but don't claim being retired. It of course has nothing to do with the thread.

 

Then why do say it's a myth? No one is saying that we cannot support more people, just that eventually the limit will be reached and it's best to plan ahead.[/Quote]

 

There are people out there that think the earth is currently over populated today. If you don't agree, then fine it's a Myth to you as well. As for planning ahead, how would you suggest we do that. I have no idea and I doubt anybody as a real fix on what technology lies ahead or what medical issues will be solved or even if humans will be here in 4-500 years.

 

eventually humanity will have to decide when it is time to throttle back on population growth, i would like to see it happen before we are alone on this planet packed into cities like sardines. [/Quote]

 

Well Moon, your not going to see anything like that, even if you live to 145YO. Even the worst predictions are for 10B or less by 2100 and most figure for various reasons it will have leveled off. Short of another massive increase in quality "life expectancy" like 80 to 120 or two generation, it should naturally level off on it's own later this century. The following link is a little old (2001) but it pretty well fits today's theories...

 

There is about a four-to-one chance the world population of 6.1 billion will level off at about 8.4 billion by the end of the century, about a billion fewer than United Nations predictions.[/Quote]

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-population-forecast-to-peak-before-2100-664281.html

[lemur]

Btw: Posts are numbered on the top bar to the right of each post. They are not visible in the reply's "topic summary" but are in the thread.

Ok, I was looking from the reply summary. Now I see they are in the thread bars.

 

So if a family of three wastes 50% of the fish they harvest, and a family of eight wastes 0% of the fish they harvest, and both harvest the same number of fish per person - which is responsible for more consumption?

First of all, it is usually prepared-food retailers responsible for the most waste in my perception, but of course people can throw away food at home too for various reasons. Your example makes sense, but my concern is the effect of popular overpopulation discourse on the social judgment put on people with larger than average families. Why should people regard others with "too many kids" as causing overpopulation when they themselves are contributing to resource depletion at a level of a family twice or more times their size? If a family with three kids results in resource-harvesting that could feed eight kids, what is the difference between that family and one with eight kids? Even though wealthier parents stereotypically have less kids to avoid depleting family wealth, they reproduce a culture of more wasteful consumption, which reduces the ability for the planet to support other people's reproductive choices.

 

It seems to me, it's the family that doesn't understand how baby is formed is responsible for more consumption, even if they manage to achieve 100% efficiency in their fish harvest utilization. It's not like they can magically achieve 110% efficiency - the limit is 100%, but populations grow exponentially.

Isn't it the case that fishing at a certain level optimizes the reproductive rate of fish populations in the ocean? As such, shouldn't the target of fishing practices/policies be to maximize the reproduction rate of those fish populations? Then, shouldn't supply-chain management aim for maximum efficiency and minimum waste to feed the maximum number of people possible with the fish caught? Shouldn't this method be used in all food-resourcing and distribution supply-chains? If it was, do you think there would be any food shortage or hunger, except to the extent that people are denied access to food distribution channels? If all people had equal access to food distribution, do you think that people could afford to waste food? If people could not afford any more food than they consume, do you think people would want to have more kids than they could afford to feed? If they did, don't you think they would just make wars to gain more control over resources? If people were killing other people over resources and territory, don't you think they would evolve less destructive forms of population management such as birth control policies? Isn't that what is currently going on anyway? Is it any more fair for some people to legislate the reproductive rights of others than it is for them to use war to take resources and territory? If they were doing so for no other reason than to ensure their ability to sustain a culture of inefficiency and waste, wouldn't this seem like an abuse of power, iyo?

 

Btw, it's not nearly so daring to suggest to someone they have less kids, it's not like people are demanding they do. Unless you have some stellar mathematical solution I missed the suggestion does seem to be a more immediate means to mitigate the high rate of consumption of resources that bother you so much.

Social stigma can have powerful effects, unfortunately. If the global economy was predicated on independent individual/family control of resources it would matter less but since many people are dependent on income or other sources of resources, social stigma can result in discrimination. So, for example, when certain ethnic minorities are stereotyped as having too many kids and causing overpopulation, they can get discriminated against economically. This in turn reinforces stereotypical associations of large family-size with poverty and works like a kind of informal ad hoc birth-control pressure. I.e. keep your family size small or face material deprivation.

 

Considering that children consume, how are they not a luxury? Isn't having even one child an act of dedicating resources to something other than your survival, and thus unnecessary waste?

All human life is technically a luxurious waste of resources. However, few people would argue that human life should be eradicated to prevent waste. It makes more sense to minimize waste to allow for maximum human freedom. Every human adult is a child who has learned to solicit economic resources directly instead of relying on their parents or others. So without people taking the luxury of having children, there would be no adults. More responsible adults/children manage their resource-usage more conservatively and efficiently to reduce the economic stress they burden others with. Parents who can utilize resources more efficiently are actually better candidates to have more kids, imo, than people who produce more waste by living less efficiently. Ironically, however, it is the people with the greatest economic access that are able to comfortably have as many kids as they want and consume and waste as much as they want.

