Biggest story of our time: our self-extinction by Mark Steyn

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll add another point this time. As you know, the average working scientist has been taught all through his education that he's supposed to work ethically and with integrity, to seek the truth. He's supposed to practice "scientific neutrality." At least I was certainly taught that almost from day one in my training as a social scientist, and I know scientists in the natural sciences who would say the same thing. Now, add to that that the average working scientist is going to possess a reasonably intact personality structure and be a reasonably highly functioning (emotionally) person, and we can conclude he's going to have an intact, healthy conscience. Given all that, I submit that, on average, he's going to try to make some kind of decent, good faith effort to be truthful and objective in his work. Obviously there will be bad apples, but on average...

[/ QUOTE ]

When science strongly intersects potential public policy changes you can count on ideologic bias creeping in along with the tainting influence of large amounts of public funds. Human nature doesn't take a pass once you slip on a lab coat.

[madnak]

No scientist can be neutral, especially with regard to political issues. A good scientist tries to be as objective as possible, but any scientist who believes he's completely objective is deluded. There is one special effect in science that I think is very common. A person who considers an issue highly important will tend to study that issue, and a person who wants to study an issue will tend to consider that issue highly important. We can expect someone who specializes in climate change to overrate the impact of climate change. I'm not saying anything about climatologists specifically here - someone studying Creutzfeldt Jacobs Disease is likely to exaggerate the impact of that, too - a phenomenon we've already clearly seen.

Moreover, scientists aren't always great at speculation or at understanding social costs. If they were, then the futurists might have a point, no? Scientists can identify problems - but they are limited in their ability to construct solutions to those problems. A lot of very smart scientists are oblivious to this fact. They think: "Climate change is happening and will probably have repercussions. If I were in charge of the universe, how would I deal with it?" But that's not a valid approach. "So the climate is changing. What do we do about it?" Is a political and economic question, not a scientific question. Obviously the input of scientists is important, but their analyses of costs and benefits aren't necessarily reliable.

Borodog doesn't deny climate change, and you're barking up the wrong tree here. For the record, he showed us some data in an SMP thread awhile back that was indeed impressive. But that's not the point. Borodog is a big believer in technology. I'm sure he believes that a concerted effort on our part could slow or even stop the current changing climate within a few decades. And I'm sure he believes that greenhouse gases have some effect, although you and he may disagree about how much of one. Also I'm sure he believes that species are going extinct relatively rapidly.

All of this is beside the point. Even if this is a problem caused only by humans, it is still definitely a problem that can be prevented only by humans. There's no simple way to say "more population bad, less population good." There is a simple way to say: "Human populations will grow and shrink here and there, and we'll adapt as necessary. Growth trends themselves may represent such adaptations." It's also reasonable to point out that things are slowing - we've reached a "point of inflection" and while I typically disagree with the pie-in-the-sky ideals of technological progress, there is a very good indication that our technology will get us through this.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
A good scientist tries to be as objective as possible, but any scientist who believes he's completely objective is deluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say "completely." I said relative to, say, paid propagandists.


[ QUOTE ]
Scientists can identify problems - but they are limited in their ability to construct solutions to those problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too general a statement. it depends on the kind of problem. Sometimes their work is solving problems. Anyway, my point with regard to scientists has has been that they are identifying and warning us of certain problems. I have not said much here about their proposed solutions. Are you an AC guy? (Sorry, I know your name, madnak, but I can't recall specifically.) It seems that even when it's not what I'm talking about, AC'ers find a way to criticize proposed solutions. Who's talking about proposed solutions here? I've barely mentioned a couple of things in passing.

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog doesn't deny climate change, and you're barking up the wrong tree here. For the record, he showed us some data in an SMP thread awhile back that was indeed impressive. But that's not the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know about the data he showed. (I referred to it in my post.) And I know he doesn't deny climate change. But he sure as hell looked like he was trying to deny the human contribution, which I know he also doesn't deny. So I found it bizarre that he said what he did.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no simple way to say "more population bad, less population good." There is a simple way to say: "Human populations will grow and shrink here and there, and we'll adapt as necessary. Growth trends themselves may represent such adaptations."

