Population Bomb - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14937139
Will Earth be a better place with more people or less people?


This is not really a salient question. Looking at population as a macro problem does little good. Look at China's one child policy. Resounding failure because of the individual choices made. Unless you imagine some draconian lottery system or something like that it simply does not work.

Besides. I am inclined to agree with VS on two points. First that the problem is somewhat self-regulating as demonstrated by today's birth rate and second that it distracts us from what the real solution to a livable future are.

Population groups are not "happy", individuals are "happy". The solution is to make individuals happy, one at a time.

Same with world hunger. One statistic I see is that 9 million people per year die of hunger. Given the world's population, to eliminate all of these deaths, a solution must be found involving 844 people to save one starvation death. So starvation is statistically an insignificant problem. People don't starve for lack of a food supply. They starve because they are isolated from it in some way.
User avatar
By jimjam
#14937142
@Victoribus Spolia

please post a picture illustrating how the human race can live with the 26,000,000 tons of plastic that are dumped into the ocean annually.

Also a pic illustrating how the human race can live with the many global warming effects such as wild fires, 110 degrees in Spain and even lettuce shortages in Europe ………….

Yea, sure we can all live on little squares in Texas and be fed off of a plateau in Africa and go for a walk in the countryside in Somalia but ….. be real. This ain't going to happen.

IMO the danger to life on planet earth lies not so much with "over population" but with the massive mis management of our resources which, sorry, will not end as the population grows …. it will increase. Humans are incapable of survival in the long run. We have proven our greed driven incompetence over and over.

Here is a Texas that differs from your vision of Texas and …… it's already here (and growing)

Image
User avatar
By Suntzu
#14937151
Drlee wrote:This is not really a salient question. Looking at population as a macro problem does little good. Look at China's one child policy. Resounding failure because of the individual choices made. Unless you imagine some draconian lottery system or something like that it simply does not work.

Besides. I am inclined to agree with VS on two points. First that the problem is somewhat self-regulating as demonstrated by today's birth rate and second that it distracts us from what the real solution to a livable future are.

Population groups are not "happy", individuals are "happy". The solution is to make individuals happy, one at a time.

Same with world hunger. One statistic I see is that 9 million people per year die of hunger. Given the world's population, to eliminate all of these deaths, a solution must be found involving 844 people to save one starvation death. So starvation is statistically an insignificant problem. People don't starve for lack of a food supply. They starve because they are isolated from it in some way.


So China's one child (misnomer, I might add) policy was a failure? They went from being a third world country to a superpower in a couple of generations! :roll:
By anasawad
#14937158
China has been gradually removing the one child policy for several years until recently it ended.
And China is a country with around one and a half billion people, entirely concentrated in the eastern coastal region of the country.

Its rise to becoming a superpower isn't due to the one child policy.
China already had all the elements to being a super power as it already has been for long centuries before, all it needs was good leadership to guide it out of the civil unrest and instability it found it self in, noting that these periods of instability, chaos, and unrest are regular not only for China but for all older nations as it usually happens everytime the nation is entering a new era of its history with radical change in the political, economic and social landscape taking place within it.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14937210
Anasawad has it right.

The one China policy is not only irrelevant to China's economic growth, it may have even stunted it. There is no evidence one way or the other of which I am aware.
By Rugoz
#14937233
Drlee wrote:Anasawad has it right.

The one China policy is not only irrelevant to China's economic growth, it may have even stunted it. There is no evidence one way or the other of which I am aware.


It's hard to argue that population control didn't have some impact. The "late, long, few" policy already started in the 70s and reduced the fertility rate from 6 to 2.75. The one child policy followed and reduced it further. The logical consequence is more investment in physical and human capital, certainly per capita but probably also in absolute terms at the beginning.
#14937252
jimjam wrote:please post a picture illustrating how the human race can live with the 26,000,000 tons of plastic that are dumped into the ocean annually.