 

I think if you would look at average longevity of large families in developing economies and compare that with average longevity in smaller families in developed economies, you might find a greater total number of years-lived among the smaller family in the developed economies. A family with three children who live an average of 75 years, for example, live a total of 225 years. A family of 6 children living an average of 40 years has a total of 240. Now, consider if the 6 kids consumed one-sixth of the resources of the 3 in the developed economies per capita, they would consume 1/3 the resources of the 3 kids even if they had the same longevity. This is possible if, for example, the 6 kids live as vegetarians since meat-production consumes something like 6 times the land, water, etc. as do crops. Of course, you can argue for forest-hunting where crops can't be grown, but I'm just talking about industrial, pasture-raised meat. I wonder what this ratio would be if you compared fish-eating with eating sea-weed and other ocean vegetation.

Edited October 22, 2010 by lemur

[Moontanman]

Then your entire political ideology has self destructed. Most everything in American Politics is designed to encourage children (not discourage), from the deduction, to education, school lunches, health care, all the welfare programs and hundreds of other items. Good luck with this. I'd like to see people actually responsible for every child they bring into the world. Do you know how many people pay some very high school taxes, that never have children, or Taxes that are paid for child welfare.

 

My political ideology? WTF are you talking about?

 

Round and round we go; Moon in the business world business change sources and resources run out in one place or another, all the time. A current and good example, Russia had problems with their wheat this season, requiring them to keep their normal exports, probably even importing some. Prices went up, are still up, use is declining, farmers in both hemispheres are adjusting their wheat planting and everything will work out.

 

This is true but if the population trends continue there will no place to get new resources, i cannot understand why that is so difficult to understand.

 

 

OK, then you know my opinion, no reply needed. I have never met a 55 YO retired. I've known many that were in the military, retired and working elsewhere or something along that line, but most people just don't retire before 55. In the 4 years or so we have been adversaries, I had not noticed your "Hypo" profile (was checking rep points). Those that are not working have generally been on some kind of disability or maybe looking for work, but don't claim being retired. It of course has nothing to do with the thread.

 

Jackson if you have really been paying attention for the last four years you would know my circumstances, I've never tried to hide them in any way.

 

 

 

There are people out there that think the earth is currently over populated today. If you don't agree, then fine it's a Myth to you as well. As for planning ahead, how would you suggest we do that. I have no idea and I doubt anybody as a real fix on what technology lies ahead or what medical issues will be solved or even if humans will be here in 4-500 years.

 

No no, the implication in the OP that over population could never occur not that it currently occurring was a myth. Obviously over population is subject to opinion but ignoring the danger of run away population growth is simply not smart. I would suggest starting now on trying to get people to stop having babies over and over and to advcate limiting families to two or three children. One good way to start this would be to advocate birth control. The fact that nobody has a fix on what technology will bring is a good reason to start planning for the worst, I'd rather be pleasantly surprised instead of devastated by disaster.

 

 

 

Well Moon, your not going to see anything like that, even if you live to 145YO. Even the worst predictions are for 10B or less by 2100 and most figure for various reasons it will have leveled off. Short of another massive increase in quality "life expectancy" like 80 to 120 or two generation, it should naturally level off on it's own later this century. The following link is a little old (2001) but it pretty well fits today's theories...

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-population-forecast-to-peak-before-2100-664281.html

 

Good find in the link but I have my doubts that it is the last word in the future of the human race. There seems to be a huge amount of data that contradicts that.

[zapatos]

zapatos; I'm sure there are still some very large slum areas in Mumbai, just as there are in any metropolitan area, even in the US, also relative to the National Economy. Then beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder and of course what your comparing it to, is important.

 

Here is one tourist opinion and some pictures...

 

As for right to move and moving; As what's going on in China today, people living in poverty probably have moved from rural areas for various reasons, where in all likelihood things were in fact worse.

Ok, I'm confused. I thought you were saying that living in high density Mumbai is pleasant (or at least acceptable) and the people living there must be happy, otherwise they would move. Did I misunderstand you? Because what you are conveying in this post is that the tourists are having a grand time, travelling around the city, eating in nice restaurants, doing some sightseeing. I assume they went home to something other than a tin roof four feet over a dirt floor.

 

In your first link, picture #14, you have a nice picture of a slum in Mumbai. And according to your statistics nearly 6 million people live like that, almost half the population of the city. Also according to you, this is likely a step up for them from what they experienced in rural areas.

 

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharavi (I edited out some references and other non-critical information - my bolding)

 

"Dharavi is a slum and administrative ward, over parts of Sion, Bandra, Kurla and Kalina suburbs of Mumbai, India. It is sandwiched between Mahim in the west and Sion in the east, and spread over an area of 175 hectares, or 0.67 square miles. In 1986, the population was estimated at 530,225, but modern Dharavi has a population of between 600,000 and over 1 million people, Dharavi is one of the largest slums in Asia."

 

"Dharavi has severe problems with public health, due to the scarcity of toilet facilities, compounded by the flooding during the monsoon season. As of November 2006 there was only one toilet per 1,440 residents in Dharavi. Mahim Creek, a local river, is widely used by local residents for urination and defecation, leading to the spread of contagious disease. The area also suffers from problems with inadequate water supply."

 

And ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India

 

"The World Bank estimates that 456 million Indians (41.6% of the total Indian population) now live under the global poverty line of US$ 1.25 per day (PPP)."

