Overpopulation

Denerick

<Alarmist post coming up, please have your seatbelts tightened>

By 2050 the world will have 11 billion people.

In 1950 the world had 3 billion.

Unless something is done the world and its environment will change forever, irrepairably.

In a strictly cold, Malthusian sense, we in the west are responsible for this overpopulation. Without charitable food donations and other altruistic acts, the poverty stricken world would achieve a natural balance - ie, only have as many children as they are able to provide for. The cold reality is that normally when famine or hardship occurs, in any scenario were outside interference does not take place, around half of the population in any given area dies off or emigrates.

It is an almost universal historical truth; time periods of massive loss of human life from natural causes - such as the Black Death, the Irish Famine etc. - is followed by profound economic and social change for the better on the survivors due to the increased value of labour, extra farmland, and generally having more disposable income and material goods which makes life more prosperous. This self perpetuates economic development and growth, and a more sustainable population pyramid.

One of the largest causes of poverty is having too large a family. Don't listen to the timeworn argument that people in developing countries have large families so as to see them through their old age - this is a falsity. The average life expectancy is too low for this to be justified and it is economically irrational to bring in more and more economic burdens to a household to justify a marginally effective social security policy for old age.

As I see it, the world has two real choices for bringing overpopulation to an end, and both choices require active interference by western powers (Who have the economical and infrastructural nous to do it effectively) Essentially the two choices are 1) Withdraw all aid, unconditionally, so as to allow the natural equilibrium of the developing world to emerge or 2) Massive investment in infrastructure, birth control and education, along with a consistent insistence (With the necessary coercion from international powers, where necessary) on a government policy aimed at producing small families (Such as the 2.3 children model) to maintain the global population at a sustainable level.

In my opinion, controlling the worlds population is a problem that coincides with international action on climate change - it will inspire lip service but very little actual action. But the second option I mention is without doubt the more humane.

994

Denerick wrote: »

In a strictly cold, Malthusian sense, we in the west are responsible for this overpopulation. Without charitable food donations and other altruistic acts, the poverty stricken world would achieve a natural balance - ie, only have as many children as they are able to provide for.

And if we didn't have those nations providing us with cheap food and raw materials, we wouldn't have achieved such a high level of prosperity.

The cold reality is that normally when famine or hardship occurs, in any scenario were outside interference does not take place, around half of the population in any given area dies off or emigrates.

One of the largest causes of poverty is having too large a family.

And one of the largest causes of large families is poverty.

Don't listen to the timeworn argument that people in developing countries have large families so as to see them through their old age - this is a falsity. The average life expectancy is too low for this to be justified and it is economically irrational to bring in more and more economic burdens to a household to justify a marginally effective social security policy for old age.

In poor societies, women are married off young and can give birth for maybe 25 years after marriage. And children can be an economic boon to a family in areas where child labour is common.

As I see it, the world has two real choices for bringing overpopulation to an end, and both choices require active interference by western powers (Who have the economical and infrastructural nous to do it effectively) Essentially the two choices are 1) Withdraw all aid, unconditionally, so as to allow the natural equilibrium of the developing world to emerge

Perhaps they should withdraw all exports so that we're forced to get by on our own resources and labour?



I don't see overpopulation as a problem. The world's farmland is still underutilised, and better technology will lead to more societies being "modernised", i.e. women delaying marriage to gain education and careers, widespread contraceptive use, etc. meaning that the birthrate will fall

Turtwig

I don't really get this concern.
Most western societies population growth rates are flattening out. Africa is by far the continent with the largest growth rate. Sadly for them it means increased competition for even scarcer resources on their own continent. Maybe the West will provide them with increased aid, I dunno, but the prospects aren't all that good.

Macha

Denerick wrote: »

In a strictly cold, Malthusian sense, we in the west are responsible for this overpopulation. Without charitable food donations and other altruistic acts, the poverty stricken world would achieve a natural balance - ie, only have as many children as they are able to provide for. The cold reality is that normally when famine or hardship occurs, in any scenario were outside interference does not take place, around half of the population in any given area dies off or emigrates.

It is an almost universal historical truth; time periods of massive loss of human life from natural causes - such as the Black Death, the Irish Famine etc. - is followed by profound economic and social change for the better on the survivors due to the increased value of labour, extra farmland, and generally having more disposable income and material goods which makes life more prosperous. This self perpetuates economic development and growth, and a more sustainable population pyramid.

