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

[efficacy]

[ QUOTE ]
You have been lied to friend. You need to do more research and learn why humans have never been a liability to the world and never will be. Greater population has ALWAYS meant greater quality of life

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly you must agree that IN THE LIMIT, greater population will not mean greater quality of life. The trend is not linear. What would the world be like if all organic mass was converted into 'human' mass. I realize this is extreme, but at what point do you draw the line? At what point does each additional human decrease the overall human condition?

[ QUOTE ]
The entire world will focus on creating the solution, and the creators will be rewarded with untold riches, honor, fame and glory, not to mention their lives. Look at what immense output countries are able to produce during wartime. Here we will have not just 1 country, but the entire world working on the problem, and with 100 times the urgency of a war.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a good story line for a Hollywood movie. Do you think this would really happen? I doubt it. For one thing, a lot of people would put all of their energy into debating about the problem and whether or not it is really a problem at all. Oh wait... that's what we are doing now!

[efficacy]

[ QUOTE ]
The carrying capacity of the solar system in general could be far in excess of that. Maybe a trillion. Who knows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Good luck with that. Please respond with a post about terraforming Mars.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all the replies yet, but I believe that if we don't take conscious steps to lower our own population, it will be lowered for us by famine, disease, war, etc.

For me, this is a difficult moral issue. I have a brother and sister that I absolutely love, but I feel like in the future people need to make a moral choice to have two or fewer children. My wife and I are planning on having one child of our own and adopting one or more children from other countries.

I ran a simulation. If by some miracle every person in the world decided to have one child (per couple), the human population would drop under 2 billion within 100 years, drastically cutting down our demand on natural resources and the conflict that goes with this demand.

The lower population, combined with continued advances in technology, should allow the world wide average standard of living to sky rocket. All of this because of a world wide, collective, moral decision to do something about the human condition on Earth.

Utopian? Very.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you simulation also age the population and look at the ability of the able bodied to support the growing proportion of elderly? The Western countries have that problem now with ZPG much less negative.

[efficacy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all the replies yet, but I believe that if we don't take conscious steps to lower our own population, it will be lowered for us by famine, disease, war, etc.

For me, this is a difficult moral issue. I have a brother and sister that I absolutely love, but I feel like in the future people need to make a moral choice to have two or fewer children. My wife and I are planning on having one child of our own and adopting one or more children from other countries.

I ran a simulation. If by some miracle every person in the world decided to have one child (per couple), the human population would drop under 2 billion within 100 years, drastically cutting down our demand on natural resources and the conflict that goes with this demand.

The lower population, combined with continued advances in technology, should allow the world wide average standard of living to sky rocket. All of this because of a world wide, collective, moral decision to do something about the human condition on Earth.

Utopian? Very.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you simulation also age the population and look at the ability of the able bodied to support the growing proportion of elderly? The Western countries have that problem now with ZPG much less negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

The simulation was crude, but it did age the population. I did not simulate any of the resulting social effects. Supporting the elderly would be an issue, but a minor one when compared to unchecked population growth. Besides, couldn't we use technology to support the elderly more efficiently?

[fungaimike56]

Man is a tool using animal. In our brief tenure of 200,000 years our tools have enabled us to ascend to our present predicament (cue--start argument here as to what exactly this predicament is). Whatever you believe our predicament to be it seems inevitable that the 'market' will be applied to it. We always have and always will use our tools, both efficiently and otherwise.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all the replies yet, but I believe that if we don't take conscious steps to lower our own population, it will be lowered for us by famine, disease, war, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you Mr. Malthus.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all the replies yet, but I believe that if we don't take conscious steps to lower our own population, it will be lowered for us by famine, disease, war, etc.

For me, this is a difficult moral issue. I have a brother and sister that I absolutely love, but I feel like in the future people need to make a moral choice to have two or fewer children. My wife and I are planning on having one child of our own and adopting one or more children from other countries.

I ran a simulation. If by some miracle every person in the world decided to have one child (per couple), the human population would drop under 2 billion within 100 years, drastically cutting down our demand on natural resources and the conflict that goes with this demand.

The lower population, combined with continued advances in technology, should allow the world wide average standard of living to sky rocket. All of this because of a world wide, collective, moral decision to do something about the human condition on Earth.

Utopian? Very.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you simulation also age the population and look at the ability of the able bodied to support the growing proportion of elderly? The Western countries have that problem now with ZPG much less negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

The simulation was crude, but it did age the population. I did not simulate any of the resulting social effects. Supporting the elderly would be an issue, but a minor one when compared to unchecked population growth. Besides, couldn't we use technology to support the elderly more efficiently?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the issue can be dismissed as "minor", since its seen as the number one social problem facing the US and Western Europe.

As far a "technology" solving the problem, I think what you ultimately mean is "productivity growth" (which can be technology driven).

The problem with that is you are essentially talking about substantial wealth transfer from the productive to the non (or less) productive. In order for that wealth transfer to not negatively impact the standard of living of the workers, the ratio of non-workers to workers has to grow more slowly than productivity increases, which over the long term cant expected to exceed 2.5%-3.5% per year.

With our current mortality and fertility trends, the >65/<65 ratio is projected to increase at 2% per year, and there are also health improvements that will help the situation by increasing retirement ages.

I suspect that the worker/dependent ratios in your declining population model will stress the 2.5%-3.5% productivity growth, even allowing for a gradual increase in working age from say 67 currently to 72 over 100 years.

US population pyramid over time

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm SURE they didn't get this view from school. Everything I was taught in school aligned with this doom-n-gloom view, and I myself was a huge doom-n-gloomer until I was about 18 or 19. I actually thought we were doomed by 2004 for sure. I had to read outside material and get some education in economics and history to understand why these doom-n-gloom predictions were both wrong and very dangerous.


[/ QUOTE ]

And this is what makes me want to cry.

Why am I paying for the fraudulent education and indoctrination of our nation's most precious resource?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm SURE they didn't get this view from school. Everything I was taught in school aligned with this doom-n-gloom view, and I myself was a huge doom-n-gloomer until I was about 18 or 19. I actually thought we were doomed by 2004 for sure. I had to read outside material and get some education in economics and history to understand why these doom-n-gloom predictions were both wrong and very dangerous.


[/ QUOTE ]

And this is what makes me want to cry.

Why am I paying for the fraudulent education and indoctrination of our nation's most precious resource?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is reason for hope, though HA. As people mature they become more independent in their thinking and can separate themselves from the indoctrination. The population of posters here is abnormally young, and even the majority of them will grow up someday.

[efficacy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm SURE they didn't get this view from school. Everything I was taught in school aligned with this doom-n-gloom view, and I myself was a huge doom-n-gloomer until I was about 18 or 19. I actually thought we were doomed by 2004 for sure. I had to read outside material and get some education in economics and history to understand why these doom-n-gloom predictions were both wrong and very dangerous.


[/ QUOTE ]

And this is what makes me want to cry.

Why am I paying for the fraudulent education and indoctrination of our nation's most precious resource?

[/ QUOTE ]

My experience has been the opposite. The public schools painted a much more optimistic outlook than what I currently have.