Split- "Overpopulation" vs "Underproduction"

[Phil Of Mac]

How about feeding their own goddamned people? China isn't "overpopulated" because overpopulation doesn't exist, only underproduction. China is underproducing to the point where they have a one child policy they have to enforce with forced sterilizations and partial-birth abortions. Generally the more people the have the more productive you are and the more food your country can afford, but China right now is stuck between communism and some sort of fascist, corporatist state which ensures that they're not going to be especially productive.

[Rower_CPU]

Calling it underproduction is just word play.

Any population (human or otherwise) can only expect to survive for so long if they outgrow their food source(s).

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Calling it underproduction is just word play.

Any population (human or otherwise) can only expect to survive for so long if they outgrow their food source(s).

In a decent economic system, it is impossible for humans to outgrow their food sources, because each additional human being adds more than enough economic production to feed himself. You aren't a burden on the food supply: you have a job (economic production) which has a certain value that you are paid (wages or salary), and you use that money to buy food. If food ever reached a point of shortage (right now, food is cheap, and would be an order of magnitude cheaper if the government didn't prevent it), it would be so expensive that people wouldn't have children anymore.

The problem with China is that their state-controlled economy does not allow each individual to produce wealth to his or her full potential. If it did, they wouldn't have any problem at all. If the United States reached a population of 1 billion people, assuming the government didn't take more control over the economy, we'd be fine, because our government allows individuals to produce at closer to their full potential.

[teabgs]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
In a decent economic system, it is impossible for humans to outgrow their food sources, because each additional human being adds more than enough economic production to feed himself.

EVERY person does this?

it's IMPOSSIBLE to outgrow our natural resources....?

Do you really believe these things or are you just spitting out what they tell you in school?

[Rower_CPU]

It's not about economics, it's about the ability of an environment to sustain the drain on it by a population.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by teabgs
EVERY person does this?

The vast majority. I suppose that disabled people, children, and street bums don't.

Originally posted by teabgs
it's IMPOSSIBLE to outgrow our natural resources....?

You could subject people to an economic system that made it possible, but under that circumstance it's your economic system and not your population that's the problem.

Much like Moore's law, the amount of agricultural production we get from any given piece of arable land increases through time. There are also numerous technological innovations that lead to the presence of more arable land in total: the Israelis for instance have been able to make deserts more or less arable. As population and therefore demand for food grows, the more lucrative it becomes to increase agricultural productivity.

Right now we're feeding more people with less arable land than ever before in history. Even if overpopulation were possible, we wouldn't reach it anytime soon.

But suppose we did reach some sort of Malthusian point. What would happen? By the laws of supply and demand, food would grow more and more expensive, over time. This would be a gradual process, but as it happened, less and less people could afford to support children, so they wouldn't have any thanks to the miracle of modern contraceptives. The rate of population growth would decline as we approached the Malthusian point in such a way that we'd never reach it.

But my primary point is that food production is not static and does not grow any slower than population growth. Quite on the contrary: the more people there are, the more production of wealth there is and the more demand for food there is, therefore, the more food is cultivated.

Originally posted by teabgs
Do you really believe these things or are you just spitting out what they tell you in school?

This is in direct opposition to what they tell me in school. In fact, I developed most of this theory myself. That said, I've just barely explained it here, so if you're still one of those who buys into the excuse of overpopulation, my argument probably isn't that persuasive. But I will expand on it.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
It's not about economics, it's about the ability of an environment to sustain the drain on it by a population.

If China wanted to economically isolate themselves this might be true, but given free trade, or something closely approximating it, it wouldn't matter, because we have plenty of arable land on the planet Earth.

[Rower_CPU]

You're going to have to "expand" on your theory, as you stated above, because I'm still not seeing it.

It's a fact of Nature that a population grows and shrinks to match its food supply.

[teabgs]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You're going to have to "expand" on your theory, as you stated above, because I'm still not seeing it.

It's a fact of Nature that a population grows and shrinks to match its food supply.

I 2nd that.

we may not have reached any point yet....but we sure have done a lot of damage.

There is no way that we can have our population expand exponentially and still not use up our resources.

Also, even if it IS possible, we'd have to totally screw up the natural order and kill most other life on earth, save the ones we keep for oxygen, and food.....

plus there are a lot of theories that are great as theories, but totally stupid in practice, and if you buy into the fact that these theories (and there is a reason it is a theory) can work, then you're in for a rude awakening at some point

[Dont Hurt Me]

lets get back on track you all this is about space and china's there, not natural resources, population growth etc... have to make a comment that capsule that came back sure looked to be in good condition. maybe this is just what our govt/Nasa needs to get focused on building better spacecraft.

[Phil Of Mac]

This is really something I've meant to write up for quite awhile now.

"It's a fact of Nature that a population grows and shrinks to match its food supply."

The difference is that we humans can increase our food supply. It's called agriculture. With all other species food supply is an independent variable that has nothing to do with population, but with humans, food supply is really a function of population (i.e. demand for food).

[Rower_CPU]

Our ability to increase our food supply is not infinite. It's quite an assumption to say that agriculture will be able to match our population increase. Do you think agriculture will be able to double it's output in 40 years (the timeframe for the human population to double from 6 bln to 12 bln)?

Food supply is a function of the ability of the environment to provide nourishment. We're getting down to laws of conservation here...you can't make food out of thin air.

[shadowfax]

this is reading suspiciously like a *hem* political discussion....


while it's certainly true that there has to be an equilibrium of people and what nature can support, i don't know that this is the problem in China. i think their problem, much like Russia, is that they're an economic flop in terms of food production and distribution. so in that specific case, i would agree with PofM...

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by shadowfax
this is reading suspiciously like a *hem* political discussion....


while it's certainly true that there has to be an equilibrium of people and what nature can support, i don't know that this is the problem in China. i think their problem, much like Russia, is that they're an economic flop in terms of food production and distribution. so in that specific case, i would agree with PofM...

If it gets there, I'll move it, but it's not political per se, just yet. ;)

I'm not debating China in particular, but overpopulation vs underproduction in general after PofM's "overpopulation doesn't exist" comment.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
In a decent economic system, it is impossible for humans to outgrow their food sources, because each additional human being adds more than enough economic production to feed himself. You aren't a burden on the food supply: you have a job (economic production) which has a certain value that you are paid (wages or salary), and you use that money to buy food. If food ever reached a point of shortage (right now, food is cheap, and would be an order of magnitude cheaper if the government didn't prevent it), it would be so expensive that people wouldn't have children anymore.


It sounds more than a decent economic system, it sounds like a system where calculating marginal rates of return is considered foreplay. Not likely to happen! The hot area of economics right now is exploring the many ways that humans are not perfectly rational creatures that make appropriate economic decisions.

Food production probably can grow for another 20 years. Pollution from production, probably not. I think food costs are low in part because of government subsidies and in part because the true cost of food production (e.g. fertilizer run-off) is not carried by the producers.

[tristan]

You're saying "land is a fixed resource, and population is a growing resource, so eventually we'll have no more capacity to feed population."

I can't argue with logic, but how far away are we from that? I'd say hundreds of years - here's why.

Land is a resource, but not the only resource in the equation. There's also labor and capital. Some crops are more land intensive, some are more labor intensive, and some are more capital intensive. As land becomes more and more scarce, we can substitute labor and capital.

For example, rice is pretty labor intensive but not very land intensive. That's why most overpopulated Asian countries farm and eat rice. If you really needed more land, you could envision some kind of multi-level greenhouse structure. Now you've applied capital to the problem. Or get some new type of fertilizer or pesticides.

And because of free markets, prices will adjust. Beef is an *extremely* land intensive product because cattle have to graze. So beef prices should go up, and people would switch to other foods (soybeans maybe?)

So what I'm trying to say is that its not as simple as "constant land, increasing population, we all starve". Remember when people thought we run run out of oil? Now there's more oil reserves than ever. Same principle basically.

[Rower_CPU]

What we're looking at is much more complex than static land vs increasing population. Air and water quality, as well as waste removal and delivery systems all play into this equation.

Just because we're finding more oil doesn't mean that will be sufficient to sustain 2x the number of drivers, just as more arable land and better cultivation/harvest/etc techniques doesn't mean there will be food production sufficient for 2x the number of people.