Well then please explain to me why Ethiopia is not the most economically developed nation on earth. Over one million people died there in the famine of '84/'85 - is this not enough people according to your theory?

And I think it's a bit much for a wealthy western individual, particularly one from a country like Ireland that has received billions in structural aid from outside, to be talking about allowing things take their natural course. It seems to just be another way of justifying our wealth and washing our hands of helping anyone worse off (while still happy to receive any help from our European partners - all financial assistance much appreciated).

Denerick wrote: »

One of the largest causes of poverty is having too large a family. Don't listen to the timeworn argument that people in developing countries have large families so as to see them through their old age - this is a falsity. The average life expectancy is too low for this to be justified and it is economically irrational to bring in more and more economic burdens to a household to justify a marginally effective social security policy for old age.

Actually one of the largest factors in having large families is low education levels among women and social structures that force them out of employment, into the home, and take away contraceptive options.

Denerick wrote: »

As I see it, the world has two real choices for bringing overpopulation to an end,

The thing is, you still haven't identified what the exact problem with "overpopulation" (as you define it) is.

Denerick wrote: »

and both choices require active interference by western powers (Who have the economical and infrastructural nous to do it effectively) Essentially the two choices are 1) Withdraw all aid, unconditionally, so as to allow the natural equilibrium of the developing world to emerge or 2) Massive investment in infrastructure, birth control and education, along with a consistent insistence (With the necessary coercion from international powers, where necessary) on a government policy aimed at producing small families (Such as the 2.3 children model) to maintain the global population at a sustainable level.

There you go again using the word "natural". What is natural about the fact Ireland effectively uses up more land area than it has?

Denerick wrote: »

In my opinion, controlling the worlds population is a problem that coincides with international action on climate change - it will inspire lip service but very little actual action. But the second option I mention is without doubt the more humane.

You think A is actually an option? It is selfish, barbaric and conveniently ignores the role that the West plays in keeping developing nations right where they are. And do you really think that the poor people of this world will just sit back as we tighten the noose? No. They will see us with our milk lakes and meat mountains and decide that they've had enough of being at the bottom of the pile and will want some of what we have.

Edit: I would also seriously question the benefits of a famine to a country. We are still dealing with the impacts of the Irish famine today. Just to give one example, the lack of population pressures that other countries experienced in the late 19th/early 20th century has led to a seriously low-density built environment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Well I did warn you all I was going to be alarmist

The reality is that the population explosion is one of the greatest dangers facing the planet at this moment in time. Yes, the world can sustain maybe as many as 20 billion people, but only at great cost to everyone and an immediate shouldering of the economic and social costs amongst those in the first world. The main problem is that we in the developed world use far more developed productive land per person than in the developing world (For example the U.S. leaves an ecological footprint of 9 hectares per person, whilst the average person from Sierra Leone uses up 0.8 hectares. We in Ireland use 8.2. This unsustainable practise will have catastrophic implications with the growth of the Asian economies and the inevitable increase in living standards in Africa - in short, we can't all have it so good. There simply isn't enough resources in the planet to sustain this kind of life.)

In places like Mexico city the demand for water is placing a huge burden on city administration. Just think of the damage this will cause in one of the worlds most rapidly growing urban centres - Lagos in Nigeria.

P.S- I agree with DonegalFella's analysis of third world aid. I have long felt the exact same way.

P.P.S- And neither am I alone in these worries. Check out this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

Macha

Denerick wrote: »

The main problem is that we in the developed world use far more developed productive land per person than in the developing world (For example the U.S. leaves an ecological footprint of 9 hectares per person, whilst the average person from Sierra Leone uses up 0.8 hectares. We in Ireland use 8.2. This unsustainable practise will have catastrophic implications with the growth of the Asian economies and the inevitable increase in living standards in Africa - in short, we can't all have it so good. There simply isn't enough resources in the planet to sustain this kind of life.)

If that is the case, surely it makes more sense to either:
a) reduce the ecological impact of those with the largest footprints
or
b) practice population control on those populations that have the largest per capita footprints

Denerick

taconnol wrote: »

If that is the case, surely it makes more sense to either:
a) reduce the ecological impact of those with the largest footprints
or
b) practice population control on those populations that have the largest per capita footprints

I'd agree with both, thats what I'm trying to say!

