World Population Growth
 

I have a basic theory that is probably not popular, and is also easily misunderstood, so I rarely discuss it. In a nutshell, I think the world population (of humans) is too high and population growth should be stopped.

I view the world as having evolved more or less according to Darwin (I do not have traditional biblical creationist beliefs.) For almost all of history, life on Earth has evolved in a "natural" way. By that I mean according to the "laws" of evolution that presided up until [censored] sapiens came along.

Then at some point during the growth of [censored] sapiens population, things reached some "critical mass", and the intelligence of our species threw everything out of balance. Things that were true before were no longer true now.

We arrived at the state we are in now, where technology and the combined skills and knowledge of the world's civilizations have created a situation in which evolution no longer operates "correctly" (as it did). The weak often survive to pass their genes on. More food is produced than naturally would have been available on earth, so that huge populations can be sustained. The vast majority of the world's population live off the intelligence and production of others (to wit, "stupid" and unhealthy people can easily survive and reproduce). Medicine has advanced to the point where "traditional" evolution no longer works right.

In a sense, we are "devolving", yet our population continues to grow.

The unpopularity of some of these points is immediately apparent - one might jump to the conclusion that I'm implying medicine is bad. Can you imagine - not trying to cure cancer in our loved ones? Not trying to take every effort for our frail newborn to survive? I cannot imagine those things either, and would not want to.

However, things cannot continue forever. The growth cannot be sustained on this planet, and I imagine everyone agrees with that (except maybe for some right wing fundamentalist types). There are millions of people living in hunger and suffering and poverty, and yet our population continues to grow. I think we have the obligation as the most highly evolved and intelligent species ever to inhabit the planet, to control our situation and our destiny.

For example, trying to feed the hungry is a worthy short term goal, but at what cost? So that they will all survive to seed an exponentially growing population of even more hungry, poor and suffering people? Personally, I think the better longer term solution might be to put some of those resources into things like teaching birth control and making it available and educating cultures that it's the right thing to do. This might seem like a cold approach, but I think it's more compassionate in the long term.

Our population growth will stop, it's just a question of how it happens and how much suffering occurs along the way.

Of course there are other obvious issues, such as China's approach to birth control.

Comments or disagreements?

Re: World Population Growth
 

I'm no expert on genetics, but I'm pretty sure that there is no scientific basis for your comments on evolution. Evolution does not work to cause all creatures to develop in the direction of greater intelligence, nor does it ensure that the sick or "dumb" portions of a given population eventually dwindle away.

Educating people about birth control is fine with me, and may be a better use of resources than certain types of hunger relief. That being said, there is more than enough wealth in the world to accomplish both goals.

Lastly, you seem to take as an article of faith that having lots of kids is economically irrational if you are indigent. In certain areas of the world, particularly in subsistence farming communities, that may not be correct. Only a truly oppressive government can force people not to have kids when it is in their economic interest to do so strikes

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution does not work to cause all creatures to develop in the direction of greater intelligence, nor does it ensure that the sick or "dumb" portions of a given population eventually dwindle away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not mean that exactly. I meant
- in the case of humans, we did evolve to be more intelligent (it is not necessarily the case with evolution in general)
- since high intelligence is a fairly rare trait considering all the species on the planet, I don't think there's much precedent for how it works vis a vis evolution, but certainly we're at a point where it's not much of an evolutionary advantage for humans because the intelligence of so few can affect the survivability of so many others (other than themselves). Intelligence has very little to do with whether or not you can reproduce.

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, there is more than enough wealth in the world to accomplish both goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I claim that this can't be true for very much longer given current population growth.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, you seem to take as an article of faith that having lots of kids is economically irrational if you are indigent. In certain areas of the world, particularly in subsistence farming communities, that may not be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wherever it's not correct, then I agree it's.... uh, not correct [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a basic theory that is probably not popular, and is also easily misunderstood, so I rarely discuss it. In a nutshell, I think the world population (of humans) is too high and population growth should be stopped.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading HERE! Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

PS: Are you in my SPEECH Class I swear to god I know you! And not in a good way!

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a basic theory that is probably not popular, and is also easily misunderstood, so I rarely discuss it. In a nutshell, I think the world population (of humans) is too high and population growth should be stopped.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading HERE! Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[/ QUOTE ]

What a surprise.

[ QUOTE ]
PS: Are you in my SPEECH Class I swear to god I know you! And not in a good way!

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no I'm not in your speech class and you don't know me.

Re: World Population Growth
 

nature has a way of correcting itself long term... HIV, pandemic flu (H5N1), newer, trickier, more resistant bugs... I'm not worried, it will win in the end.

Re: World Population Growth
 

Humans are obviously gonna get wiped out eventually. Chill out.