It's a finite system.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Our ability to increase our food supply is not infinite. It's quite an assumption to say that agriculture will be able to match our population increase. Do you think agriculture will be able to double it's output in 40 years (the timeframe for the human population to double from 6 bln to 12 bln)?

Food supply is a function of the ability of the environment to provide nourishment. We're getting down to laws of conservation here...you can't make food out of thin air.

Somehow, I think that Phil is right on this one, not just because he is going against the mantra of the environmentalist, but it is proved by history as well, at least in the United States.

Compare the number of people that were farming in the 1900s, versus the number of people that are farming in the 2000s. Also, compare the amount of land used for farming in the 1900s, versus the acreage used in the 2000s.

In both cases, less people and less land are used to feed more. Granted, its not a perfectly linear equation, or else, you would be able to feed everyone on no land. ;)

Carrying capacity of habitats is not fixed, especially with tool-using humans capable of putting energy and innovation into increasing it.

[Rower_CPU]

Got stats?

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Somehow, I think that Phil is right on this one, not just because he is going against the mantra of the environmentalist, but it is proved by history as well, at least in the United States.

Compare the number of people that were farming in the 1900s, versus the number of people that are farming in the 2000s. Also, compare the amount of land used for farming in the 1900s, versus the acreage used in the 2000s.


The United States is a massive country with a relatively miniscule population. Aside from that we have easy access to cutting edge technology. The US is in a dramatically different situation then countries like China or India.

[rainman::|:|]

i live in iowa, which is well known for beef, corn, and soy agriculture which feeds a great deal of America. and i can tell you, overall producing farmland is getting smaller and smaller, not larger. cities grow, roads are built, improvements are made, family farmers go out of business due to lack of government subsidies in a bad year and their land is purchased by corporations which house huge feedlots polluting the rest of the ecosystem in ways we can't imagine, etc.

True right now there is enough food to roughly sustain the entire planet, eliminating starvation. But we've reached a peak in many places, where food production decreases rather than increases, and it's sure to happen everywhere eventually.

if you're right, phil, why is there such a huge interest in biodomes and setting up agricultural colonies on other planets?

the only way you're going to see food distribution enough to sustain us in the meantime would be communism. which means there will be a lot of starvation until we work something else out...

pnw

[tristan]

The other reason your forecasts are wrong is that you're forecasting population increases. Well, in developed countries populations are increasing only because of immigration. With no immigration, they would be stable. People in developed countries just don't have that many kids. How many people do you know with four kids? Now how many people do you know who are 40 and don't have any kids?

They've also seen that as developing countries get wealthier, they cut back on their population growth. I used to live in Singapore, and during the sixties they were pushing a one child policy. Now they're giving people subsidies to have more kids because their birth rates are so low.

So your forecast of the world population doubling every 40 years is very likely inaccurate.

[Rower_CPU]

Based on population increases over the past 2000 years or so we have been doubling our population in half the time of the previous doubling. So, if it took 80 years to go from 3 billion to 6 billion, it should take 40 years to get to 12 billion.

Current growth estimates are about 73 million per year (source (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw)). Even if we assume linear progression (which we have never had in recorded history) we will get to 12 billion in 80 years.

Being at 12 billion in 40 years is not unlikely.

edit - Found another site showing a lot of info on world population increases (http://www.geohive.com/).

I also found a PDF saying 12 billion by the end of the 21st century, but they also point out that there are already food/water issues at hand that will manifest even at the current growth rate.

http://www.usaid.gov/pop_health/pop/publications/docs/popenv.pdf

[rainman::|:|]

part of the problem is that in the past we have had epidemics that killed huge chunks of the population... today we don't have that, outside of several diseases, nothing that can suddenly claim 30% of the population. Medical science has taken us to an age where nature's controls over human population do not apply, and so we're out of balance with the ecosystem.

as always, when talking about overpopulation, i recommend reading some vonnegut... welcome to the monkey house, etc. he has lots of short predictions in his stories, like body-numbing drugs to suicide parlors... his fear was mostly individual longevity-- he is a firm believer that our lifespans will increase as our technology does. it's proven right so far.

pnw

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Our ability to increase our food supply is not infinite. It's quite an assumption to say that agriculture will be able to match our population increase. Do you think agriculture will be able to double it's output in 40 years (the timeframe for the human population to double from 6 bln to 12 bln)?

Food supply is a function of the ability of the environment to provide nourishment. We're getting down to laws of conservation here...you can't make food out of thin air.

There is a limit, but as we approach that limit, through the laws of supply and demand, the price of food will rise.

Originally posted by Dros
It sounds more than a decent economic system, it sounds like a system where calculating marginal rates of return is considered foreplay. Not likely to happen! The hot area of economics right now is exploring the many ways that humans are not perfectly rational creatures that make appropriate economic decisions.

You don't need to make complex calculations to find out when you can't afford to have another child. If food becomes more expensive, guess what? We all eat food! So we'll all have less money. So when your wife wants to hear the pitter-patter of little feet around the house, you can say, "Sorry honey, but we're in debt and our last trip to the grocery store cost $500. I don't think we can afford to have kids."

You don't *need* to do a cost/benefit analysis at that point.

Originally posted by Dros
Food production probably can grow for another 20 years. Pollution from production, probably not. I think food costs are low in part because of government subsidies and in part because the true cost of food production (e.g. fertilizer run-off) is not carried by the producers.

The government actually keeps food prices artificially high to ensure that we have enough farmland and capacity to feed the country in case of emergency.

Originally posted by tristan
You're saying "land is a fixed resource, and population is a growing resource, so eventually we'll have no more capacity to feed population."

I can't argue with logic, but how far away are we from that? I'd say hundreds of years - here's why.

The productivity of any given piece of land has grown. It's like Moore's Law, only except for transistors on a square inch of silicon, it's food from a square mile of land. In addition, more and more land becomes arable as we develop the technology--the Israelis have been able to make the deserts bloom, for instance. Land is a fixed resource, but agricultural production isn't. As soon as the need arises, we *will* develop technologies, even if it means growing food indoors with artificial sunlight. (Hey, they do it for cannabis already!)

We are HUMANS! We can overcome! Malthusian overpopulation happens for animals because they don't control their own food supply. We do!

And if you're talking about any given country (say China), China does not have to produce all the food they're going to eat themselves. They can produce two-button mice instead, and trade them to the United States for food. Basically, as long as you're producing *anything*, you have a demand for food, you are willing to pay for food, and thus you are contributing to the production of food in that manner, when you buy it and when you constitute part of a market that someone is going to want to capture.

[yamabushi]

I have to agree with Phil about food production and population limilts. I have been making the same argument since I took Econ101 nine years ago. The objection of Malthus was right - there are limits to the amount of food we can produce. However, these limits are far higher than he could have imagined.

If severe measures were taken to increase food production, a world population much higher than we have now is entirely sustainable. A population of 200 Billion is not impossible. In such a society problems of trash and polution become severe, but food is less of a concern. Such a world may of course not be desireable. I certainly would not be able to adjust well to such a world. Therefore some efforts to control population growth and density are reasonable. Raising the level of development and wealth in all nations will have the effect of curbing population growth. So fighting poverty should perhaps be the main concern.

Unfortunately population, wealth, and the supply of food are not distributed equally and no one has yet come up with an effective way to do this. This means that many people are likely to suffer from poverty and malnutrition in certain areas. The irrational behavior of humans is likely to exacerbate the problem.

So as far as production goes, we will most likely be able to keep up with the total global demand for food for at least the next several hundred years. However, the distribution of this food will continue to be problematic. Thus many people will continue to starve despite the ability to feed them.

[jayscheuerle]

This is one of the most naive posts I've ever read, simplifying the health of the human race into overpopulation vs. underproduction.

Our ecosystem works as a balance, a balance that shifts over time, but slowly, barring a catastrophic event. The speed at which humans are manipulating and effecting the environment is unlike that which any other species has been able to approach. We aren't even touching on understanding the complexities of this system, even as we notice an increase of deformed frogs in our ponds and plunging numbers of overfished salmon in our oceans. One animal (or plant) depends on another for its survival. The animal (or plant) that it consumes has it's population controlled by that action. Its own survival is necessary for the predators that feed on it. We cannot just go converting all of our land to farmland in order to feed the ever-burgeoning population. Corn and wheat are not great oxygen producers. They are also rotten habitats for the animals their fields displace. As a species, our arrogance and naivete are going to be our undoing. We're not as smart as we think we are and that's what makes us dangerous.