The reality is that the developed world needs to cut down on reckless consumption whilst also encouraging smaller families in the developing world. Some states in India have had amazing success with a more liberal alternative to the Chinese one child policy (India's policy emerges from individual states who encourage huge scale sex education and voluntary contraceptive injections etc.)

Macha

Hmm, you have a very alarmist way of putting your point across (although I can't say I wasn't warned).

aidan24326

Overpopulation WILL become a siginificant or even serious problem, probably within our lifetime and certainly within this century.

It is, in fact, a more urgent problem than the overhyped climate change issue. The world only has so much resources to go round. Much of the world's population already lives in hunger and poverty, increase the population and all you do is increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and most certainly increase the number of have-nots. To change that would require fundamental changes that we in the western world probably aren't prepared to make.

And btw, the all-loving and benevolent Roman Catholic Church are still spreading the word throughout the poorest countries in Africa and parts of Asia that contraception is a sin and is forbidden. Their legacy in these countries is unwanted pregnancies, more poverty, more starvation, more babies born into a life where they haven't got a hope. Cheers for that Benedict.

deadhead13

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of the 52 african countries considered to be 3rd world only 7 , from what I can make out, ever had communist governments. Afaik, none of which are still in power. Of the 3rd world counties of Asia only Loas, North Korea and Vietnam remain communist. I'm not so sure about Latin America, the only one I can think of is Cuba. Perhaps you are exaggerating for effect.

Denerick

deadhead13 wrote: »

Of the 52 african countries considered to be 3rd world only 7 , from what I can make out, ever had communist governments. Afaik, none of which are still in power. Of the 3rd world counties of Asia only Loas, North Korea and Vietnam remain communist. I'm not so sure about Latin America, the only one I can think of is Cuba. Perhaps you are exaggerating for effect.

Well considering the history of post colonial Africa is dominated by wars and civil wars and ethnic wars... It is clearly more than mere socialism to blame for Africa's woes. The biggest problem obviously being the contradiction that sovreign nation states are supposed to accomodate a myriad of different cultural groups under national boundaries drawn up by colonial powers..

But he does have a point. In just about any Civil war which Africa has seen, there has nearly always been an armed communist faction. I agree with him, even if his economics are a little too far to the right for me personally.

Eliot Rosewater

deadhead13 wrote: »

Of the 52 african countries considered to be 3rd world only 7 , from what I can make out, ever had communist governments.

The claim was that it was Marxist, socialist and communist governments in power in Africa, not just the last one.

Robert Mugabe is the classic example I suppose. In following Leftist equality/black power policy, he took the land off of the white farmers and gave it to natives. Enter stage left: economic collapse. Obviously the Mugabe story is an extreme example and should probably not be used as a basis for some economic analysis of the continent. However it does contain the essence of socialistic policy: idealism over pragmatism. That the blacks should own the land was the ideal. That the whites were the ones who could best use it would have been the reality.


Back to the topic at hand. I'm not all that well versed on the issue of over population. However my basic reasoning would show a tie between it and global warming. Presumably the more people in the world, the more carbon produced?

deadhead13

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The claim was that it was Marxist, socialist and communist governments in power in Africa, not just the last one.

Even if you were to add in the countries whose constitutions make reference to socialism, but do not subscribe to Marxism they would still, very much, make up the minority of 3rd world countries. I suspect the fact that the majority were once colonies is more relevant.

Denerick

deadhead13 wrote: »

Even if you were to add in the countries whose constitutions make reference to socialism, but do not subscribe to Marxism they would still, very much, make up the minority of 3rd world countries. I suspect the fact that the majority were once colonies is more relevant.

Well actually, I'm not convinced by the argument of 'colonial exploitation'. Most third world countries, at least superficially benefited from the colonial experience because they had developed infrastruture they otherwise would not have had. Such as railways and modern ports.* The Colonial problem comes in with the artificial state boundaries and the conflicts that naturally caused. The problem with Africa is that it has never had anything approaching an intellectual enlightenment of its own accord, it has no real centre of cultural or humanitarian thought, and it has languished way behind in the marketplace of ideas. It is a backwards, reactionary place, but that is only because of corrupt governments, conflicts and economic stupidity. Blaming colonialism is far to easy a response and it overlooks the complexity of historical causes which has led Africa to where it is.

None of this, however, has anything whatsoever to do with overpopulation.