Re: World Population Growth
 

If economic booms continue in industrialising counries we can expect world population growth to eventually fall below replacement levels. This has already occured in parts of Europe (France is the key example).

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
If economic booms continue in industrialising counries we can expect world population growth to eventually fall below replacement levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this idea more please?

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain this idea more please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wealthy countries are already shrinking if you ignore immigration/emigration. Approximately 2.1 children are required per family to maintain a steady-sized human population in a first-world environment. Several wealthy countries (notably most of Europe, Japan, Canada, the U.S. and Australia) are already failing to reach this number meaning the countries with tighter immigration policies (Japan) are likely to experience population declines in the near future. Obligatory wikipedia reference

A United Nations report expects world population to begin to decrease naturally after 2075 after reaching a maximum of fewer than 10B people. (Although to be fair that is the median of their assumptions, on the high end population would continue to grow to 36B by 2300).

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If economic booms continue in industrialising counries we can expect world population growth to eventually fall below replacement levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this idea more please?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true for some countries in Europe, but my guess is that we are centuries away from falling below replacement levels on the world level.

Re: World Population Growth
 

Jeff - There is a strong inverse correlation between income and population growth.

You might also want to read up on James Watson (the daddy of DNA) and his views on the issue.

Re: World Population Growth
 

Time Bomb

Finding a cheap cure for diarrhea I think really helped to screw things up in Africa. Now with infant mortality plunging there is all of a sudden a huge strain on resources. We were fortunate pass on advanced cultivation technology to Africa. This helped some but for whatever reason it has not been enough to lift their standard of living to the point where most Africans don't feel the compulsion to over breed. Also look at the growth rates for the Middle East and Persian countries. Think of all the disenfranchised young males and you start to understand how an organization like Al-Qaeda can become so powerful.

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
Jeff - There is a strong inverse correlation between income and population growth.

You might also want to read up on James Watson (the daddy of DNA) and his views on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that the OP would agree with Watson, or that you agree with Watson? I hope not.

Watson article on race

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
If economic booms continue in industrialising counries we can expect world population growth to eventually fall below replacement levels. This has already occured in parts of Europe (France is the key example).

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't France have one of the highest birth rates among western European countries? Your point's still valid though, immigration is what keeps population rising in the western world.

Regarding OP's idea that there is too much population for resources, there's an economist named Thomas Malthus who predicted that early in the 20th century and that's been proven wrong consistently. Over the past ~15k years, agricultural technology has always been able to rise to meet demand for food. Famines experienced in the 20th century were not due to world lack of food, but to unequal distribution. There is nowhere near a lack of food today on a worldwide scale, only a lack in certain extremely poor areas that is not due to worldwide scarcity. It can also be assumed that agricultural progresses (think GMO's among others) will be able to keep up with further population growths.

Evolution isn't limited to bodily capacities. Obviously humans have an extremely developed mind (compared to other species) and medicine is a product of that mental evolution. Medicine doesn't stop evolution, it's a product of the process.

Overall I don't think your theory is much different from Malthus', you might want to read on its refutations (I'm sure there are many online).

Re: World Population Growth
 

Rococo - excluding the "black employee" comment, Watson's views are simply a more refined version of the OP's thesis. I don't know if Watson is correct or not.

Re: World Population Growth
 

If, and this is a stretch, most of the world becomes an industrialized and economic growth begins or continues, they'll require a lower replacement rate to subsist. The theory situates that poor families have larger birth rates to ensure they'll have a caretaker at the age of retirement which acts as their pension.

Re: World Population Growth
 

I have a modest proposal for you.

Re: World Population Growth
 

A larger concern should not stem from whether the planet has sufficient resources to meet population needs but whether the strain on meeting population growth will cause a "shock" on the planet whether it's a permutation of an organism which wipes out a type of grain. Of all the types of grains in the world which there are probably several thousand only about forty as grown to feed the population.

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wealthy countries are already shrinking if you ignore immigration/emigration.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that absolutely can't be ignored, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
A United Nations report expects world population to begin to decrease naturally after 2075 after reaching a maximum of fewer than 10B people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I skimmed that, but did not see - what do they (or you) mean by "naturally"?

Re: World Population Growth
 

Your post just reeks of romanticism about what you perceive as the fundamental workings of planet earth. You associate change with destruction. But change is not a proof of destruction, and you'd be hard pressed to prove it, thus rendering your argument pretty specious.

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealthy countries are already shrinking if you ignore immigration/emigration.



[/ QUOTE ]

But that absolutely can't be ignored, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fact 1: Rich countries already can't sustain their populations without immigration.

Fact 2: Poor countries are becoming rich countries.

Conclusion?