To think that this is simply a supply and demand equation is ludicrous. Take your final destination of half the planet being people and the other half being farmland and it's easy to see that long before that we're going to run into trouble. We'd be in a tight spot right now if it weren't for the agricultural advances of the 60's and 70's that allowed us to practically double the outputs of our fields. Don't count on this happening again.

Believing you have something figured out is the surest sign that you don't. - j



Look around (http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/biotechnology/page.cfm?pageID=331)

The information's there (http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~envhl565/hot/hot/crops.html)

[Phil Of Mac]

We can already produce cannabis indoors. If we could build a World Trade Center in every major city and grow food indoors in that structure the same way we cultivate marijuana, any land that can bear such a structure would be more arable than the most fertile river valleys on earth. Obviously crop quality is an issue, but not an insurmountable one. And by the time we have nanotech assemblers that are capable of building anything at the atomic level, our food worries are nearly over.

As for space, if you turned the entire state of Texas into a three-story structure you could house every human being on earth in an apartment and leave the entire rest of the earth for other uses. Some people may not want to live there, but there is an upside: it will be much easier to get high-speed internet access when everyone lives in the same building :D. In all seriousness, however, space is not really a concern either.

In any case, we've already seen that in more prosperous societies the population approaches zero population growth. It seems that if overpopulation was a problem, the solution is economic development.

In any case, if I have eight kids, I'm not contributing to the doom of humanity.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
We can already produce cannabis indoors. If we could build a World Trade Center in every major city and grow food indoors in that structure the same way we cultivate marijuana, any land that can bear such a structure would be more arable than the most fertile river valleys on earth. Obviously crop quality is an issue, but not an insurmountable one. And by the time we have nanotech assemblers that are capable of building anything at the atomic level, our food worries are nearly over.

As for space, if you turned the entire state of Texas into a three-story structure you could house every human being on earth in an apartment and leave the entire rest of the earth for other uses. Some people may not want to live there, but there is an upside: it will be much easier to get high-speed internet access when everyone lives in the same building :D. In all seriousness, however, space is not really a concern either.

In any case, we've already seen that in more prosperous societies the population approaches zero population growth. It seems that if overpopulation was a problem, the solution is economic development.

In any case, if I have eight kids, I'm not contributing to the doom of humanity.

Growing plants indoors is EXPENSIVE. Marijuana has a much higher return rate than rice or soybeans. Creating what amounts to an artificial sun for every floor is insanely expensive. Hydrating these plants would be expensive. Providing the nutrients for such a large scale would be expensive...

Your nanotech assemblers are science fiction at the moment and may never come to your level of realization. Our raw materials on earth are finite. In order to build humans from organic molecules, organic molecules have to be consumed. Our expansion is at the expense of other living things on this planet which are not necessarily renewable.

You seem to be of the mind that all you need is A) people and B) food and the world will just happily run itself. There are too many subtle interactions that we are nowhere near understanding or duplicating. The earth isn't a lush ecosystem because of us, it's a lush ecosystem in spite of us. Remember the failure of the BioDome experiment?

Believing that technology will solve all our problems is a faith not unlike thinking a religious savior will solve our problems, but with a far worse track record.

Perhaps you're just being facetious and enjoy playing rationality's devil's advocate, but these ideas your tossing out are sieves for logic that looks further than 2 steps down the road.

[Rower_CPU]

And where does the water, construction materials, etc. come from for these monstrosities?

"We" still haven't seen anything.

Even if birth rates start to level off, we still need to deal with people living longer and longer, thanks to that same technology you're relying on to feed billions of people.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

You don't need to make complex calculations to find out when you can't afford to have another child. If food becomes more expensive, guess what? We all eat food! So we'll all have less money. So when your wife wants to hear the pitter-patter of little feet around the house, you can say, "Sorry honey, but we're in debt and our last trip to the grocery store cost $500. I don't think we can afford to have kids."

You don't *need* to do a cost/benefit analysis at that point.


So are you suggesting that people actually refrain from having children when it is economically contraindicated right now? And that people will refrain from having children if food costs become high? People have children when they are starving, when there are no jobs, in the most stricken parts of the planet right now! People have children when having children derails them from the optimal path of economic success all the time. You don't need a cost/benefit analysis, but people will have children even if they can't afford it. Not everyone, I will admit the birthrate will drop, but to peg the future on the idea that the majority of the population is in a position to consider these things, and have access to contraceptives and be educated to use them even if they do decide to forego children seems like a mistake.

[jayscheuerle]

It's the poorest people that have the most children, usually because they can assume that most won't make it to adulthood and they want some adult children to take care of them in old age.

They also tend to be the most ignorant about contraception and the most forgiving when it comes to the stigma of unwed and teen pregnancies.

They also believe that strength will come in numbers, not realizing that having more children spreads your time resources ever thinner in terms of actually participating in nurturing and raising them...

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Growing plants indoors is EXPENSIVE. Marijuana has a much higher return rate than rice or soybeans. Creating what amounts to an artificial sun for every floor is insanely expensive. Hydrating these plants would be expensive. Providing the nutrients for such a large scale would be expensive...

Sure. The only reason cannabis is grown indoors is to evade arrest. But it would still be a profitable proposition if and when we started running out of arable land and production from it.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Your nanotech assemblers are science fiction at the moment and may never come to your level of realization. Our raw materials on earth are finite. In order to build humans from organic molecules, organic molecules have to be consumed. Our expansion is at the expense of other living things on this planet which are not necessarily renewable.

Who says we're limited to the earth? In any case, biological matter *is* renewable.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
You seem to be of the mind that all you need is A) people and B) food and the world will just happily run itself. There are too many subtle interactions that we are nowhere near understanding or duplicating. The earth isn't a lush ecosystem because of us, it's a lush ecosystem in spite of us. Remember the failure of the BioDome experiment?

So we can't create an entirely self-contained ecosystem by ourselves *yet*. What's your point?

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Believing that technology will solve all our problems is a faith not unlike thinking a religious savior will solve our problems, but with a far worse track record.

You're right, technology never solved anything.

Pay attention! We've already been able to increase the productivity of agriculture through technology all throughout human existence! Everything from the horse-drawn plow to pottery to the tractor to biotech has been technology improving our ability to produce food.

Originally posted by Dros
So are you suggesting that people actually refrain from having children when it is economically contraindicated right now? And that people will refrain from having children if food costs become high? People have children when they are starving, when there are no jobs, in the most stricken parts of the planet right now! People have children when having children derails them from the optimal path of economic success all the time. You don't need a cost/benefit analysis, but people will have children even if they can't afford it. Not everyone, I will admit the birthrate will drop, but to peg the future on the idea that the majority of the population is in a position to consider these things, and have access to contraceptives and be educated to use them even if they do decide to forego children seems like a mistake.

The birthrate *will* drop, even if not everyone stops reproducing. As soon as the birthrate drops, we'll have less population growth, which was my point anyway, and you've accepted that. No, the birthrate will not utterly end, and some will still make the reckless and negligent decision to have children they can't support, but that doesn't refute my point.

And in any case, places where that happens now are also the same places which are poor, and which are poor mainly because they have plundering dictators and no ability to trade internationally. Again, that's not overpopulation that's the problem, it's the plundering dictators and the lack of free trade.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Sure. The only reason cannabis is grown indoors is to evade arrest. But it would still be a profitable proposition if and when we started running out of arable land and production from it.



Who says we're limited to the earth? In any case, biological matter *is* renewable.



So we can't create an entirely self-contained ecosystem by ourselves *yet*. What's your point?



You're right, technology never solved anything.

Pay attention! We've already been able to increase the productivity of agriculture through technology all throughout human existence! Everything from the horse-drawn plow to pottery to the tractor to biotech has been technology improving our ability to produce food.



The birthrate *will* drop, even if not everyone stops reproducing. As soon as the birthrate drops, we'll have less population growth, which was my point anyway, and you've accepted that. No, the birthrate will not utterly end, and some will still make the reckless and negligent decision to have children they can't support, but that doesn't refute my point.