 

 

"Despite significant economic progress, one quarter of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of 12 rupees per day (approximately US$ 0.25). As per the 2001 census, 35.5% of Indian households availed of banking services, 35.1% owned a radio or transistor, 31.6% a television, 9.1% a phone, 43.7% a bicycle, 11.7% a scooter, motorcycle or a moped, and 2.5% a car, jeep or van; 34.5% of the households had none of these assets."

 

As far as moving if you are not happy there, you are probably not going to move far if you are making $0.25 per day.

[Sayonara]

Not at all. See the following quote for why.

I asked if you were kidding because of the gross assumptions you would have to apply before attributing to me the role of "on-paper analyser" and ruling out the possibility that I could be capable of understanding business practices, the supply chain, etc. This was both arrogant of you as well as being factually incorrect. Frankly it influenced the entire tone of my reply. And in point of fact I think you would struggle to justify the comment in any case, given the rest of your post.

 

 

You only fish as much out of the ocean as you have orders to fill. If demand is 100 tons, you don't fish 150 tons. If 50 tons is eaten and 50 tons thrown away, the demand is still 100 tons. If 50 tons are eaten and nothing is thrown away, the demand goes down to 50 tons OR you can feed twice as many people with the 100 tons.

I'm afraid I don't see how customer purchasing decisions can influence fishing decisions made in the past, even if it's the recent past. Are you proposing that if someone fancies a nice bit of halibut they should put an order in with the Bureau of Fishing some days in advance?

 

I also don't see how we can expect such massive degrees of accuracy from fishing boats. Do you only have a vague idea as to how fish are landed on commercial scales, or have you actually planned this out in a terrifying level of detail?

 

 

I don't see numbers on the posts. Could you repost?

Post numbers are at the top right of posts, next to the time and date of posting. I'm not duplicating effort, you can quite easily go back and read the thread.

 

 

What are you advocating then if you think that humans are spreading resources too thin?

I have not intentionally stated that humans are "spreading resources too thin" (although this phrase could actually be interpreted a number of ways so it's quite possible that you think I have), and I am not advocating anything. Needimprovement started this thread as and with the contention that there is no such thing as over-population - I am here to tell him this is incorrect.

 

 

I'm sorry if I'm too quick to analyze your argument, because I've seen so many like it so many times.

The only argument I am putting forward in this thread is one that gives the basis for over-population existing and that's the one that was in post #38, which you don't appear to have looked at. If you have recognised in my posts markers for some particular stance that you oppose and assumed I hold that position then you should probably say so now to save us both a lot of time.

 

 

All you are really implying is that some level of population control will be necessary one way or the other and so you might as well limit it more and have less resource-strain.

I think you'll find that that is your inference, not my implication.

 

With reference to your posts, I am pointing out (although admittedly not terribly well) that while the average resource utilisation efficiency of a species will affect the rate at which resources are consumed this is only a per capita figure which is meaningless without the population size being considered. I only pointed this out because you said:

"I just don't understand how you can attribute such resource depletion to population numbers when you can go to any food-service facility such as restaurants and supermarkets and see for yourself how much food is thrown away hourly"

...which to me suggests that you think that the size of a consuming population plays a minor role in the decisions of organisations which are sourcing food to sell to that population.

 

Beyond that I have no interest in discussing (at least, not in this thread) the business practices of certain societies. It's not relevant to whether or not over-population is a myth.

 

 

I don't appreciate that perspective because there are real people struggling for resources and the privilege of reproducing. To say that reproduction is going to have to be limited one way or the other eventually so it might as be now ignores the fact that some people are granted more freedom to decide for themselves than others.

Again, not interested. Whether or not we think population control is a bad thing or that some people and cultures get a raw deal has no influence whatsoever on the existence or non-existence of over-population.

 

 

Personally, I don't see how anyone dares to advocate any kind of population limitations without first maximizing the efficiency of resource-utilization.

Yes, I get that from your posts. It's just that in this thread it has no relevance beyond being a tangential concern. It's a point of social interest; it has nothing at all to do with the population biology that describes the phenomenon which needimprovement is denying.

 

Just because you really really want to talk about it here, doesn't mean we all do. Let's have another separate thread that is entirely devoted to the specifics of resource utilisation.

 

 

You haven't posted any specific data, only conclusions and assumptions. You can cite your precious data-analysis as proof of your point of view, but it's really insufficient and lacks rigor to do this. In fact, statistical analyses tend to magnify the assumptions in modeling and data-collection. So you end up making conclusions based on assumptions from your model instead of paying adequate attention to what is actually going on in practice on the various work-floors and consumption venues of supply-chains.

WTF

 

Lemur, get a grip. I haven't cited any data analysis and there are no assumptions whatsoever in pointing out which principles of ecology apply to changes in a population that is resource-consuming.

 

Go back and read post 38 and then tell me that it's wrong because restaurants sometimes order in too much fish for the customers they serve.

[jackson33]

zapatos; I told moon, he would have to ask the folks there, as I have no idea how they feel. I would assume many of them are quite happy, then adding from my post to you that much of third world migration is INTO the big cities, where at least some food/shelter/necessities are available. The discussion on this thread however, is not promoting 'Big Cities' but that with all this over population of the WORLD peoples, all 6+B could in fact could live in the State of Texas, with less density than in those two towns, or the same in many others, it's a hypothetical scenario.