[ QUOTE ]
I skimmed that, but did not see - what do they (or you) mean by "naturally"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I used the term, not them. I mean that it will not happen due to disease or famine or war, but due to declining birth rates as the world becomes wealthier.

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding OP's idea that there is too much population for resources, there's an economist named Thomas Malthus who predicted that early in the 20th century and that's been proven wrong consistently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not mean to say there is not enough resource for the current population on a global scale. What I mean to say is:
- there isn't enough resource in certain locales
- that should give us an idea of the suffering that would occur if the current population growth rate continues.

I think everyone agrees that the growth rate can't continue like this forever. I don't think that point is debated anywhere. My point was that we have some say in how it will stop, not if it stops.

Re: World Population Growth
 

Resource shocks always limit population growth, historically. Mainly because its difficult for humans to extend beyond the resources they have.

Re: World Population Growth
 

OP,

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...umber=11826014

Re: World Population Growth
 

"Fact 2: Poor countries are becoming rich countries."

Proof pls.

Re: World Population Growth
 

I can't wait until 2300 when there are 36 BILLION PEOPLE. I'll be like, "back in my day there were only 6 billion people!" I'd also be 311.

Re: World Population Growth
 

This is interesting:

http://www.chinability.com/China%20p...on%20clock.htm

Wonder how accurate its projections are- and how the source could be the US Census Bureau.

Re: World Population Growth
 

world population has grown since recorded history and will continue to grow. however, the rate at which it increases is on the decline.
imo we have the technology and resources in the world to healthily sustain life for everyone and then some. for this to happen the world needs to get its [censored] together, which i think will happen in the next 50-300 years.

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
Proof pls.


[/ QUOTE ]

According to the world bank, GNI per capita in high income countries was up 42% in real terms from 2000-2006 vs 70% per capita in low income countries. In the 3 most populous countries in the world other than the US (all poor countries in 2000), GNI per capita has grown 116% (China), 82% (India) and 141% (Indonesia). That's 2.6 billion poor people doubling up in 6 years. Even the 800 million people in sub-Saharan Africa have grown GNI at 70+% per capita over that time.

Do you think those countries are going to fall to sub-rich-world growth rates anytime soon? I don't.

Edited to add sub-Saharan Africa #s.

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Proof pls.


[/ QUOTE ]

According to the world bank, GNI per capita in high income countries was up 42% in real terms from 2000-2006 vs 70% per capita in low income countries. In the 3 most populous countries in the world other than the US (all poor countries in 2000), GNI per capita has grown 116% (China), 82% (India) and 141% (Indonesia). That's 2.6 billion poor people doubling up in 6 years. Even the 800 million people in sub-Saharan Africa have grown GNI at 70+% per capita over that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you start off with really small numbers it's easy to have astounding growth rates. To use these astounding growth rates as proof that poor countries are becoming rich countries is to commit the same error as population doomsdayers in the '70s and '80s. That is: assuming that recently observed trends will continue far into the future. The recent past can be a great predictor of the near future. Beyond that is anyone's guess. The fact is that these astounding growth trends inevitably run in to constraints.

Re: World Population Growth
 

Technology and world production are both growing much faster than world population. We have no clue how many humans the earth could support in X years. There is a ridiculous amount of unharnessed engergy and unused space out there (the largest state in the US has only half a million people still).

Who knows what technology will bring in the next hundred years. The singularity? Human uploads? Who the F knows. There are a lot of other problems the world will face that will be much worse than overpopulation and a dilution of evolutionary effects.

As far as "evolution" on earth is concerned, I think technology is replacing genetic evolution.

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is a ridiculous amount of unharnessed engergy and unused space out there

[/ QUOTE ]

This sort of statement scares me. There is a lot more to population growth than cubic footage. The ozone problem, for example, is related to population.

Re: World Population Growth
 

Natural selection is still at work. We humans may be so full of self-import that we think we have changed the rules to the game, but we haven't. The problem is that evolution is impossible to view over short time periods and, as such, one cannot view our actions today as particularly meaningful as pertains to evolution. The trees are blocking your view of the forest, so to speak. Eventually, the food supply or some other factor will limit human population growth. There's no reason to direct our own evolution - it will just happen.

For similar reasons, I think some efforts to rescue endangered species is somewhat ridiculous. The success of humans has changed the landscape. Some species have adapted well and some have not. And some others would have gone extinct regardless of human presence. Again, we are so full of self-importance that we think every consequence is a result of our own action. Even if it is true, we are a natural part of the world. Species that don't adapt don't continue. Deal with it.

Re: World Population Growth
 

Is it my imagination or is wa's perspective selfish?