And in any case, places where that happens now are also the same places which are poor, and which are poor mainly because they have plundering dictators and no ability to trade internationally. Again, that's not overpopulation that's the problem, it's the plundering dictators and the lack of free trade.

1) The best cannabis IS grown indoors.

;)

2) Uh, we are limited to earth or are there spice mines on Kessel that I'm not aware of? Biological matter is transferrable, and even recyclable, but that doesn't mean that it can be created out of thin air.

3) "Yet" is the only point that matters.

4) Technology has done wonderful things, but believing it will solve all our problems is blind faith.

Read more.

[G4scott]

Maybe with global warming, more areas of Asia will become warmer, and more suitable for agricultural production, so China will be able to produce more food for themselves...

And no, global warming is not entirely our fault.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
2) Uh, we are limited to earth or are there spice mines on Kessel that I'm not aware of?

By the time we're getting even near the Earth's holding capacity we'll have advanced spaceflight.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Biological matter is transferrable, and even recyclable, but that doesn't mean that it can be created out of thin air.

Of course not. But it doesn't need to be.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
4) Technology has done wonderful things, but believing it will solve all our problems is blind faith.

It's not *technology* that will solve all our problems, it is we who will solve the problems. And quite frankly, given the number of problems we've solved before, this one is no different.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Read more.

*Think* more. Think for yourself. Reading is great, but all that reading does is help you absorb what others have said and written.

Overpopulation is a common and popular belief, and I know what I'm going up against. And I have read rather extensively. I've never read anything that has refuted any of my points.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The birthrate *will* drop, even if not everyone stops reproducing. As soon as the birthrate drops, we'll have less population growth, which was my point anyway, and you've accepted that. No, the birthrate will not utterly end, and some will still make the reckless and negligent decision to have children they can't support, but that doesn't refute my point.

And in any case, places where that happens now are also the same places which are poor, and which are poor mainly because they have plundering dictators and no ability to trade internationally. Again, that's not overpopulation that's the problem, it's the plundering dictators and the lack of free trade.

I was assuming you were suggesting the population will change to match the cost of food production. I said the birthrate will drop. The difference between the two is that my guess is that the birthrate will drop, but population will continue to increase. You assume it will decrease. So I don't accept your assumptions.

I'm not sure how saying poor places are run by dictators changes using those places as an example of how people will make poor economic choices. It does have something to do with free trade and other arguments you are making, but they shoudn't be mixed up.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by G4scott
Maybe with global warming, more areas of Asia will become warmer, and more suitable for agricultural production, so China will be able to produce more food for themselves...

And no, global warming is not entirely our fault.

Interestingly enough, global warming of just a few degrees may be enough to push certain areas into a little ice age (100 yrs or so).

As the glaciers in the North Atlantic are melting, a large volume of cold freshwater is moving down, pushing the warm water that feeds the gulfstream below. The worry is that if the northern moving currents of warm water are disrupted and stalled, they may take 100 years to get going again. Without the warm water heading north and towards Europe, the air that feeds their temperate weather systems would suddenly go much colder.

What's of interest isn't the whole of the earth's temperature going higher, but that a few degrees can disrupt weather patterns for generations. Generally, one location's heat wave is fed by a cold-spell somewhere else. The average temperature doesn't change very much at all.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
By the time we're getting even near the Earth's holding capacity we'll have advanced spaceflight.



Of course not. But it doesn't need to be.



It's not *technology* that will solve all our problems, it is we who will solve the problems. And quite frankly, given the number of problems we've solved before, this one is no different.



*Think* more. Think for yourself. Reading is great, but all that reading does is help you absorb what others have said and written.

Overpopulation is a common and popular belief, and I know what I'm going up against. And I have read rather extensively. I've never read anything that has refuted any of my points.

I'm sure you'll feel different when you're out of your teens. :rolleyes:

[tristan]

Phil has faith in humanity and their problem solving ability. Our human brains have allowed us to overcome tremendous obstacles, and have allowed us to not just feed ourselves and survive, but to live relatively comfortable lives and create amazing achievements.

I don't know why you other guys think our abilities will suddenly run out of steam. Why should they? Why would we suddenly become overcome by mother nature and starve to death?

You're envisioning a future where as food becomes scarcer and more expensive, humans instead of investing in hydroponics or greenhouses or genetic engineering or aquaculture or factory farming or any number of technolgies - instead of doing that, humans just give up. And starve. Why would that happen? You're human. Would you give up? Or would you convert every square inch of your house to hydroponics first to grow enough food to stay alive? In a free market society, as food becomes more expensive, wouldn't entrepreneurs put more money and research into finding new ways to produce it? Wouldn't venture capitalists fund food startups? We all gotta eat.

Why do you have so little faith in humanity? You're the product of millions of years of evolution. Your grandfather survived a war. Your great grandmother survived a famine. Your great great great grandfather survived disease. So what are you and your children going to do when food gets a little scarcer? Just sit back and starve? Well, go right ahead, me and my kids will be using our brains to solve our problems.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Dros
I was assuming you were suggesting the population will change to match the cost of food production. I said the birthrate will drop. The difference between the two is that my guess is that the birthrate will drop, but population will continue to increase. You assume it will decrease. So I don't accept your assumptions.

I assume that population will increase at a slower rate, as food production increases at a slower rate as well. I'm not saying population growth will reverse, I'm just saying it'll decelerate.

Originally posted by Dros
I'm not sure how saying poor places are run by dictators changes using those places as an example of how people will make poor economic choices. It does have something to do with free trade and other arguments you are making, but they shoudn't be mixed up.

When your dictator steals all your food for his army, you're doing to starve. My point is, that has nothing to do with overpopulation.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by tristan
Phil has faith in humanity and their problem solving ability.

Faith.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Faith. it's a more reliable way of knowing than empiricism :p

[Phil Of Mac]

Not faith in terms of religious blind faith. Faith that has been justified by human history. Throughout centuries we have endured tyranny, starvation, disease, the worst of challenges, and what have we done? We overcame. Not only did we overcome, but we completely turned the tide and managed to create for ourselves more than we ever had before. Within 50 years human beings in the United States came from crushing poverty into the most technologically advanced age in human history. We didn't *stop* at overcoming the Depression, we beat it into the ground!

If we ever reach a Malthusian point, not only will we come up with new agricultural technology to compensate, but given our past history, we'll make it taste better too!

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by shadowfax
it's a more reliable way of knowing than empiricism :p

It certainly is to the person possessing it.

;)

[Dros]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
When your dictator steals all your food for his army, you're doing to starve. My point is, that has nothing to do with overpopulation.

Except that people in those circumstances still have children, despite the fact they cannot sustain them. Thus, people do not make choices purely on economic terms. I agree that starvation in those areas has more to do with distribution than overpopulation, but my original statements were about child-bearing choices and I wasn't sure what dictators had to do with that.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Dros
Except that people in those circumstances still have children, despite the fact they cannot sustain them. Thus, people do not make choices purely on economic terms. I agree that starvation in those areas has more to do with distribution than overpopulation, but my original statements were about child-bearing choices and I wasn't sure what dictators had to do with that.

People in desperate situations that are created by dictators have children accidentally because they turn to sex as a form of relief from their miserable lives. Same reason AIDS is such an epidemic in Africa: Africa is so poor (due to plundering dictators) that people turn to reckless sex for relief.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
People in desperate situations that are created by dictators have children accidentally because they turn to sex as a form of relief from their miserable lives. Same reason AIDS is such an epidemic in Africa: Africa is so poor (due to plundering dictators) that people turn to reckless sex for relief.

So your future world is one where we have no people trying to exploit others, everyone making perfectly rational choices, and technology has solved every possible problem? I admire your optimism. I thought we were talking about China, not fantasyland.

Good thing people here in our wealthy country don't indulge in reckless sex and it only happens under dictators.

[tristan]

From http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/natural_resources/limits_to_growth.html

Environmentalists have developed a habit of claiming the world as we know it will come to an end unless people make immediate, drastic changes to their lives. But how well do such claims stand up over time?

Looking back 25 years to a scare that took the world by storm, environmentalists seem no better than tabloid psychics at predicting the apocalypse.