 

In your first link, picture #14, you have a nice picture of a slum in Mumbai. And according to your statistics nearly 6 million people live like that, almost half the population of the city. Also according to you, this is likely a step up for them from what they experienced in rural areas.[/Quote]

 

If on topic, I would show you pictures of some multi million dollar Public Housing Units in the US, where thousands of people live per square acre where, trash is everywhere, crime prevalent and nobody feels all that happy. However in the "HYPOTHETICAL" Texas scenario we're talking about less than 40 people per acre. There are 43560 square feet per acre and with 16,000 of those square feet, I could build a very comfortable 16 unit, two story, half 2, half three bedroom apartment (1800 and 2200 sqft each), two story apartment building and throw in a luxury third story office floor or medical center or something useful, or reveres the entire thing, store front on the bottom housing above. Then add 8,560 sqft for parking, landscaping including a park/playground/swimming pool, sidewalks and street right of way. This would 20K sqft (per building for other uses or near half the land in Texas, for other uses. This is hypothetical and I hope your getting the point. By the way, this could be done in Mumbai or any other Town or City, which should emphasize the point, there are other factors involved with the illusion "the world is over populated".

 

 

Jackson if you have really been paying attention for the last four years you would know my circumstances, I've never tried to hide them in any way.[/Quote]

 

Moon; I only pay attention on threads I post in , but you may be correct and aside from your views on Gay Marriage or Religion, I really don't know your political ideology. Most liberals, guess I've assumed this from you, believe in degrees of "Social Justice" which is led by the Children We need to tell parents how to raise their children, for the sake of THEIR CHILDREN, never mind it includes the adults, or we need to furnish housing, food, health care or any number of items to the adults for the sake of the children, never mind the hundreds of Charitable Organizations or CHURCHS, that would never let this happen.

 

I'll just assume you have some disability, probably on disability and leave well enough alone. Actually it was the 537,000 reputation points that shook me up the most.

 

No no, the implication in the OP that over population could never occur not that it currently occurring was a myth. [/Quote]

 

Not correct, this stemmed from another thread where he learned of the Texas Example and his previous discussions on over population. I've been there as well, primarily on Political Forums and there are many advocates claiming all kinds of things, if we don't do one thing or another or it's simply too late. On science forums it occasionally comes up under the premise of terraforming mars or space travel, which would indicate the future.

[Moontanman]

Moon; I only pay attention on threads I post in , but you may be correct and aside from your views on Gay Marriage or Religion, I really don't know your political ideology. Most liberals, guess I've assumed this from you, believe in degrees of "Social Justice" which is led by the Children We need to tell parents how to raise their children, for the sake of THEIR CHILDREN, never mind it includes the adults, or we need to furnish housing, food, health care or any number of items to the adults for the sake of the children, never mind the hundreds of Charitable Organizations or CHURCHS, that would never let this happen.

 

I have no idea what you mean by this, but i have no political idealogy, none that I know of suits me even close.

 

I'll just assume you have some disability, probably on disability and leave well enough alone. Actually it was the 537,000 reputation points that shook me up the most.

 

Yes, i was hurt on the Job Working for the Dupont Corporation, 25 years in i was injured and forced out on disability retirement. Now that is common knowledge but WTF would my reputation points bother you?

Edited October 23, 2010 by Moontanman

[lemur]

I asked if you were kidding because of the gross assumptions you would have to apply before attributing to me the role of "on-paper analyser" and ruling out the possibility that I could be capable of understanding business practices, the supply chain, etc. This was both arrogant of you as well as being factually incorrect. Frankly it influenced the entire tone of my reply. And in point of fact I think you would struggle to justify the comment in any case, given the rest of your post.

Ok, I see it has influenced the tone of your reply and I'm sorry for that b/c I have the same response sometimes when ppl deploy petty jabs. The only reason I said it was because it was my assessment and when an assessment can be taken as insulting I try to be blunt to avoid being condescending. I should have maintained a more constructive tone b/c I can't take a bitter battle of insults - well I can but I'd rather not.

 

I'm afraid I don't see how customer purchasing decisions can influence fishing decisions made in the past, even if it's the recent past. Are you proposing that if someone fancies a nice bit of halibut they should put an order in with the Bureau of Fishing some days in advance?

Not that directly, but patterns occur at each level of a supply-chain that influence the subsequent level. When people buy less of something, producers eventually reduce production. Supply and demand curves intersect and the quantity demanded becomes the quantity supplied, provided waste isn't factored into production costs, which it often is with food.

 

I also don't see how we can expect such massive degrees of accuracy from fishing boats. Do you only have a vague idea as to how fish are landed on commercial scales, or have you actually planned this out in a terrifying level of detail?

Are you trying to throw my "on-paper analysis" assessment back at me? Well, you're right I don't. I only know how much food is thrown away at the retail level because I've been there and done that. I also know that every piece of food thrown away had to be produced, shipped, and prepared and that it was suitable for human consumption at the time of disposal. That means that someone else who consumed a fresh version of what was thrown away could have fed another one or more people with the food that was thrown away while waiting for that customer to get hungry and come in to shop.

 

Post numbers are at the top right of posts, next to the time and date of posting. I'm not duplicating effort, you can quite easily go back and read the thread.