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
For similar reasons, I think some efforts to rescue endangered species is somewhat ridiculous. The success of humans has changed the landscape. Some species have adapted well and some have not. And some others would have gone extinct regardless of human presence. Again, we are so full of self-importance that we think every consequence is a result of our own action. Even if it is true, we are a natural part of the world. Species that don't adapt don't continue. Deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is same logical error that popped up a zillion times in the meat thread. The mere fact that we are sufficiently intelligent and industrialized to cause the extinction of a wide variety of plants and animals does not mean that such extinctions are part of the natural order of things and therefore no particular cause for concern.

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Proof pls.


[/ QUOTE ]

According to the world bank, GNI per capita in high income countries was up 42% in real terms from 2000-2006 vs 70% per capita in low income countries. In the 3 most populous countries in the world other than the US (all poor countries in 2000), GNI per capita has grown 116% (China), 82% (India) and 141% (Indonesia). That's 2.6 billion poor people doubling up in 6 years. Even the 800 million people in sub-Saharan Africa have grown GNI at 70+% per capita over that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you start off with really small numbers it's easy to have astounding growth rates. To use these astounding growth rates as proof that poor countries are becoming rich countries is to commit the same error as population doomsdayers in the '70s and '80s. That is: assuming that recently observed trends will continue far into the future. The recent past can be a great predictor of the near future. Beyond that is anyone's guess. The fact is that these astounding growth trends inevitably run in to constraints.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a little info on an idea called the Leapfrog effect. Basically it says that developing are going to have upward pressure on growth rates because they can skip using older, more inefficient technologies in favor of newer, better ones that have already been developed by the first world. Think: going straight to cell phones instead of having to build a wired infrastructure first.

But beyond that there's plenty more theory to support the high-growth ideas put forth. Comparative trade, cost of labor, marginal production, marginal return on capital, are just a few of the reasons why the world bank thinks these growth rates will continue.

But back to the main question: While birth rates are correlated with wealth, the real drivers behind falling birth rates are women's increasing ability to choose when to have a baby through contraception, abortion, gender equality and so on. Keep in mind that many governments are already addressing the population problem and are taking action to slow their own population growth, so we're seeing growth rate declines in Taiwan and other Asian economies where we otherwise wouldn't due to wealth alone. This is through the dissemination of relatively simple information such as, "here's how to not conceive and still have sex".

Start taking all this together with the evidence already provided and I don't see many long term outcomes where the population problem isn't pretty well understood and taken care of.

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
If economic booms continue in industrialising counries we can expect world population growth to eventually fall below replacement levels. This has already occured in parts of Europe (France is the key example).

[/ QUOTE ]
While it's true as a general rule and as pointed out by Jim14Qc, your choice of example is not very good as France is actually the second biggest counter-example in Europe with a fertility rate at about 1.98 children per woman (stable replacement being ~2.1). Almost any other choice in the European Union would have been good though, as those 2007 numbers show (source : CIA World Factbook) :

[ QUOTE ]
Ireland 1.86
United Kingdom 1.66
European Union 1.50
Germany 1.40
Italy 1.29
Spain 1.29
Czech Republic 1.22

[/ QUOTE ]

More on topic, exponential growth doesn't seem sustainable for obvious reasons but all indicators are showing the growth gets lower or even negative with the development of a country, auto-moderating the world population.

Re: World Population Growth
 

If you believe in evolution, then you should believe that it always operates "correctly." Our definition of what is 'fittest' may change, but the fittest are always going to survive.

A long time ago there were a bunch of wolves in the North American forests. They were trying to catch carribou, but were having a tough time keeping up. Then they sat down and said, let's evolve longer legs and tweak our lungs so we can lope for greater distances and catch more carribou. They got to work on that and were soon catching more carribou than they knew what to do with. As game became more scarce, wolf populations started dying out. With fewer wolves, the carribou rebounded. When the carribou population rose, the few wolves remaining found easy prey and their population increased... I think I'll call it the circle of life and write a song about it.

If humans use "artificial" means to support their populations, then eventually even those means will fail, leading to the collapse of the population. The few who are left will have an easier time maintaining numbers until the next big superbug proves who's really fittest

Re: World Population Growth
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jeff - There is a strong inverse correlation between income and population growth.

You might also want to read up on James Watson (the daddy of DNA) and his views on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that the OP would agree with Watson, or that you agree with Watson? I hope not.

Watson article on race

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a question for you. Lets just pretend the standardized IQ test is an accurate indicator of intelligence. And lets just pretend that the average IQ score for a negro (85) is half way between mental retardation (70) and the average for white people (100). Would you still find Watson racist? And lets just pretend that east Asians and Jews are higher than whites. Would you consider anyone that claims East Asians smarter than the average white as racist?

Just asking a hypothetical question to see how open ones mind is.