*Many British investments, such as the ambition to build a railway going from the 'cape to Cairo' did nothing other than cause great expense to the taxpayer whilst bringing in virtually no revenue of its own. It was completely economically counter-productive, but the flipside is that colonised nations benefitted from having this advanced infrastructure in place. Alternative one can look at the French Empire in North Africa, which has left a massive economic legacy, and which cost the Imperial nation far more than it ever earned in 'exploitation'.

deadhead13

Thats a couple of examples from a whole continent. From what I understand, each colony was responsible for raising most of the revenue needed for the operations of colonial rule. Profits from the export of mineral and agriculture were sent back to Europe. So even in counties that were rich in natural resources the colonial government did not have the resources needed to provide basic infrastructure. What money they did have went primarily into maintaining law and order because people didn't take to kindly to having outside rule imposed on them without their consent. But, as you have said this is going way off topic.

Denerick

deadhead13 wrote: »

Thats a couple of examples from a whole continent. From what I understand, each colony was responsible for raising most of the revenue needed for the operations of colonial rule. Profits from the export of mineral and agriculture were sent back to Europe. So even in counties that were rich in natural resources the colonial government did not have the resources needed to provide basic infrastructure. What money they did have went primarily into maintaining law and order because people didn't take to kindly to having outside rule imposed on them without their consent. But, as you have said this is going way off topic.

Maybe a new topic discussing the ramifications of colonialism would be in order? I'm no apologist for that system, which was degrading to human dignity and natural order, but I do object to the knee jerk association of third world poverty with colonialism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joey the lips

You dont need to worry about it. The world will have reached peak capacity of oil, Supplies of fresh drinkng water will be scarce and food production will be at its lowest due to the oil crises.

A good old world war will have sorted us around 2020.

deadhead13

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, Freedom House's multi-coloured map hasn't changed my mind.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And why is Russia listed as not free ?
This seems less like a map of who is free and more like a map of America's friends.

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I cant believe that you actually think this represents anything. What does freedom consist in?

When you have "Poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature with roughly 13 to 17% living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some point within a 10 year time span." I wouldnt consider that a "free" country. Free to do what exactly?

Nor when you have schemes like the patriot act which is an institutionalised form of totalitarianism can the populace be simplisticly labelled as "free" as opposed to "partly free" or "not free". Comparing the states, to say, Sweden, and putting them in the same bracket is absolute madness.


This is what "Freedom House" measure when they measure freedom

Freedom House website wrote:

The survey measures political rights and civil liberties, or the opportunity for individuals to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and other centers of potential domination. As such, the survey is primarily concerned with freedom from restrictions or impositions on individuals' life pursuits.

While the survey considers restrictions on freedom imposed by governments, it does not measure government performance per se. Rather, it measures the wider state of freedom in a country or territory, reflecting both governmental and non-governmental constraints.

Similarly, the survey does not explicitly measure democracy or democratic performance. Rather, it measures rights and freedoms integral to democratic institutions.

Hence they measure negative freedom, or freedom from something. Being free from government interference in the growth of food is not the same as being able to feed yourself. Being free from government taxation is not the same as having money to afford private healthcare. Negative freedom is entirely meaningless unless it corellates with being free (having the material ability) to do something.
-> Their entire project is fundamentally flawed.

Edit: They have Saudi Arabia listed as being freer than Cuba... You must be joking

Denerick

Nor when you have schemes like the patriot act which is an institutionalised form of totalitarianism can the populace be simplisticly labelled as "free" as opposed to "partly free" or "not free". Comparing the states, to say, Sweden, and putting them in the same bracket is absolute madness.

Less of the fashionable anti Americanism, please. Personal liberty is extremely healthy in the US, Patriot act or not. The ACLU prosecutes things as small as students not being allowed to wear a political tee shirt to school to scandals as big as state governers engaging in underminding the constitution. Individuals have the right to establish their own business (The US is the home of the small to medium sized family owned business, it contributes more to GDP than mega corporations) Individuals have the freedom to say what they want, worship what they want and protest what they want. Comparing Sweden to this is absolute madness. There is no other country in the world that has a more rugged and self sufficient brand of liberty, anywhere.

Joycey

Denerick wrote: »

Less of the fashionable anti Americanism, please.