Also a pic illustrating how the human race can live with the many global warming effects such as wild fires, 110 degrees in Spain and even lettuce shortages in Europe


Please post pics of how we are properly growing our crops in a sustainable fashion.

Please post pics of how our communities are being universally built in a cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and space conserving manner?

Don't be daft.

jimjam wrote:Yea, sure we can all live on little squares in Texas and be fed off of a plateau in Africa and go for a walk in the countryside in Somalia but ….. be real. This ain't going to happen.


Its no more impossible than convincing hundreds of disparate nations to pursue mass population controls which have 0% chance of doing anything to help any of the problems you mention.

Hell, you could make a good case that reducing population in places like India would make them even more wasteful, for if their GDP remained constant, less people would cause per capita wealth to increase and therefore India would became increasingly wasteful and more people could afford more goods and services that are fundamentally destructive of the environment (like more nice cars), in the same way that the west with its declining populations tend to be some of the most wasteful places on earth.

jimjam wrote: the danger to life on planet earth lies not so much with "over population" but with the massive mis management of our resources


Which has been my whole fucking argument this entire thread, thanks for catching up. :roll:

jimjam wrote:will not end as the population grows …. it will increase.


Possibly, but their is no reason to believe it will improve by murdering 3 billion people, or whatever you might propose, which is all irrelevant as population is on a radical decreasing trend-rate RIGHT NOW without any wasteful programs to do so artifically. Like sending condoms in UN aid packages to subsaharan Africa which has the lowest population densities on earth. :lol:

I mean, what else would you suggest? People in Netherlands pursue a non-traditional lifestyles and childlessness? :excited: They've been doing that for like 100 years :lol:

Now they are just importing people that breed at a high rate because their economy is not sustainable without an imported migrant workforce since no one is having kids of ethnic dutch descent.

jimjam wrote: it will increase. Humans are incapable of survival in the long run. We have proven our greed driven incompetence over and over.


No need to get religious, lets stick with facts here before you make yourself sound loony.

jimjam wrote:Here is a Texas that differs from your vision of Texas and …… it's already here (and growing)


Irrelevant, unless you want to mass genocide billions of people because of their being too many pepsi caps floating in the South Pacific....which would be a fun chat no doubt. :lol:
User avatar
By jimjam
#14937411
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Please post pics of how we are properly growing our crops in a sustainable fashion.

Please post pics of how our communities are being universally built in a cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and space conserving manner?

Don't be daft.



Its no more impossible than convincing hundreds of disparate nations to pursue mass population controls which have 0% chance of doing anything to help any of the problems you mention.

Hell, you could make a good case that reducing population in places like India would make them even more wasteful, for if their GDP remained constant, less people would cause per capita wealth to increase and therefore India would became increasingly wasteful and more people could afford more goods and services that are fundamentally destructive of the environment (like more nice cars), in the same way that the west with its declining populations tend to be some of the most wasteful places on earth.



Which has been my whole fucking argument this entire thread, thanks for catching up. :roll:



Possibly, but their is no reason to believe it will improve by murdering 3 billion people, or whatever you might propose, which is all irrelevant as population is on a radical decreasing trend-rate RIGHT NOW without any wasteful programs to do so artifically. Like sending condoms in UN aid packages to subsaharan Africa which has the lowest population densities on earth. :lol:

I mean, what else would you suggest? People in Netherlands pursue a non-traditional lifestyles and childlessness? :excited: They've been doing that for like 100 years :lol:

Now they are just importing people that breed at a high rate because their economy is not sustainable without an imported migrant workforce since no one is having kids of ethnic dutch descent.



No need to get religious, lets stick with facts here before you make yourself sound loony.



Irrelevant, unless you want to mass genocide billions of people because of their being too many pepsi caps floating in the South Pacific....which would be a fun chat no doubt. :lol:


Brilliant! You are right and I am wrong.
By Truth To Power
#14937881
jimjam wrote:Things don't look so good in the Horn of Africa these days: The region was hit by an 18-month drought caused by El Niño and higher temperatures linked to climate change.