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like you'd like to leave population to the hand of nature. Yet you seem fine with our using our cognition to help ourselves elsewhere (technology...).

It may be a bit simplistic, but it's not far off, at current population levels, to say, "more population bad, less population good." Can you think of any benefit to a larger world population? Don't bother with the "more people to innovate" stuff. Any such benefit, which I don't buy anyway [1], is far outweighed by famine, war, loss of biodiversity, etc.

[1] I think propensity to innovate is much more a cultural thing than a "numbers of people" thing.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
This article posted just before Christmas touches on a theme that has been discussed here before; that is the Western World isn't reproducing at a rate capable of sustaining population without massive immigration. The new film "Children of Men" portrays one version of the impact of a childless world.

Meanwhile you can look at this chart form the Wikipedia. Note that the birthrate needed to sustain population is 2.1 or so (at least in the Western World where we have good medicine). The United States, one of the least secular Western countries, has a stable birth rate. But look at some of the other advanced countries. Although I don't have strong faith in God these days it does seem that religion promotes fertility. And Secular Europe is getting less and less fertile. For example, look at the numbers for countries like Italy and Japan. Will Italians exist in Italy in fifty years? Will Japan finally start allowing immigrants?

Sitting in traffic on the 405 I doubt you would worry about this, but these numbers are scary. I hope to find the film Children of Men and see it soon.

Also found this Wiki on Sub Replacement Fertility

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Linear extrapolation of a static set of variables is always the mistake of doomsdayers. A decline in birthrates does not lead inevitabley to "self extinction", just as an increase in consumption does not lead inevitabley to "total collapse of our environment".

natedogg

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A good scientist tries to be as objective as possible, but any scientist who believes he's completely objective is deluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say "completely." I said relative to, say, paid propagandists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about your second point. Certainly I agreed with your first.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scientists can identify problems - but they are limited in their ability to construct solutions to those problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too general a statement. it depends on the kind of problem. Sometimes their work is solving problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would call that engineering, but I admit it can be a fine distinction.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, my point with regard to scientists has has been that they are identifying and warning us of certain problems. I have not said much here about their proposed solutions. Are you an AC guy? (Sorry, I know your name, madnak, but I can't recall specifically.) It seems that even when it's not what I'm talking about, AC'ers find a way to criticize proposed solutions. Who's talking about proposed solutions here? I've barely mentioned a couple of things in passing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, that was off-topic.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Borodog doesn't deny climate change, and you're barking up the wrong tree here. For the record, he showed us some data in an SMP thread awhile back that was indeed impressive. But that's not the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know about the data he showed. (I referred to it in my post.) And I know he doesn't deny climate change. But he sure as hell looked like he was trying to deny the human contribution, which I know he also doesn't deny. So I found it bizarre that he said what he did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think he was only pointing out that a conclusion that increasing human population is negative may be unjustified as we can't quantify the human impact versus the impact of independent causes. It's also possible that humans will have a greater impact in retarding climate change than in accelerating it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no simple way to say "more population bad, less population good." There is a simple way to say: "Human populations will grow and shrink here and there, and we'll adapt as necessary. Growth trends themselves may represent such adaptations."

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like you'd like to leave population to the hand of nature. Yet you seem fine with our using our cognition to help ourselves elsewhere (technology...).

[/ QUOTE ]

Technology is the hand of nature.

[ QUOTE ]
It may be a bit simplistic, but it's not far off, at current population levels, to say, "more population bad, less population good." Can you think of any benefit to a larger world population?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that the onus is on your to justify your claim. I don't see how it became my responsibility to prove that more population isn't bad.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't bother with the "more people to innovate" stuff. Any such benefit, which I don't buy anyway [1], is far outweighed by famine, war, loss of biodiversity, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not going to get away with this here, because in the first place I don't think the benefit is outweighed by famine, war, loss of biodiversity, etc. And in the second place you haven't demonstrated a direct relationship between global population size and those problems.