Yeah im doing it because its fashionable :rolleyes:. The Brits are nearly as bad. Im living in England at the moment, and police come round at any demonstration and take pictures of protesters. They build big portfolios and sometimes people who just happened to get photographed at multiple demonstrations get their names put on those lists of people to be stopped any time they are spotted driving, like those who are uninsured or who are wanted for burgulary. Its not a joke. Actively harrassing the most politically involved part of your populace is about the dumbest thing you could do as a leader, unless that is you care less about living in a good society than maintaining current power structures.

If you get certain books out of the library in the States you are from then on watched. And when they were voting for it in the first place, media outlets like Fox news would come out and ask politicians who were going to vote for it "are you really voting against... the patriot act? You mean to say you arent.... patriotic?".

Such occurences are just as powerfully anti-democratic and anti-free speech as are active clampdowns by government, where you arent allowed to say something or its punishable by law. The fact that the media establishment is so powerful, and so powerfully to the right, means that even an out and out centrist like Obama isnt able to reform after Bush without being attacked for being "socialist". I ask you

Personal liberty is extremely healthy in the US, Patriot act or not. The ACLU prosecutes things as small as students not being allowed to wear a political tee shirt to school to scandals as big as state governers engaging in underminding the constitution.

I would rather not be allowed to wear sandals to school than to have a 40% chance of being below the poverty line if I have a single black parent. http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/pov/new03_100_06.htm

And thats not comparing apples and oranges. Freedom to access third level education (in the sense of actually being able to do it rather than being actively prevented from doing it) is far more important than the really insignificant indicators of wellbeing you listed above. You really think they are things which will affect the quality of your life? Seriously? Im not saying they arent good, but you completely miss the point of what it is to be free if you focus on such things.

Individuals have the right to establish their own business (The US is the home of the small to medium sized family owned business, it contributes more to GDP than mega corporations)

Again, not really an option for the 15% or so who will be below the poverty level at any given time. Presumably if they had the initial capital which would allow them to actually excersise this freedom, rather than it just being an abstract possibility with no hope of realisation, then they wouldnt be below the poverty line.

What if we were to say, "OK the 15% of the population who are Muslims are hereby not allowed to set up a business unless they can manage to raise their income bracket to 200% of what it currently is", which is effectively the situation for those in poverty in America at the moment. There would be uproar, and rightly so. However at the moment you think this situation is perfectly in alignment with the most free society in the world...

Individuals have the freedom to say what they want, worship what they want and protest what they want.

They most certainly do not. I would imagine police in the states are at least as bad as British, and most likely much worse. At the moment you cant go within 100metres of parliament in England, or something along those lines. You will get arrested for demonstrating outside of a workplace. Police attack protesters with riot shields and battons at otherwise peaceful demonstrations about the environment for gods sake. Can you imagine what would happen if there was actually a mass movement which tried to seriously undermine the dominant power holders of society?

Comparing Sweden to this is absolute madness. There is no other country in the world which presents itself as having a more rugged and self sufficient brand of liberty with such a degree of hypocrisy, anywhere.

Sweden has a decent welfare system, universal healthcare, universal free decent education (i think up to third level), provides free after school care for kids, gives government protected equal parental leave etc. The richest man in Sweden actually pays his taxes. That says something to me about the society they live in (but the weather is sh1t )

dsmythy

Joey the lips wrote: »

You dont need to worry about it. The world will have reached peak capacity of oil, Supplies of fresh drinkng water will be scarce and food production will be at its lowest due to the oil crises.

A good old world war will have sorted us around 2020.

Between us, Mother Nature and Man always find a way to reduce populations and it's never pretty. War for oil will seem like childsplay when compared to war for water.

PopUp

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't really get this concern.
Most western societies population growth rates are flattening out. Africa is by far the continent with the largest growth rate. Sadly for them it means increased competition for even scarcer resources on their own continent. Maybe the West will provide them with increased aid, I dunno, but the prospects aren't all that good.

Happily a lot of this doom and gloom about Africa's prospects is increasingly out of date.

Failed states like Darfur and Somalia may dominate headlines, but Africa is a massive continent and the vast majority of it is not famine-ridden or war-torn. Kenya, Botswana, Ghana would all be examples of African countries where the birth rate is plummeting and the middle class is ballooning.

The Economist had an excellent set of articles on this a couple of months ago. Sadly, it's subscription-only, but if anyone is interested at all in overpopulation I would highly recommend it. (They also had some good stuff in Oct/Nov about the gradually increasing birth rate in wealthy First World countries - we are creeping back up to replacement-level birthrates, which is good news for our retirement!)