I went back and read post #38. You concluded by saying that individual consumption cannot be infinitely reduced so there must be some population level at which resources become insufficient to sustain everyone. My question is how do you know that? How do you know a system like in the Matrix won't be eventually possible, or that human consciousness won't be transplantable into computer hardware or that genetic engineering won't make it possible to shrink humans to the size of mice or smaller?

 

I have not intentionally stated that humans are "spreading resources too thin" (although this phrase could actually be interpreted a number of ways so it's quite possible that you think I have), and I am not advocating anything. Needimprovement started this thread as and with the contention that there is no such thing as over-population - I am here to tell him this is incorrect.

Do you also realize that "overpopulation" is a descriptor that contains a subjective value judgment? It assumes that there is an optimum level of population that is not overpopulation by any standard. Who is to say that inhabitants of Rome in 100AD didn't find the world overpopulated and used this as a justification for imperialism and war/killing?

 

With reference to your posts, I am pointing out (although admittedly not terribly well) that while the average resource utilisation efficiency of a species will affect the rate at which resources are consumed this is only a per capita figure which is meaningless without the population size being considered. I only pointed this out because you said:

"I just don't understand how you can attribute such resource depletion to population numbers when you can go to any food-service facility such as restaurants and supermarkets and see for yourself how much food is thrown away hourly"

...which to me suggests that you think that the size of a consuming population plays a minor role in the decisions of organisations which are sourcing food to sell to that population.

You are making a direct link between human individuals and the resources they consume. My point is that total population size is not the determining factor in resource consumption, it is supply-chain activities that occur prior to the consumer level. In other words, you would be more correct to cite overpopulation of food-service facilities than of individual consumers, where resource depletion is concerned.

 

Just because you really really want to talk about it here, doesn't mean we all do. Let's have another separate thread that is entirely devoted to the specifics of resource utilisation.

It's not that "I really want to talk about it here." It's that I don't view population science as detached from the politics of resource-control and cultural domination. In other words, I don't think population scientists are rigorously objective and their bias toward blaming population numbers for resource-depletion causes them to make certain assumptions in constructing theory and methodology. Telling other people to leave their politics out of the discussion doesn't mean that population research does the same.

 

Go back and read post 38 and then tell me that it's wrong because restaurants sometimes order in too much fish for the customers they serve.

It's not. It's wrong because you are not subjecting your theoretical and methodological assumptions to full critical scrutiny. You are making system-level assumptions without regard for the empirical level of what population and resource management look like in practice.

Edited October 23, 2010 by lemur

[Moontanman]

I'll just assume you have some disability, probably on disability and leave well enough alone. Actually it was the 537,000 reputation points that shook me up the most.

 

 

On what forum in what universe do i have 537,000 rep points and why is it any business of yours!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

On what forum in what universe do i have 537,000 rep points and why is it any business of yours!

 

Guys, let's stay on topic. How many reputation points Moontanman has somewhere is not relevant, unless those points are having loads of babies. Nor is his personal situation relevant.

 

Let's all stay on topic, and avoid taking the bait when others go off-topic.

[Sayonara]

Ok, I see it has influenced the tone of your reply and I'm sorry for that b/c I have the same response sometimes when ppl deploy petty jabs. The only reason I said it was because it was my assessment and when an assessment can be taken as insulting I try to be blunt to avoid being condescending. I should have maintained a more constructive tone b/c I can't take a bitter battle of insults - well I can but I'd rather not.

Understood. I actually came back and added that bit in to the start of my post and with hindsight I should probably have tweaked the rest of it to be less snitty so I apologise if it came off as being adversarial.

 

Not that directly, but patterns occur at each level of a supply-chain that influence the subsequent level. When people buy less of something, producers eventually reduce production. Supply and demand curves intersect and the quantity demanded becomes the quantity supplied, provided waste isn't factored into production costs, which it often is with food.

I think the main problem we are having here is that you had to go and choose fish as your example. You could not have picked a worse resource for matching yields to demands! This is why I asked if you knew about commercial fishing...

 

Are you trying to throw my "on-paper analysis" assessment back at me? Well, you're right I don't. I only know how much food is thrown away at the retail level because I've been there and done that. I also know that every piece of food thrown away had to be produced, shipped, and prepared and that it was suitable for human consumption at the time of disposal. That means that someone else who consumed a fresh version of what was thrown away could have fed another one or more people with the food that was thrown away while waiting for that customer to get hungry and come in to shop.

...and I have to say I only know much of anything about it because by pure chance I happened to see a programme on television the week before last which went into some detail regarding net catches. Obviously in the real world it is more complex and there are many variants on the process but essentially for our purposes pretty much the main decider of what fish are caught by a boat (ignoring geographical distribution of species) is the size and shape of the holes in the nets. Until the nets are winched back onto the boats fisherman have no idea what range of species will be in them, or in what proportions they will be represented. The fish market is basically fed random selections of product.

To a certain (and rather small) degree you can control what hits the market by modulating frequency of fishing trips and locations visited, but I think most nations already do this to a very strong extent by having quotas and designated fisheries. I will admit I was unaware of this until we started this discussion, but there is even such a thing as "fisheries science".