[ QUOTE ]
[1] I think propensity to innovate is much more a cultural thing than a "numbers of people" thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Innovation is largely a matter of manpower these days. There are thousands of avenues of research to pursue, and we don't know which of them will yield useful results. To some degree, "more monkeys at more typewriters" can have an impact now. Of course, that's just one component - for example, we need the resources to support more research.

But extra manpower can help with that, too. Frankly, even without fossil fuels a single person is capable of generating more energy than he consumes. In theory it's 100% beneficial to have more people. But of course people tend to consume more as well, so that becomes a problem. The issue really is complicated. In one sense we're banking on our current "engine," hoping it holds out until we can find alternative sources of energy. But then again, we already have them to a large degree, and it may be entirely justified to use what resources we have in order to maximize technological progress.

And the scenarios being presented of us "hitting a wall" are unrealistic, which is the biggest and most important point. There are feedbacks, if growth becomes a real crisis growth will be curtailed. We aren't just going to use more and more until we suddenly "run out" one day. You may not like the curve you're seeing, but it will be a curve and there's some evidence we've already hit our point of inflection. Obviously we need to start "using more resources, but at a slower rate" before we can start "using less resources." But again I'm getting into proposed solutions. Let me get back to the point, which is population.

Specialization and raw labor are both very important. But so is simple quality of life. Are you suggesting that a world population of 20 is "just as good" as a world population of 20,000,000,000, assuming equal utilitarian "EV?" I like to think that there's some inherent value in variety, and I also believe that the quality of life right now is generally positive (ie the average life has a positive value). I also believe that, even if adding to the population decreases the mean utility per person, it adds to the overall utility. I think feedback mechanisms will tend to reduce populations well before this trend hits the zero mark.

Obviously it's hard to quantify. We can't just say that every person is worth 14 "points" at 6 billion people but that number decreases by 1 for every billion we add. But why can't the trend look something like that, in terms of inherent quality of life utility? Do you believe that a human life actually has a negative utility? That we're already on the "other side of the curve," utility-wise? Why would you say that? And keep in mind that this ignores any concrete practical benefits.

I don't think there is sufficient justification for any statement about whether a higher or a lower population is advantageous. but I think the general human tendency will be toward a more-or-less favorable outcome over time. In general as a process has more and more extreme results, the response to the feedback will be more and more vigorous. Thus, as a trend results in more extreme conditions its progress will be stymied and eventually stopped. This is a highly elegant feedback mechanism we call "adaptation." And a lot of the talk of a major crisis seems predicated on the idea that human beings can't adapt. If we have even a relatively small chance of adapting successfully then there is no crisis. (Keep in mind that a failure to adapt here probably doesn't mean the extinction of the human race, just a temporary slowdown as we get our bearings.)

[John Feeney]

Too many things here for me to take the time for now. I'll just deal briefly with a couple of key items:

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I think he was only pointing out that a conclusion that increasing human population is negative may be unjustified as we can't quantify the human impact versus the impact of independent causes. It's also possible that humans will have a greater impact in retarding climate change than in accelerating it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Working backward, climate scientists will tell you that humans caused a lot (most?) of the current climate change. We likely wouldn't have to bother with trying to retard it had we not caused it in the first place.

We can quantify a lot. We can look at ecological footprints, for instance (see link in my first post in this thread), and do analyses of population growth multiplied by per capita consumption rates to see how national or global consumption is changing.


[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the onus is on your to justify your claim. I don't see how it became my responsibility to prove that more population isn't bad.... You're not going to get away with this here, because in the first place I don't think the benefit is outweighed by famine, war, loss of biodiversity, etc. And in the second place you haven't demonstrated a direct relationship between global population size and those problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, you're not going to get away with suggesting I'm trying to "get away" with anyting. I've responded as fully as I have time for in this thread, with vastly more sources to back up my points than anyone else in the thread. If I fail to source some individual assertion, or to completely explain something, well, you haven't even sourced your arguments at all that I've seen, so back off on such statements.