Basically, most of Africa is about to enter into the demographic sweet spot - a situation where they have a very small dependent elderly population (because of previous decades' health problems), a massive working adult population (because of present-day health improvements), and a small dependent child population (because of present-day access to contraception and education). Most of the western world hit this sweet spot slowly over the course of the nineteenth century. It means a massive population to man factories, enter universities, contruct new buildings and then buy them, live in them, and shop in them. It's economically transforming.

Africa only has a few decades with these optimum conditions for growth. But it's perfectly possibly to transform quickly. South Korea did it in twenty years.

Seriously, read the article. Overpopulation solves itself if you give people (especially women) access to basic health care and education. It solved itself in Europe. It solved itself in South Korea and Japan. It's solving itself in India. And it will solve itself in Africa.

It's far from perfect of course and if you look at India you see how a country can both start to lead the world in university graduates and yet still have millions of people living in abject poverty. But it's still early enough days in India and Africa and all the signs suggest there's every reason to be optimistic.

Joey the lips

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't really get this concern.
Most western societies population growth rates are flattening out. Africa is by far the continent with the largest growth rate. Sadly for them it means increased competition for even scarcer resources on their own continent. Maybe the West will provide them with increased aid, I dunno, but the prospects aren't all that good.

Malty your understanding is against the un logic on population growth. The world is fast running out of Cheap food, Oil, land is being over cultivated. Desertification is on the increase in a major way. The next war will not in my opinion be over who has nuclear weapons and indeed who does not but over oil or water. More likely fresh drinking water in my opinion.

johnnyskeleton

Denerick wrote: »

Maybe a new topic discussing the ramifications of colonialism would be in order? I'm no apologist for that system, which was degrading to human dignity and natural order, but I do object to the knee jerk association of third world poverty with colonialism.

Political instability/oppression is to my mind the cause of a lot of poverty in the world. The colonial legacy is not to leave poverty behind, but rather to leave unstable and oppressive regiemes in place when they left, only to be replaced by and large by even more unstable and oppressive regiemes.

aidan24326

PopUp wrote: »

Overpopulation solves itself if you give people (especially women) access to basic health care and education.

Overpopulation solves itself when you have insufficent basic resources to go round. Too many people + not enough food, water, and energy resurces equals overpopulation sorting itself in a way that will be directly analogous to natural selection in the wild. In other words, it won't be pretty.

Eliot Rosewater

aidan24326 wrote: »

Too many people + not enough food, water, and energy resurces equals overpopulation sorting itself in a way that will be directly analogous to natural selection in the wild. In other words, it won't be pretty.

The problem is that this "natural process" hasn't been happening because Western nations have intervened with Food Aid. People who normally wouldn't have survived have. It would seem that in the long term it compounds the problem as poverty just gets worse due to having less resources per person.

deadhead13

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The problem is that this "natural process" hasn't been happening because Western nations have intervened with Food Aid. People who normally wouldn't have survived have. It would seem that in the long term it compounds the problem as poverty just gets worse due to having less resources per person.

The UN's Population Database estimates world population growth using 3 variants - low, medium and high. The OP's figures would be based on the high varient. However, there are those who claim the low variant has been consistently been the most historically accurate. Using this variant the worlds population will add another billion people over the next 30 years, peaking around 8.02 billion in the year 2040, and then it will decline.

http://esa.un.org/unpp/

So, I think you need something a bit more substantial than "it would seem" when advocating standing idly by while millions of people starve to death.

Denerick

I don't see how you can justify a mere billion extra people over the next 30 years. The population went + 3 billion from 1950-1990. Thats 40 years. Over the last decade it rose 1 billion. And like anything else, the higher the base point, the greater the growth. 8 Billion is an absurd figure.

deadhead13

Its not my figure, its the United Nations when the lower variant is used.

Eliot Rosewater

deadhead13 wrote: »

So, I think you need something a bit more substantial than "it would seem" when advocating standing idly by while millions of people starve to death.

I don't recall advocating that, funnily enough.

Denerick

deadhead13 wrote: »

Its not my figure, its the United Nations when the lower variant is used.