 

I went back and read post #38. You concluded by saying that individual consumption cannot be infinitely reduced so there must be some population level at which resources become insufficient to sustain everyone. My question is how do you know that? How do you know a system like in the Matrix won't be eventually possible, or that human consciousness won't be transplantable into computer hardware or that genetic engineering won't make it possible to shrink humans to the size of mice or smaller?

Neither the Matrix scenario nor human consciousnesses stored in hardware are ecologically interacting populations in the same sense as our current population and I really don't think the same models would be applicable. Even Lotka-Volterra wouldn't apply and that's like your population biology bread and butter (except in the case of a Tron-esque gladiatorial combat scenario and then LV models might actually work splendidly).

 

When I make a statement about what the population biology of a species predicts given a certain change (in this case we were assuming population increase) then there is the tacit assumption of all other things being equal, as is the basic comparative strategy in almost all other scientific disciplines. Once we start changing the scenario in more major ways, for example by invoking world-dominating robots, then obviously it's going to influence the prediction because the applicable rules will almost certainly change.

 

Incidentally I'm not sure how compatible the Matrix scenario is because if you remember, we were the resource. Actually if memory serves we had a thread about the resource consumption of the machine race some time ago... that might be worth seeking out.

 

Do you also realize that "overpopulation" is a descriptor that contains a subjective value judgment? It assumes that there is an optimum level of population that is not overpopulation by any standard. Who is to say that inhabitants of Rome in 100AD didn't find the world overpopulated and used this as a justification for imperialism and war/killing?

Absolutely, yes, I completely agree. And this is one of the problems with needimprovement's premise. As I indicated when I first joined this thread I have misgivings about his motives for starting it, and the fact that he has not yet taken the opportunity to address my criticisms speaks volumes ("I'm talking about a different kind of over-population to you" would seem like the obvious tactic).

 

 

You are making a direct link between human individuals and the resources they consume. My point is that total population size is not the determining factor in resource consumption, it is supply-chain activities that occur prior to the consumer level. In other words, you would be more correct to cite overpopulation of food-service facilities than of individual consumers, where resource depletion is concerned.

The more I read over this thread the more I see that we are talking "from two sides of the same coin". I don't think I really mean to state that total population is the determining factor in resource consumption, but that it is a more tangible descriptor of whether or not a species is in a state of over-population. This would be why the defining attribute, k, is expressed in terms of population size: it's because the resource consumption rate is the actual data that informs the calculation. Of course with humans it's more complex than with other species because we do not have uniform dietary habits, but you need to understand that the reason I said earlier something like "population biology doesn't care how the fish is used" is that as far as the ecological maths is concerned, those food service facilities are consumers just like the people they are serving. The concept of "waste" is a luxurious human conceit; if someone eats 5000 fish in their lifetime and then dies a virgin you could just as well call those fish resources wasted. But we don't, and I am not really sure why.

 

It's not that "I really want to talk about it here." It's that I don't view population science as detached from the politics of resource-control and cultural domination. In other words, I don't think population scientists are rigorously objective and their bias toward blaming population numbers for resource-depletion causes them to make certain assumptions in constructing theory and methodology. Telling other people to leave their politics out of the discussion doesn't mean that population research does the same.

Yes, I can see where you are coming from. It's just that unless needimprovement wants to redefine "over-population" as something that has nothing to do with populations then it really is a "yes or no" question. Although I think there is a bit of an element of me being a bit defensive because it sounded like you had an axe to grind. Which I suppose is fair enough because as it turns out you kinda do

 

 

It's not. It's wrong because you are not subjecting your theoretical and methodological assumptions to full critical scrutiny. You are making system-level assumptions without regard for the empirical level of what population and resource management look like in practice.

Okay so I was a bit glib with that comment. The management of the resources is simply not relevant; what's important is the consequence of the availability of resources.

 

In population ecology (and therefore in reality, which it describes) a group* is over-populated if the available resources are insufficient to sustain the group at that size. This results in population shrinkage due to famine or migration, or in the instance of local human populations, importation. Note that it does not necessitate the extinction of that population; it's simply an expression to describe one state of the population dynamics being played out. That's it.

* By which I mean 'all the individuals of a species living in a particular habitat'.

 

The carrying capacity is a numeric means of predicting the maximum population size prior to that point being reached, for a given habitat and species. It's a very reliable tool and it is not inapplicable to humans just because we can move resources around, substitute food types, etc. Those aspects just make it more difficult to calculate.

[lemur]

I think the main problem we are having here is that you had to go and choose fish as your example. You could not have picked a worse resource for matching yields to demands! This is why I asked if you knew about commercial fishing...

I only used fish because you or someone else brought it up in an earlier post. My only point was that regardless of the commodity, it is an economic mistake to view consumer behavior as the ultimate determining factor in how much resources are used per unit consumption. A more wasteful culture of consumption therefore burden resource-management more than a more efficient culture, even if the more wasteful one has less reproduction, because it is still reproducing and expanding its waste-culture.

 

...and I have to say I only know much of anything about it because by pure chance I happened to see a programme on television the week before last which went into some detail regarding net catches. Obviously in the real world it is more complex and there are many variants on the process but essentially for our purposes pretty much the main decider of what fish are caught by a boat (ignoring geographical distribution of species) is the size and shape of the holes in the nets. Until the nets are winched back onto the boats fisherman have no idea what range of species will be in them, or in what proportions they will be represented. The fish market is basically fed random selections of product.