Second, what do you want, fifty links to groups working on the issue of population and environment? That there's an important link is pretty just common knowledge in the community of environmental and other scientists. BTW, I've twice provided a link to a majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences agreeing that population growth is a big part of the ecological crisis we face. Here are one more link, this one from the AAAS:

http://atlas.aaas.org/index.php?part=1

I can provide many more links, but how about a simple thought? In the year 1 A.D. there were about 1/26th the number of humans there are now. How much environmental degradation was there? Naturally, it's correlation, not causation. It's the stuff people do, not just the sheer numbers themselves which destroys the environment. But that's splitting hairs. If you have far fewer humans doing those things, you have far less damage. And to some extent it is also the sheer numbers as well. Look at places where vast tracks of land are being deforested or otherwise destroyed as people or their agriculture move in out of necessity as a result of population growth. Yes, there may be potential fixes for some of this apart from a reduced population. (New urban design, shifts to sustainable agriculture...) But those will not keep pace with population growth for the next 70 years, and it would all be tremendously easier to deal with without the growh.

I wrote an essay using a similarly simple thought experiment to show the population environment link here:

http://growthmadness.wordpress.com/2...ironment-link/

You can debate me there if you wish.



[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there is sufficient justification for any statement about whether a higher or a lower population is advantageous. but I think the general human tendency will be toward a more-or-less favorable outcome over time. In general as a process has more and more extreme results, the response to the feedback will be more and more vigorous. Thus, as a trend results in more extreme conditions its progress will be stymied and eventually stopped. This is a highly elegant feedback mechanism we call "adaptation." And a lot of the talk of a major crisis seems predicated on the idea that human beings can't adapt. If we have even a relatively small chance of adapting successfully then there is no crisis. (Keep in mind that a failure to adapt here probably doesn't mean the extinction of the human race, just a temporary slowdown as we get our bearings.)

[/ QUOTE ]

All species adapt. The advance of science has shown us more and more that humans are not unique. We're another species. Sometimes species fail to adapt successfully and die off or experience various calamities. I don't expect population growth to bring about the extinction of the species. But left unchecked it may well cause some serious calamities. It already has.

[fun160]

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote an essay using a similarly simple thought experiment to show the population environment link here:

http://growthmadness.wordpress.com/2...ironment-link/

[/ QUOTE ]

From your essay: "One of those things is driving cars which burn fossil fuels. Clearly then, everything else being equal, more cars means more anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. World population has doubled since the early 1960s. As a result of that doubling there are now far more cars operating than there were 40 years ago."

Doh! Running into a problem with your assumption "everything else being equal" because everything in not equal, of course. Those villainous automobiles, for instance. Today's cars are far cleaner than their older brethren.

The advances in technology are a major reason America's air and water are far cleaner now than they were several generations ago, despite a relentlessly increasing population.

"Note that CO2, the most significant greenhouse gas produced by human activity, has not historically been regulated by auto emissions standards."

Meanwhile, temps declined for three decades between 1940 and 1940 while CO2 density continued to increase.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the stuff people do, not just the sheer numbers themselves which destroys the environment. But that's splitting hairs. If you have far fewer humans doing those things, you have far less damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

This language says it all for me. It's humans destroying. Not living, existing, surviving but we destroy. I'd be quite surprised to see this type of indictment against any other species. There's a measure of self-hate in it too, a popular frame of mind for the left.

But no bias.

[fun160]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's the stuff people do, not just the sheer numbers themselves which destroys the environment. But that's splitting hairs. If you have far fewer humans doing those things, you have far less damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

This language says it all for me. It's humans destroying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm dying to hear him explain how the air and water are getting cleaner in the U.S. while the population of "environment-destroying" humans increases. This would seem to shoot a large hole in his self-described "simple logic."

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's the stuff people do, not just the sheer numbers themselves which destroys the environment. But that's splitting hairs. If you have far fewer humans doing those things, you have far less damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

This language says it all for me. It's humans destroying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm dying to hear him explain how the air and water are getting cleaner in the U.S. while the population of "environment-destroying" humans increases. This would seem to shoot a large hole in his self-described "simple logic."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nooooo....think about how much cleaner it COULD be in the US without so many Americans...or if we just voluntarily reduced our GDP say...50%? is that enough? [/sarcasm]