In 1972 the Club of Rome published its landmark report, Limits to Growth, which dramatically predicted the inevitable collapse of civilization unless economic growth was halted immediately.

Relying on a computer model developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Limits to Growth predicted that world population would hit 7 billion by 2000 and set into effect a deadly chain reaction. The world would begin to run out of farm land in a mad scramble to feed everyone. The price of natural resources such as copper, tin, silver and oil would climb through the roof as the world began using them up.

Inevitably, no matter what sort of technological innovations or changes in the rate of population growth were made to the MIT model the result was always the same -- the collapse of industrial civilization sometime in the 21st century.

Check out the rest on the web site...

[Rower_CPU]

I also see it as a debate of faith in humankind's ingenuity, which I admit is awe-inspiring, versus the laws of nature. I believe it is an integral part of our society's arrogance to think we can change the world completely to suit our needs. I don't buy it.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Dros
So your future world is one where we have no people trying to exploit others, everyone making perfectly rational choices, and technology has solved every possible problem? I admire your optimism. I thought we were talking about China, not fantasyland.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that's it's the exploitation, not the overpopulation, that's the problem in the first place. And yes, I believe the future holds less tyranny and better technology.

Originally posted by Dros
Good thing people here in our wealthy country don't indulge in reckless sex and it only happens under dictators.

Just because something isn't universally true doesn't mean that it's not a general tendency that holds true over a population.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

Just because something isn't universally true doesn't mean that it's not a general tendency that holds true over a population.

I'm just trying to point out some of the plentiful examples where people don't make choices based on economics, as that seemed to be a basis of your future predictions. I guess I haven't been convinced by any counter examples of how large populations will behave in an economically optimal way. You believe there will be fewer dictators, which would lead to increased efficiency. I would like to believe that. But will our political systems get figured out in time? Or will increased population more easily lead to the kind of situation where dictators take hold? I'd say it is a delicate balance, if we haven't slid off the cliff already.

[tristan]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I also see it as a debate of faith in humankind's ingenuity, which I admit is awe-inspiring, versus the laws of nature. I believe it is an integral part of our society's arrogance to think we can change the world completely to suit our needs. I don't buy it.

But what are your beliefs based on? My beliefs are based on thousands of years of food and resource production outpacing population growth.

The track record for environmental doomsayers are pretty poor - after all, we're all still here. Sure you want to pick that side?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by tristan
But what are your beliefs based on? My beliefs are based on thousands of years of food and resource production outpacing population growth.

Got stats?

Originally posted by tristan
The track record for environmental doomsayers are pretty poor - after all, we're all still here. Sure you want to pick that side?

Better to try to do something about the possibility than to ignore it and be caught unprepared.

[jadariv]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Not faith in terms of religious blind faith. Faith that has been justified by human history. Throughout centuries we have endured tyranny, starvation, disease, the worst of challenges, and what have we done? We overcame. Not only did we overcome, but we completely turned the tide and managed to create for ourselves more than we ever had before. Within 50 years human beings in the United States came from crushing poverty into the most technologically advanced age in human history. We didn't *stop* at overcoming the Depression, we beat it into the ground!

If we ever reach a Malthusian point, not only will we come up with new agricultural technology to compensate, but given our past history, we'll make it taste better too!


I was wondering when the United States was finally going to pop up as the model for this future. Why is it that we in the United States think that we are the world. Not every country or every group of people are like those in the U.S. And for this future model to work, everyone in the world would somehow have to be living in a United States type country with our same economic conditions.

First off, the entire planet could not survive under a capitalist democracy.
Why? Resources. The United States with 5% of the worlds population uses 25% of all natural resources (oil, steel, lumber). Try to imagine 6 billion (let alone 12 billion or 200 billion) people consuming resources at that rate.

Yes, we have found many more reserves of oil in the last 30 years since the oil crises of '74 touched off many fears. But all those reserves would not last very long under that kind of strain.

And as for those oppresive dictators. Many of them are there for a purpose. Because U.S. policy dictates it. The U.S. consumes so many resources that we have to have oppresive regimes in other parts of the world. Dictators who oppress and keep the populations in line give the U.S. cheap labor when our companies move overseas. They let us plunder their resources while the Dictator lives in extreme wealth. And we don't have to worry about a country like China with three times our population from competing with us for resources on our scale.

Can you imagine for one moment if China used oil per capita as much as the U.S.? Prices would be so high that the standard of living in the U.S. would decline rapidly as our economy collapsed and all the advances in food production (mostly from machinery). Well they run off gas and you know what that's made from.

People in United States live like they do for a reason. On the backs of other countries. There will be no utopian future where we all live in some wondrous economic system that feeds us all.


Or, maybe we can hope...

[Phil Of Mac]

I gave an example of a time when humans overcame crushing poverty and reversed it into amazing wealth. Yes, it just happened to be from the United States, but I am American, and I know American history better than the history of other nations.

If everyone lived under capitalism and the US didn't subjugate foreign peoples, market forces would force a switch to renewable resources. That's what capitalism does: it's adaptable.

[jadariv]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If everyone lived under capitalism and the US didn't subjugate foreign peoples, market forces would force a switch to renewable resources. That's what capitalism does: it's adaptable.


That's the point. You're saying IF everyone lived under a capitalism.

And if capitalism is so adaptive, why do we find our leaders helping to opress other countries so we can drive beemers and eat macdonalds.

It is my point that capitalism is not as adaptive as you think since the United States has chosen a path of non-change on the backs of others instead of finding and developing those new resources.

This future you talk about does not sound like a capitalistic society (to wasteful).

[yamabushi]

Lifestyle changes in the U.S. could certainly ease our dependence on foreign resources. My family managed to supply over half the food we needed from a modest garden maintained by my father as a hobby. If we had spent more time and effort and used up all of the space taken up by our lawn we could have easily had enough food to feed ourselves and many of our neighbors as well. Our methods were crude - we used organic principles. It was amazing how much food we received from such a small piece of our land in the middle of the city with relatively little effort.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jadariv
That's the point. You're saying IF everyone lived under a capitalism.

And if capitalism is so adaptive, why do we find our leaders helping to opress other countries so we can drive beemers and eat macdonalds.

Because we don't truly have capitalism, we have government/corporate cronyism.

Originally posted by jadariv
It is my point that capitalism is not as adaptive as you think since the United States has chosen a path of non-change on the backs of others instead of finding and developing those new resources.

This future you talk about does not sound like a capitalistic society (to wasteful).

The United States has abandoned capitalism and has chosen instead to assist a small industrial elite in plundering and gaining wealth at the expense of others. At the same time, they give capitalism a bad name by violating capitalism's basic tenets in capitalism's name

This future I talk about is more capitalist than our society.

[jadariv]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Because we don't truly have capitalism, we have government/corporate cronyism.



The United States has abandoned capitalism and has chosen instead to assist a small industrial elite in plundering and gaining wealth at the expense of others. At the same time, they give capitalism a bad name by violating capitalism's basic tenets in capitalism's name

This future I talk about is more capitalist than our society.


So basically, this is not based in the real world?

Now I see. Man, you had me going there for a moment.

[Phil Of Mac]

I should note that *inside* the US we have quite a bit more capitalism. It's just that the corporate-sponsored foreign policy is itself an irregularity. Oppressing other countries is *not* capitalist.

[Durandal7]

Getting back to the original topic; not only will we eventually just plain run out of land to grow food but agriculture is a classic example of the law of diminishing returns. We can only coax a limited amount of food out of a limited amount of land. We could pour all of our resources into agriculture but odds are that we will not increase production very much if not decreasing overall production.

Again, I will reiterate that the United States is a massive plot of land that was grabbed by a small group of people. Over the last 200 years the population of this country has been growing to fill this area and this land can support quite a few more people. The biggest concern is countries like Malaysia or India that have massive population in a relatively small area, they will bear the brunt of this problem and it is for this reason that any arguement relying on the United States as an example is moot when applied to these countries.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Durandal7
Getting back to the original topic; not only will we eventually just plain run out of land to grow food but agriculture is a classic example of the law of diminishing returns. We can only coax a limited amount of food out of a limited amount of land. We could pour all of our resources into agriculture but odds are that we will not increase production very much if not decreasing overall production.