To a certain (and rather small) degree you can control what hits the market by modulating frequency of fishing trips and locations visited, but I think most nations already do this to a very strong extent by having quotas and designated fisheries. I will admit I was unaware of this until we started this discussion, but there is even such a thing as "fisheries science".

Well, this is interesting but I'm not getting how you're relating it to the discussion at hand. I saw something once about crab-fishing where it was shown how there is a very short season to prevent overfishing. I would guess fishers have to report their catches and there would be a cut off for harvesting certain species after so much is caught, but it's just a guess. My issue is that if someone eats each fish caught, there is not as much demand if someone only eats one out of every 5 fish caught because then five times as many fish would have to be caught to satisfy demand.

 

Neither the Matrix scenario nor human consciousnesses stored in hardware are ecologically interacting populations in the same sense as our current population and I really don't think the same models would be applicable. Even Lotka-Volterra wouldn't apply and that's like your population biology bread and butter (except in the case of a Tron-esque gladiatorial combat scenario and then LV models might actually work splendidly).

 

When I make a statement about what the population biology of a species predicts given a certain change (in this case we were assuming population increase) then there is the tacit assumption of all other things being equal, as is the basic comparative strategy in almost all other scientific disciplines. Once we start changing the scenario in more major ways, for example by invoking world-dominating robots, then obviously it's going to influence the prediction because the applicable rules will almost certainly change.

That's the whole problem with Mathusianism. It never takes into account technological or cultural changes. At this point I tend to view human behavior generally in terms of networks of mediated and delegated actions. Maybe "cyborg" is the better term insofar as humans consume resources according to technologically and culturally mediated needs and practices. So I don't think you can really base anything purely on numbers of living human bodies. You have to include all their delegates as well. So, for example, if a population of 100 people has 100 cows and another population of 200 people have no cows, you have to compare their total resource depletion according to how much water, arable land, etc. are consumed in total. Same story with technology advances that increase crop yields, farmable areas, etc. Then you can't really distinguish innovations that increase the ratio of resources to consumption, whether that's due to increased production or more conservation. So you can say that there is a limit to how much culture and technology can evolve, but I don't know why that would be the case.

 

Incidentally I'm not sure how compatible the Matrix scenario is because if you remember, we were the resource. Actually if memory serves we had a thread about the resource consumption of the machine race some time ago... that might be worth seeking out.

Ultimately, humans could become photosynthetic, I think. Not by genetically infusing them with chlorophyl but by figuring out a way to re-charge them directly with electricity. Personally, though, I think the most plausible scenario would involve engineering human bodies to be increasingly smaller. Would you still claim that there is a limit to how small humans can get and how many the Earth could sustain, even if they got them down to the size of, say, ants?

 

Absolutely, yes, I completely agree. And this is one of the problems with needimprovement's premise. As I indicated when I first joined this thread I have misgivings about his motives for starting it, and the fact that he has not yet taken the opportunity to address my criticisms speaks volumes ("I'm talking about a different kind of over-population to you" would seem like the obvious tactic).

This part is vague. Not sure what you're saying exactly.

 

The more I read over this thread the more I see that we are talking "from two sides of the same coin". I don't think I really mean to state that total population is the determining factor in resource consumption, but that it is a more tangible descriptor of whether or not a species is in a state of over-population. This would be why the defining attribute, k, is expressed in terms of population size: it's because the resource consumption rate is the actual data that informs the calculation. Of course with humans it's more complex than with other species because we do not have uniform dietary habits, but you need to understand that the reason I said earlier something like "population biology doesn't care how the fish is used" is that as far as the ecological maths is concerned, those food service facilities are consumers just like the people they are serving. The concept of "waste" is a luxurious human conceit; if someone eats 5000 fish in their lifetime and then dies a virgin you could just as well call those fish resources wasted. But we don't, and I am not really sure why.

People don't have to have children to make their lives valuable. All human life has a certain value, which is why there's something rude in talking about overpopulation. It would make more sense to talk about under-resourcing, I think.

 

Yes, I can see where you are coming from. It's just that unless needimprovement wants to redefine "over-population" as something that has nothing to do with populations then it really is a "yes or no" question. Although I think there is a bit of an element of me being a bit defensive because it sounded like you had an axe to grind. Which I suppose is fair enough because as it turns out you kinda do

Population-limit science has never been politically neutral. It has always been the ruling class's excuse to control others to preserve their power and territory. I just put myself in the shoes of someone who is being subject to meddling in my family choices because of the assumption that population growth has to be controlled. If someone would tell me I can't have a 3rd kid, I would want to know why not if I could modify my existing consumption and productivity to raise 3 with the resources of 2. Sure you could say that in three generations, 3 becomes 9 whereas 2 only becomes 4 - but that is assuming and punishing people for the potential future actions of their kids, which is unfair.

 

 

In population ecology (and therefore in reality, which it describes) a group* is over-populated if the available resources are insufficient to sustain the group at that size. This results in population shrinkage due to famine or migration, or in the instance of local human populations, importation. Note that it does not necessitate the extinction of that population; it's simply an expression to describe one state of the population dynamics being played out. That's it.