The UN is wrong then. A population growth of just one billion is pathetically understated.

deadhead13

How else is this statement meant to be interpreted?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The problem is that this "natural process" hasn't been happening because Western nations have intervened with Food Aid. People who normally wouldn't have survived have. It would seem that in the long term it compounds the problem as poverty just gets worse due to having less resources per person.

Denerick wrote: »

The UN is wrong then. A population growth of just one billion is pathetically understated.

The UN is not saying that there will definitely be only a billion increase in the next 40 years. As I said, it uses different variants which result in different outcomes.

Low variant 7,792 million ( different figures due to different source)
Median variant 9,192million
high variant 10,756million
Constant fertility variant 11,858million

You maintain the high variant is the most likely, but others claim the lower variant is the more accurate.

Eliot Rosewater

deadhead13 wrote: »

How else is statement meant to be interpreted?

As an analysis of one of the reasons why Africa may be in poverty?

Did I suggest the food aid stop?

deadhead13

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Did I suggest the food aid stop?

Well, you did refer to it as "the problem".

Denerick

Deadhead, Regardless of what the UN says, can you not see that that figure is bonkers?

Macha

Denerick wrote: »

Deadhead, Regardless of what the UN says, can you not see that that figure is bonkers?

Can you provide some evidence as to why the figure is 'bonkers'?

Denerick

taconnol wrote: »

Can you provide some evidence as to why the figure is 'bonkers'?

Common sense for one. If the population is 7 billion now, and was 3 billion 60 years ago, it doesn't stand to reason that the global population will only grow by one billion over the next 30 years. The UNs high variant is a little off, if we're being completely honest. I don't understand this rationale for only one billion extra people come 2040.

Macha

Denerick wrote: »

Common sense for one. If the population is 7 billion now, and was 3 billion 60 years ago, it doesn't stand to reason that the global population will only grow by one billion over the next 30 years. The UNs high variant is a little off, if we're being completely honest. I don't understand this rationale for only one billion extra people come 2040.

Er...you're going to need a bit better than "common sense", "it stands to reason" and "if we're being completely honest".

You might do well to read this article from The Economist that indicates how fertility rates are actuallly falling and half the world is close to having a fertility rate of less than 2.1:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14743589

Valmont

Joycey wrote: »

When you have "Poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature with roughly 13 to 17% living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some point within a 10 year time span." I wouldnt consider that a "free" country. Free to do what exactly?

So the freedom of a country is proportional to its poverty level? That is nonsense and in your case, quite the straw man based on what DF was getting at. Freedom generally and within the context of this thread has nothing to do with poverty. It is the absence of coercive action by the government against the individual.

Joycey wrote: »

Free to do what exactly?

Freedom of speech, of political affiliations, i.e. all the things the 'blue' countries do not tolerate. I don't know why you have to even ask that about the U.S!

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

So the freedom of a country is proportional to its poverty level? That is nonsense and in your case, quite the straw man based on what DF was getting at. Freedom generally and within the context of this thread has nothing to do with poverty. It is the absence of coercive action by the government against the individual.

Money = Freedom.
In the U.S things like third level education and health care cost money because these areas are privatised. In America people below the poverty line cannot afford education or even heatlh care.

Let's take a look at Ireland versus the U.S.

Education:
Shool life expectancy:
Ireland: Male: 17 Female: 18
U.S: Male: 16 Female: 17

Education expenditures:
Ireland: 4.7% of GDP (2005)
U.S: 5.3% of GDP (2005)

Health Care:
Infant Mortality rate:
Ireland: 5.05 deaths/1,000 live births
U.S: 6.26 deaths/1,000 live births

Life expectancy at birth:
Ireland: male: 75.6 years, female: 81.06 years
U.S: male: 75.65 years, female: 80.69 years

20% of the U.S population is without health care insurance.
In Ireland all citizens are guaranteed health care.

Do you still think the people of the U.S are more free then people in Ireland, or any developed european country for that matter ?
What puts Europe ahead of the U.S is our better left-wing politics. And my statistics prove that.

Btw. all statistics collected from the C.I.A world factbook.

Valmont wrote: »

Freedom of speech, of political affiliations, i.e. all the things the 'blue' countries do not tolerate. I don't know why you have to even ask that about the U.S!

What in god's name is a blue country ?
Either way Freedom of speech and of of political affiliation is also given to the populace of European countries.

BTW I find the idea of freedom of political affiliation funny coming from a country that blacklists socialists.