Until suddenly deserts, swamplands, or forests are arable. Hey, the deserts already bloom in Israel. And if you run out of room entirely, it'll become feasible to cultivate food indoors like cannabis. Not as economical, but when you have to choose between starvation and cultivating food indoors, you cultivate food indoors.

Originally posted by Durandal7
Again, I will reiterate that the United States is a massive plot of land that was grabbed by a small group of people. Over the last 200 years the population of this country has been growing to fill this area and this land can support quite a few more people. The biggest concern is countries like Malaysia or India that have massive population in a relatively small area, they will bear the brunt of this problem and it is for this reason that any arguement relying on the United States as an example is moot when applied to these countries.

A country like Malaysia or India doesn't have to grow their own food. It's called trade. It's called building laptop hinges and trading them to the US for food. *Any* economic production is as good as food as long as you have trade.

[tristan]

Originally posted by Durandal7
Getting back to the original topic; not only will we eventually just plain run out of land to grow food but agriculture is a classic example of the law of diminishing returns.

Why do you believe this to be the case? Do you have real evidence that the growth rate of food production is declining? Everything I've ever read says that food production is increasing faster than population growth, and the only reason that people are starving is due to political conditions. (War, instability, oppressive governments, etc.)

I think you should check your facts. I understand that you believe in scarcity, that you think it is obvious that resources are limited, and that human waste and abundance will squander the planet's resources. But the facts just don't support this point of view. Food production is outpacing population growth and has been since agriculture was invented. (Indeed, that's why agriculture was invented in the first place.)

Show me *one* natural resource that's less available than it was in the 70s. Just one. You can't do it, can you? Yet somehow you believe that in the future, we're going to run out of everything, not be able to provide any substitutes, and we'll all starve. That's a pretty dismal view of the world - why would you subscribe to this point of view when you have so much evidence to the contrary?

A natural resource-based view of the world is also the wrong way to look at things. Yes, the wealthiest country in the world, the USA, has a lot of natural resources, including a lot of arable land and huge oil reserves. But look at the second wealthiest country in the world - Japan. They don't have a lot of farmland and they don't have a *drop* of oil. But what they do have is 100+ million of some of the smartest, hardworking, disciplined people on the planet. And that's why they're wealthy. While in a country like North Korea, which has as many resources as its neighbor to the south, people starve.

Try looking at the world through the prism of human resources, rather than natural resources. Think of each new child born, not as another mouth to feed, but as someone who, if given the right opportunities in life, may grow up to cure cancer, or design efficient solar panels, or write great novels, or colonize other worlds. Then you'll see our survival as a species has very little to do with land and food, and a lot more to do with the continued development of human potential.

[yamabushi]

It is also interesting to note that over the years we have required an increasingly smaller percentage of our population to produce food. That enables society to have excess labor that can be put to other uses, such as making computers, airplanes, movies, or music.

[Inu]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Until suddenly deserts, swamplands, or forests are arable. Hey, the deserts already bloom in Israel. And if you run out of room entirely, it'll become feasible to cultivate food indoors like cannabis. Not as economical, but when you have to choose between starvation and cultivating food indoors, you cultivate food indoors.


You repeated the "The deserts already bloom in Israel" often enough now. They dont. What blooms in Israel are Plots of Land that get watered heavily. As a matter of fact, Water isnt infinte, unless you want to put energy into de-salting (given there is a sea to de-salt nearby).
To back that up, you might have heard of the biggest Sea in the wold somewhere in Russia. Well. Its drying out and saltening up fast. Thats what happens if we infinitly increase agriculture.

As for Indoor Growing: There will be used quite a lot of power, wich isnt infinte. And it certainly isnt cheap. Nor is it very competive. So it might seem to be a good idea to chop down the rain forests, sell the wood and then grow food for the few years the soil can make it (4 or 5 i heard, then you got desert). I believe there was a good reason not to do that, wasnt there? But if you up the world population into a bulging 200 billion, there wouldnt be a place for rainforests...
Better start thinking of Oxygen plants...

Another nice thing: every portion of meat you eat might have nourished 10 People if you ate soy-goo instead. Great idea. I am looking forward to eating soy-goo 355 days a year.

Everyone who cant see the thousands of very easy to spot problems must have played too many X3 games or maybe civilsation (you do have that on macs, dont you?)

[yamabushi]

I love soy-goo. Miso ramen is my favorite.:D

[jayscheuerle]

... is that humans constantly go about with the arrogance of action and simplicity of mind of a first-year college student, overconfident and under-experienced, yet steadfast in our beliefs, only years later realizing our folly.

History is filled with eras defined by cultures that saw themselves as the pinnacle of civilization and understanding of the world, often believing that everything worth knowing was known at that point. It's easy to snicker at that hubris from a point decades or centuries past (as our children's children will do at us), but the 20th Century has seen so much technological change that we've taken our delusions one step further, we believe that our genius can overcome any obstacle yet to come and are putting all our eggs in the basket of "future" salvation.

Instead of crying "The future is doomed!" or heralding "The future is glorious!", we should be comfortable with the statement "We don't know what the future will bring". It's the only statement that isn't a guess, the only one with the honesty, integrity, maturity and wisdom of a species that knows itself. Perhaps that's why we're so uncomfortable with it. Better to err on the side of caution than to proceed with recklessness that we leave our children to clean up. That's not to say that we abandon progress, but to realize that we learn from our mistakes and that traditionally, much learning lies ahead.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Inu
Better start thinking of Oxygen plants...


The way this thread is going, I'm betting that a handful of people see this as a viable solution, with nary a blink...

:rolleyes:

[D0ct0rteeth]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
...I know what I'm going up against. And I have read rather extensively. I've never read anything that has refuted any of my points.

The absolute best book on the subject is "The Population Bomb" by Paul R. Ehrlich and it clearly blows your theory out of the water.. Although he is a little over the top and excessivley pessimistic the two of you contrast each other perfectly and the truth lies squarely in the middle. It is a quick read and I also suggest that you should read his newest book "Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect" which just kicks so much ass it fries your brain...

Check it bro.. Good stuff.. I would love to hear your response.

- Doc

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Inu
As for Indoor Growing: There will be used quite a lot of power, wich isnt infinte. And it certainly isnt cheap. Nor is it very competive.

Nah, let's just starve instead :rolleyes:

It will be perfectly economical if there's no other alternative.

Originally posted by Inu
Another nice thing: every portion of meat you eat might have nourished 10 People if you ate soy-goo instead. Great idea. I am looking forward to eating soy-goo 355 days a year.

Thanks for your point: We have an immense surplus of food already even if it's grown inefficiently.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I've never read anything that has refuted any of my points.

In order to refute something, it has to be tested. So you're safe for now, probably forever. The same can be said for the viewpoints which you oppose. You've contradicted, but never refuted anything. What we have here is a battle of the guesses and having the steadfast, indignant arrogance of a Howard Roarke will not make you any more correct.

Seeing as this discussion has turned your watertight theory into a colander, I'm assuming you have yet to read anything other than your own posts or are so close-minded that you aren't seeing the validity of these opposing arguments. If you want to learn something, and I mean really learn, read only that which contradicts your beliefs and read them with an open mind, not chanting "They're wrong, they're wrong, they're wrong, etc." in the back of your mind as the words fly by. It will help you make your views more airtight, so you will be ready when you launch them into the general public instead of just around your like-minded circle of friends.

Thinking is great. Why, I thought something just last month, but if you don't read as well, you won't know if someone has already gone down the path which you believe you've created on your own. It's far better to face the roadblocks and contradictions that have already been established before you devote so much time to your theory that it becomes personal. By caring less, you open up to learning more.

All in all, it must be immensely satisfying to generate this much response to your posits.

[tristan]

Originally posted by D0ct0rteeth
The absolute best book on the subject is "The Population Bomb" by Paul R. Ehrlich and it clearly blows your theory out of the water..

Check it bro.. Good stuff.. I would love to hear your response.

- Doc

From that book:

"a minimum of ten million people, most of them children, will starve to death during each year of the 1970s. But this is a mere handful compared to the numbers that will be starving before the end of the century"

Paul Ehrlich's models were based on food propuction declining. In fact, it grew faster than population. Less people starved to death in the 20th century than in the 19th, and those that did so were largely the victims of incompetent political regimes.