Again, why not break it down to particular scenarios instead of keeping it at the general level? At the general level, the logical models you set up will always confirm their own assumptions. When you put a real-world scenario on the table, you can bring in various factors.

 

The carrying capacity is a numeric means of predicting the maximum population size prior to that point being reached, for a given habitat and species. It's a very reliable tool and it is not inapplicable to humans just because we can move resources around, substitute food types, etc. Those aspects just make it more difficult to calculate.

What about the fact we can manufacture energy from atoms and generate artificial sunlight? What about the fact that we can multiply land area by building up instead of out?

 

 

[Moontanman]

I only used fish because you or someone else brought it up in an earlier post. My only point was that regardless of the commodity, it is an economic mistake to view consumer behavior as the ultimate determining factor in how much resources are used per unit consumption. A more wasteful culture of consumption therefore burden resource-management more than a more efficient culture, even if the more wasteful one has less reproduction, because it is still reproducing and expanding its waste-culture.

 

 

Well, this is interesting but I'm not getting how you're relating it to the discussion at hand. I saw something once about crab-fishing where it was shown how there is a very short season to prevent overfishing. I would guess fishers have to report their catches and there would be a cut off for harvesting certain species after so much is caught, but it's just a guess. My issue is that if someone eats each fish caught, there is not as much demand if someone only eats one out of every 5 fish caught because then five times as many fish would have to be caught to satisfy demand.

 

 

That's the whole problem with Mathusianism. It never takes into account technological or cultural changes. At this point I tend to view human behavior generally in terms of networks of mediated and delegated actions. Maybe "cyborg" is the better term insofar as humans consume resources according to technologically and culturally mediated needs and practices. So I don't think you can really base anything purely on numbers of living human bodies. You have to include all their delegates as well. So, for example, if a population of 100 people has 100 cows and another population of 200 people have no cows, you have to compare their total resource depletion according to how much water, arable land, etc. are consumed in total. Same story with technology advances that increase crop yields, farmable areas, etc. Then you can't really distinguish innovations that increase the ratio of resources to consumption, whether that's due to increased production or more conservation. So you can say that there is a limit to how much culture and technology can evolve, but I don't know why that would be the case.

 

 

Ultimately, humans could become photosynthetic, I think. Not by genetically infusing them with chlorophyl but by figuring out a way to re-charge them directly with electricity. Personally, though, I think the most plausible scenario would involve engineering human bodies to be increasingly smaller. Would you still claim that there is a limit to how small humans can get and how many the Earth could sustain, even if they got them down to the size of, say, ants?

 

 

This part is vague. Not sure what you're saying exactly.

 

 

People don't have to have children to make their lives valuable. All human life has a certain value, which is why there's something rude in talking about overpopulation. It would make more sense to talk about under-resourcing, I think.

 

 

Population-limit science has never been politically neutral. It has always been the ruling class's excuse to control others to preserve their power and territory. I just put myself in the shoes of someone who is being subject to meddling in my family choices because of the assumption that population growth has to be controlled. If someone would tell me I can't have a 3rd kid, I would want to know why not if I could modify my existing consumption and productivity to raise 3 with the resources of 2. Sure you could say that in three generations, 3 becomes 9 whereas 2 only becomes 4 - but that is assuming and punishing people for the potential future actions of their kids, which is unfair.

 

 

 

Again, why not break it down to particular scenarios instead of keeping it at the general level? At the general level, the logical models you set up will always confirm their own assumptions. When you put a real-world scenario on the table, you can bring in various factors.

 

 

What about the fact we can manufacture energy from atoms and generate artificial sunlight? What about the fact that we can multiply land area by building up instead of out?

 

 

You make some good points lemur, there is no doubt that technology will allow us to maintain populations no other large animal can possibly achieve, but unless some factors totally unknown intervene we will eventually exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth, technology will slow it down but it will still happen if we continue to breed like we are now... I wonder if we really want to push the envelope so far as to bring the human population to it's absolute maximum.

[lemur]

You make some good points lemur, there is no doubt that technology will allow us to maintain populations no other large animal can possibly achieve, but unless some factors totally unknown intervene we will eventually exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth, technology will slow it down but it will still happen if we continue to breed like we are now... I wonder if we really want to push the envelope so far as to bring the human population to it's absolute maximum.

 

Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

edit: or maybe the father.

Edited October 24, 2010 by lemur

[padren]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

And yet, if history has taught us anything on the matter, the span of time between the rise of a necessity and the solution to that necessity is marked by suffering.

 

 

The whole purpose of addressing potential future necessities is to mitigate that period of suffering as much as possible. That's why we track down and bring an umbrella when it is expected to rain, instead of cobbling together an "inventive" newspaper hat in the middle of a downpour.

[lemur]

And yet, if history has taught us anything on the matter, the span of time between the rise of a necessity and the solution to that necessity is marked by suffering.

 

 

The whole purpose of addressing potential future necessities is to mitigate that period of suffering as much as possible. That's why we track down and bring an umbrella when it is expected to rain, instead of cobbling together an "inventive" newspaper hat in the middle of a downpour.

 

People tend to eschew innovation as long as they have a way to avoid it. If population control succeeds in stabilizing global population, economics would motivate political authority to limit economic efficiency to prevent market crashes. This already occurs through migration control and trade agreements.