Higher temperatures mean increased, not reduced total rainfall. Where that rain falls is important, of course, but institutional arrangements enable provision of hydrological projects that reduce flooding risk and move water to where it is more needed.
Now, in the midst of even more drought, the situation has become catastrophic, causing crops to fail and cattle to die. In addition, the lack of clean water increases the threat of cholera and other diseases.

But the number of people who die in such events -- which have been happening for all of recorded history -- is many fewer now than it was just a few decades ago.
Across Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and the autonomous region of Somaliland, 10.7 million people are facing severe hunger.

Because their institutions are either crooked, incompetent or effectively non-existent.
There are increasing concerns that the situation will get much worse, as rainfall in March and early April was very low in places. Poor rainfall is forecast for April through June, the end of the rainy season.

If you can't make efficient use of the rain that falls because you can't build a dam, fix the institutions that stop you from building a dam.
I agree with you up to a point but doubt that the human race will be experiencing ecstasy when global population hits 100,000,000,000.

If it isn't, the population won't reach 100G.
By Truth To Power
#14937883
Drlee wrote:Look at China's one child policy. Resounding failure because of the individual choices made.

It's actually very successful.
People don't starve for lack of a food supply. They starve because they are isolated from it in some way.

Overwhelmingly, they starve because they can't afford to pay a landowner for permission to produce food.
By Truth To Power
#14938137
Suntzu wrote:Why are Africans starving? :roll:

Same reason our remote ancestors were starving when their population was six orders of magnitude smaller: lack of institutions that secure both people's liberty to produce and their right to own and exchange what they produce.
User avatar
By Stormsmith
#14938152
@jimjam

I think I mentioned in another thread Australia, Canada, and Russia have Buckets of land. Canada also has more than enough fresh water.

Now, about this plastic in the water...you're right. It's a pain in the drain. It leaches a chemical that is so similar to estrogen it's having a feminising effects on critters like gators etc.
#14938157
Stormsmith wrote:It leaches a chemical that is so similar to estrogen it's having a feminising effects on critters like gators etc.


Here is the proof:

Image
By Oxymandias
#14938160
@Suntzu

So Sub-Saharan Africans are incapable of governing themselves? :D


Actually the current governing systems of Africa were put into place by Europeans so it's actually Europeans who are incapable of forming a good government. This is explains all of Europe and America's current issues.

Somalia is an African country that doesn't even have a government and it's magnitudes more stable than America in it's entirety.
User avatar
By Libertarian353
#14938186
Suntzu wrote:Yeah, Somalia is more stable than America. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


During Said Barrie era and the 90s era, both was hailed as very stable and both homicide rates are relatively low compare to most European states now. But I assume them being causasian in origin has something to do it.

Tell me explain the IQ paradox in Somalia. They are closer related to whites than Bantus(pretty much white Black people), yet somehow dumber by our faulty stats. I assume melanin skin makes people be gangsters, that explains alot of Italian films.
By Truth To Power
#14938392
Suntzu wrote:So Sub-Saharan Africans are incapable of governing themselves? :D

"Incapable"? Who knows? They just haven't done it very well to date.
We need to butt out of Sub-Saharan Africa and let nature take its course.

And other places, too.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14938644
So "butt out" means allow people to needlessly starve or learn to make their own technology and medicine? Is that what you mean?
User avatar
By Suntzu
#14938656
Drlee wrote:So "butt out" means allow people to needlessly starve or learn to make their own technology and medicine? Is that what you mean?


Not needlessly. They need to starve, natures way of controlling population. Starving folks don't reproduce. Starving women don't ovulate. Starving men aren't interested in sex. What we have is starving children. Every February we learned to Blacks invented everything. Let 'em invent it again.
Obese America

Fat girls need love, too! Make 'em squeal. :lol:

My iPad was a gift so my kids and grandkids could[…]

They though he was going to give a great speech th[…]

If God disrupts a WH press conference, can the eve[…]