Don't forget that Ehrlish wasn't just a writer. He was actively promoting solutions such as tax subsidies for vasectomies, taxes on cribs, and end to overseas food aid. He even argued for forced sterilization of Indian men with more than three children. All this was because his models showed that the US could only support a population of 150 million. Guess what? It's 280 million today, and I'm not starving - I'm trying to lose weight. He also said that the city of London wouldn't even exist in the year 2000.

Paul Ehrlich was completely wrong, and if we had listened to him, it would have been a disaster. Instead of continuing to defend him when he's been wrongso off base for thirty four years, why don't you investigate *why* he was wrong, and adjust your world view accordingly?

[D0ct0rteeth]

Originally posted by tristan
From that book:

"a minimum of ten million people, most of them children, will starve to death during each year of the 1970s. But this is a mere handful compared to the numbers that will be starving before the end of the century"

Paul Ehrlich's models were based on food propuction declining. In fact, it grew faster than population. Less people starved to death in the 20th century than in the 19th, and those that did so were largely the victims of incompetent political regimes.

Don't forget that Ehrlish wasn't just a writer. He was actively promoting solutions such as tax subsidies for vasectomies, taxes on cribs, and end to overseas food aid. He even argued for forced sterilization of Indian men with more than three children. All this was because his models showed that the US could only support a population of 150 million. Guess what? It's 280 million today, and I'm not starving - I'm trying to lose weight. He also said that the city of London wouldn't even exist in the year 2000.

Paul Ehrlich was completely wrong, and if we had listened to him, it would have been a disaster. Instead of continuing to defend him when he's been wrongso off base for thirty four years, why don't you investigate *why* he was wrong, and adjust your world view accordingly?

Thanks for quoting only half my post, and failing to read the part in which I said he was wrong :) My point was that he had some interesting views and that in order to have an educated debate, Phil should read someone with the exact opposite opinion. I also pointed out that the book is very old, and that he has modern works that may interest readers of this thread.. But again.. I repeat myself...

- Doc

[tristan]

Industrial Countries
Cereal production vs Population Growth
Growth percentages
1960-70 30.8 11.0
1970-80 17.1 8.4
1980-90 9.5 6.1

Developing Countries
Cereal production vs Population Growth
Growth percentages
1960-70 42.9 27.7
1970-80 46.6 25.0
1980-90 26.8 23.3

This is from the UN and USDA. Notice that population growth is declining, and that food production continues to outpace it, and that developing countries are actually outpacing industrialized countries.

Keep in mind, Paul Ehrlich in the late 60s predicted exponential, increasing gains in population growth, and *decreases* in food production. He was completely wrong on both counts.

[tristan]

Originally posted by D0ct0rteeth
Thanks for quoting only half my post, and failing to read the part in which I said he was wrong :) My point was that he had some interesting views and that in order to have an educated debate, Phil should read someone with the exact opposite opinion. I also pointed out that the book is very old, and that he has modern works that may interest readers of this thread.. But again.. I repeat myself...

- Doc

Actually you didn't say he was wrong, just overly pessimistic. And you didn't say why he was wrong, and why you still believe him now, in the face of so much contradictory evidence.

But I do think its good to read opposing viewpoints, so I hope my post makes it clear that I am familiar with him and his ideas, and have rejected them based on a faulty model.

[jelloshotsrule]

i read the first two pages almost entirely. will read the rest later...

interesting debate. a couple thoughts

1. i have faith in god, not humans... humans are stupid and time and time again we've seen that they are not afraid to kill their own, especially if it makes them some cold hard cash. the time will come (in my belief) that the world as we know it will end, and that's ok. but to claim that the ingenuity of humans alone will carry us through infinitely is a damn joke

2. the same technology that allows us to grow more food (actually, too much food, to the point where we destroy a huge amount of it, or pay farmers NOT to grow)... those pesticides, herbicides, etc... they're also killing us. slowly but surely. atrazine. alachlor... these are getting into the air. the water. our food. cancer is rampant. until us amazing humans can get our heads out of our asses and stop trying to put a monetary equivalent on life/health, we'll continue just killing ourselves

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Seeing as this discussion has turned your watertight theory into a colander, I'm assuming you have yet to read anything other than your own posts or are so close-minded that you aren't seeing the validity of these opposing arguments.

One cannot see what doesn't exist. Right now, no one has yet even come up with an argument that I couldn't even address, much less refute. Perhaps one point--that it is not yet economical to turn vast areas of desert into arable land--but this is a very minor part of my argument. In the meantime, you keep repeating completely worthless arguments--claiming that it's not economic to grow food indoors, when in fact, it would be if we actually ran out of arable land, and it would be a lot more economical than starvation, for one.

Name one argument that refutes my theory. I will show you for yet another time that it does not.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
If you want to learn something, and I mean really learn, read only that which contradicts your beliefs and read them with an open mind, not chanting "They're wrong, they're wrong, they're wrong, etc." in the back of your mind as the words fly by. It will help you make your views more airtight, so you will be ready when you launch them into the general public instead of just around your like-minded circle of friends.

You may be surprised to discover that this is exactly what I have done several times. But many more times I have read something and been able to almost effortlessly dissemble the argument in my mind as I was reading. Believing everything you read in a book is folly.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
In the meantime, you keep repeating completely worthless arguments--claiming that it's not economic to grow food indoors, when in fact, it would be if we actually ran out of arable land, and it would be a lot more economical than starvation, for one.


Exactly why is it more economical to grow food indoors than to let people starve? Why isn't it more economical to send food to India or Africa than to let those people starve? Distribution? Why isn't more economical to solve our distribution problems than to let people starve?

You may be surprised to discover that this is exactly what I have done several times.

Yes I am! But I only have to go on what you've written!

You're counting not only on a utopia for your plans to work, but they're also revolving around nonexistent technology. We might as well insist that in the future nanobots will reassemble dirt molecules into cheeseburgers. A thesis based on fantasy is no thesis at all. It's barely good sci-fi. Don't count on a Hugo.

[jayscheuerle]

I think that our entire food and habitat problem can be solved by genetically shrinking the size of the average human down to 1/6 scale, roughly the size of a badger. No doubt technology will make this feasible in the foreseeable future. As our sugar-addled youth continue to rot their brains on Vanilla Coke, we will no doubt evolve into a species that can survive on sucrose alone. Sugar is a white crystal. So is salt. Obviously those similarities entail a one to one conversion that future science will be able to handle. Since the oceans are full of salt-water, we will have a never-ending source of nutrients. In this future era of voice commands, robotic arms and Segways, we will find it beneficial to genetically engineer our bodies not to grow limbs as they require too many calories to maintain. At roughly the size of a loaf of Wonder bread, we would now be able to fit the entire population of Earth into an area the size of Delaware! We could be fed by a sucrose drip and our combined body heat could be used to power turbines, almost as though we were batteries... We could sleep out our existence hooked up to virtual reality in goo-filled nutrient pods as the machines that keep us alive TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!

BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!!!!!!!

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by tristan
Industrial Countries
Cereal production vs Population Growth
Growth percentages
1960-70 30.8 11.0
1970-80 17.1 8.4
1980-90 9.5 6.1

Developing Countries
Cereal production vs Population Growth
Growth percentages
1960-70 42.9 27.7
1970-80 46.6 25.0
1980-90 26.8 23.3

This is from the UN and USDA. Notice that population growth is declining, and that food production continues to outpace it, and that developing countries are actually outpacing industrialized countries.

Keep in mind, Paul Ehrlich in the late 60s predicted exponential, increasing gains in population growth, and *decreases* in food production. He was completely wrong on both counts.

A link to the source would be helpful. Also, if I'm reading that correctly (kinda tough with the spacing all messed up) cereal production is dropping off much faster than population growth and looks like it could be outpaced in the next census or two.

How does that prove your point?