Denerick

taconnol wrote: »

Er...you're going to need a bit better than "common sense", "it stands to reason" and "if we're being completely honest".

You might do well to read this article from The Economist that indicates how fertility rates are actuallly falling and half the world is close to having a fertility rate of less than 2.1:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14743589

I read the economist once a month (Roughly) Its a fine publication. But the facts remain (And it is hardly surprising that most of the first world has a declining birth rate) India and Africa are expected to see balooning population figures over the next half decade. I don't see why relying on reason or common sense is such an objectionable process to you. But your figures are wrong.

Africa, for example, is expected to have 2 and a quarter billion people by 2050. http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3681

It passed the one billion mark a couple of weeks ago.

Macha

Denerick wrote: »

I read the economist once a month (Roughly) Its a fine publication. But the facts remain (And it is hardly surprising that most of the first world has a declining birth rate) India and Africa are expected to see balooning population figures over the next half decade. I don't see why relying on reason or common sense is such an objectionable process to you. But your figures are wrong.

Well it's funny because I've had people try to convince me of all manner of things based on the logic of "reason" or "common sense" but they usually turn out to be wrong. Call me funny but I like basing my opinions on things like empirical research.

[QUOTE=Denerick;63961983
Africa, for example, is expected to have 2 and a quarter billion people by 2050. http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3681

It passed the one billion mark a couple of weeks ago.[/QUOTE]
So the UN is unreliable, the Economist isn't good enough but Philip Bobbitt is gospel?

Who else agrees with Philip Bobbitt's projections (which are 6 years out of date at this stage)?

Eliot Rosewater

Joycey wrote: »

I wouldnt consider that a "free" country. Free to do what exactly?

Your mixing up the words "freedom" and "ability." Everyone in America has the freedom to purchase health insurance. However many don't have the immediate ability to do so due to a lack of money. Its a very important distinction.

The poor person has the freedom to pursue a path that will culminate in them purchasing health insurance. They will get a job, get an education if necessary, and get a better job. They are free to do these things because there are no obstacles preventing them from.

Lack of money is an obstacle that can be overcome. So they are technically free to buy it, unless you want to invent an idea of "temporary freedom," which is kind of ridiculous.

Turtwig

Denerick wrote: »

I don't see why relying on reason or common sense is such an objectionable process to you.

One thing here :

Never ever rely on common sense or intuition when interpreting or trying to understand if statistics are valid. The classic example is the "birthday problem"
"What are odds of two students sharing the same birthday in a class-size of 23?"

51/100

Common sense in some aspects of reality just does not work. Most scientists don't look too brightly at people using it to justify stuff.

Denerick

taconnol wrote: »

So the UN is unreliable, the Economist isn't good enough but Philip Bobbitt is gospel?

Who else agrees with Philip Bobbitt's projections (which are 6 years out of date at this stage)?

Well I never said that. The economist is talking about 50% of the world. The other 50% more than compensates. Plus we have a much higher base population so that takes away from the 50% of the world who have stabilised their fertility. That means the remaining 50% will continue to push up the global population regardless. Your economist articles only speaks on behalf of one half of the global population. African and Islamic countries continue to record massive birth rates.

Bigdeadlydave

A lot of this is over my head, and perhaps im just being selfish, but what affect do you guys think this dramatic increase in population will have on our own little island?

Denerick

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

A lot of this is over my head, and perhaps im just being selfish, but what affect do you guys think this dramatic increase in population will have on our own little island?

That depends on how much we've integrated with the EU come 2050. If the population of Africa gets so large that it cannot sustain itself, we are likely to see a massive unleashing of the traditional safety valve of emigration. Most of these people will head for the EU. They're unlikely to choose Ireland, but the economic and social costs of coping with immigration on this scale (And it will be huge compared to the last paltry 50 years) is unimaginable. Not that I'm some prejudiced nativist, but immigration policies are necessary so that the host country doesn't get over-run in a short space of time; Radically alterning a countries culture can have catastrophic effects if it isn't handled correctly.

Then of course, the problem ties in with climate change. Living standards in Asia and Africa is destined to increase - as someone already mentioned, Africa now has a great opportunity to have exponential economic growth (Especially if the African union follows the EU model and the EU scraps the common Agricultural Policy)

How can a population that is both growing and increasing its ecological footprint seriously hope to cap carbon emmissions? Overpopulation is a much more pressing issue in this moment and time.