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
I think that our entire food and habitat problem can be solved by genetically shrinking the size of the average human down to 1/6 scale, roughly the size of a badger. No doubt technology will make this feasible in the foreseeable future. As our sugar-addled youth continue to rot their brains on Vanilla Coke, we will no doubt evolve into a species that can survive on sucrose alone. Sugar is a white crystal. So is salt. Obviously those similarities entail a one to one conversion that future science will be able to handle. Since the oceans are full of salt-water, we will have a never-ending source of nutrients. In this future era of voice commands, robotic arms and Segways, we will find it beneficial to genetically engineer our bodies not to grow limbs as they require too many calories to maintain. At roughly the size of a loaf of Wonder bread, we would now be able to fit the entire population of Earth into an area the size of Delaware! We could be fed by a sucrose drip and our combined body heat could be used to power turbines, almost as though we were batteries... We could sleep out our existence hooked up to virtual reality in goo-filled nutrient pods as the machines that keep us alive TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!

BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!!!!!!!

alex? alex_ant? is that you? :)

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Exactly why is it more economical to grow food indoors than to let people starve? Why isn't it more economical to send food to India or Africa than to let those people starve? Distribution? Why isn't more economical to solve our distribution problems than to let people starve?

Distribution problems are often political instead of economic.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
You're counting not only on a utopia for your plans to work,

No. I am saying that overpopulation would not exist given a number of favorable political conditions. If those favorable political conditions do not exist, however, the problem is the political conditions, not the population. I am saying that overpopulation doesn't *necessarily* occur.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
but they're also revolving around nonexistent technology. We might as well insist that in the future nanobots will reassemble dirt molecules into cheeseburgers. A thesis based on fantasy is no thesis at all. It's barely good sci-fi. Don't count on a Hugo.

These are only possibilities. What you are arguing is that, despite the fact that we are human beings, we will at some future point stop inventing new technology to make agriculture more productive. All of a sudden we'll just stick to 21st century farming techniques. No more innovation. Considering all human history, exactly how probable is that!?

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
What you are arguing is that, despite the fact that we are human beings, we will at some future point stop inventing new technology to make agriculture more productive. All of a sudden we'll just stick to 21st century farming techniques. No more innovation. Considering all human history, exactly how probable is that!?

What I'm arguing is the law of diminishing returns. As we get closer and closer to perfecting techniques, the less we will get out of them. A circle can only get so round and pi to the billionth place is of little more use than pi to the millionth place. Sometimes you just nail the formula and that closes the book. I'm not saying that we've done that with agriculture, but to expect that we will continue to have huge gains is reckless.

[Phil Of Mac]

So you think there is some sort of final, absolutely perfect agricultural technology that we're working towards, and that we can't increase productivity infinitely over time? Eventually we will reach the efficiency level of direct matter conversion, and we'll be using the maximum amount of arable land available on Earth (or, heck, if we're growing indoors, then we'll have all the large growing structures that the planet will support?)

If there is such a point, then once we reach the point, food prices will stay high enough that the rate of population growth will fall to ZPG. Even if some people irrationally choose to have children they can't support, they will probably not be the norm unless we have severe social problems. And even more people will have no children at all. We'll average out to ZPG or maybe even population loss. In fact, the US and Europe are already near ZPG, so it's not inconceivable that Earth will naturally reach ZPG before we reach that point.

And, we could very well have advanced spaceflight by then, at which case we'll find a whole 'nother planet.

[tristan]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
What I'm arguing is the law of diminishing returns.
<snip>
I'm not saying that we've done that with agriculture, but to expect that we will continue to have huge gains is reckless.

We don't need to continue to have huge gains. We just need agricultural production to keep pace with population growth. Given that population growth is declining, that means we don't need any more huge gains.

Your "law of diminishing returns" isn't a law. it's just a mental heuristic you have that happens to be applicable to some problems and not others.

Maybe you should have gone to Seagate after they made the first gig hard drive and told them "gee that's amazing... but due to the law of diminishing returns, you'll never get it up to two gigs. That's just impossible." :-)

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by tristan
Maybe you should have gone to Seagate after they made the first gig hard drive and told them "gee that's amazing... but due to the law of diminishing returns, you'll never get it up to two gigs. That's just impossible." :-)

Actually, several times now, Moore's Law itself has been about to fall victim to the diminishing returns, but there was always a breakthrough in time to make it hold true for even longer.

[tristan]

You can get plenty of UN food and agricultural statistics here. Notice the chart where per capita calorie consumption has steadily risen since 1963. (Notice that's per capita - more food available *per person*.)

http://www.fao.org/es/ess/chartroom/fbs.asp

I hope this shows that the naysayers in the 70s who predicted mass famines are completely wrong, and the only way that we could ever run out of food in the future is if these population and production trends dramatically changed - and there's no sign of this happening other than some guy a few posts up saying "it has to happen! it's the law of diminishing returns!"

[Ugg]

Originally posted by tristan
You can get plenty of UN food and agricultural statistics here. Notice the chart where per capita calorie consumption has steadily risen since 1963. (Notice that's per capita - more food available *per person*.)

http://www.fao.org/es/ess/chartroom/fbs.asp

I hope this shows that the naysayers in the 70s who predicted mass famines are completely wrong, and the only way that we could ever run out of food in the future is if these population and production trends dramatically changed - and there's no sign of this happening other than some guy a few posts up saying "it has to happen! it's the law of diminishing returns!"

The Ukraine this year had 25% of its normal grain harvest. The EU had about 60%. This can be attributed to global warming. Whether it is human-caused or not is irrelevant. Our current food production system is based upon a huge infrastructure that is little changed over the past century. The Massif Central of France, the Ukraine, the North American Great Plains are all "breadbaskets". Should the weather change substantially and these areas lose a percentage of the rainfall they currently receive, grain growers would have to continue to move north or at least to areas of greater rainfall. North America could probably do this, Europe would have a much more difficult time doing this due to the population density.

The misbegotten idea that the earth is a static phenomenon leads us to believe that what we do today will be done more or less the same way tomorrow. Sure we can grow plants under glass, how the hell are we going to grow grain crops under glass? We would have to cover millions and millions of acres in order to do this, even with the increased efficiency food would become quickly unaffordable.

Israel has made the desert bloom and the Dead Sea has sunk dramatically over the past 40 years and the eastern shores of the Med are heavily polluted from all the runoff from Israel's farms. The soil in many parts of Israel is so laden with salt from drip irrigation techniques that many plants won't grow there anymore.

Much of the world's protein comes from fish. Fish stocks are declining or in danger of extinction the world over due to overfishing and pollution.

There was a huge conference in Japan about a month ago about water around the globe. The BBC did a big feature on it (it was ignored by the US press). Many of the people in the world have insufficient water to drink much less to keep clean or grow food. Water continues to be polluted at rates that makes it impossible to be cleaned at a reasonable cost.

The idea that this globe can support twice as many as it does now is ludicrous. The environment is being degraded far faster than it can fix itself. Unless we want to live under a bubble we had better start slowing the population of homo sapiens but also our rate of consumption. There is a law of diminishing returns and just because we don't know and can't prove teh final end doesn't mean we shouldn't preserve what little we have left.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Ugg
The Ukraine this year had 25% of its normal grain harvest. The EU had about 60%. This can be attributed to global warming. Whether it is human-caused or not is irrelevant. Our current food production system is based upon a huge infrastructure that is little changed over the past century. The Massif Central of France, the Ukraine, the North American Great Plains are all "breadbaskets". Should the weather change substantially and these areas lose a percentage of the rainfall they currently receive, grain growers would have to continue to move north or at least to areas of greater rainfall. North America could probably do this, Europe would have a much more difficult time doing this due to the population density.

The human race has never had to adapt to unforeseen circumstances before. It'll be a disaster and we'll all die :rolleyes:

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Ugg
Sure we can grow plants under glass, how the hell are we going to grow grain crops under glass? We would have to cover millions and millions of acres in order to do this, even with the increased efficiency food would become quickly unaffordable.

Rice is a grain crop, isn't it? Rice is grown and cultivated in flooded rice valleys, which global warming will make *much* more prevalent.

[Rower_CPU]

tristan-

I'd still like to see the source for your earlier cereal production stats.

Also, in browsing around the stats pages on the Un I came across this:
http://esa.un.org/unpp/

Select 'Population' under variables, 'World' under country/region and 'constant fertility' for the variant and end year 2050 then click display. Does that number look familiar?

Phil-

The human race's power to negatively impact the planet is far outpacing our ability to understand the ramifications of that power. All the adaptation in the world won't help you if you've painted yourself into a corner.