Folks, some of you here may not have heard of Thomas Malthus

[Taverner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

Read. Learn. Digest.

The idea is that if we don't control our population, we will have a die off (see Malthusian Catastrophe)

[scheming daemons]

1. Malthus was wrong.

He failed to take into account Human Beings' amazing ability to adapt to changing conditions as it becomes necessary.


Malthus's great mistake was in thinking that our capabilities are finite.

[Taverner]

3. He was not wrong. And our capabilities ARE finite

There is no God to save us

No Calvary to ride in at the last minute

I am shocked you don't see overpopulation as the scientifically proven threat it is

[SergeyDovlatov]

41. He was wrong with respect to population growth

He based it on animal behavior, where "enough food" means "multiply".

For majority of the human population, for centuries, having children was a survival mechanism. You need to give birth to enough of them so that those who survive can support you when you are old. As society becomes reacher and children mortality goes down, you don't have to have as many children to survive.

So, having a child become a preference, as opposed to something that is critical to your survival.

UN puts population peak at 9.22 billion at 2075 and going down slightly after that reaching 8.97 in 2300.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

Some countries, Russia for example, are now fighting low birth rates and potential demographic collapse.

Fear of the overpopulation has no basis in reality.

[SergeyDovlatov]

51. overpopulation is a scientifically proven fact?

Can you provide any references in support of that?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

4. Do you seriously believe that this planet can support an unlimited amount of people?

I saw you arguing this in the other thread. Seems disingenuous at best...

[Taverner]

10. Exactly. Invent spontanous terraforming and then maybe we'll talk

But right now, that only exists in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

[scheming daemons]

15. Who said it had to?

This is an example of the finite thinking you're a victim of.


A. As it becomes unavoidably necessary, human reproduction will decrease
B. Humans have the ability to not necessarily be confined to just this planet. Haven't-done-it-yet does not equal won't-ever-do-it.

[SergeyDovlatov]

54. Putin Urges Plan to Reverse Slide in the Birth Rate

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/world/europe/11russia.html

MOSCOW, May 10 — President Vladimir V. Putin directed Parliament on Wednesday to adopt a 10-year program to stop the sharp decline in Russia's population, principally by offering financial incentives and subsidies to encourage women to have children.

...

His attention to this issue brought a rare moment of levity when Mr. Putin said, "Now, the main thing, what we see as the main thing——" and he was interrupted by a call from the floor.

"Love!" the voice said.

"Right," Mr. Putin answered. "The Defense Ministry knows what the main thing is. Really, I am going to speak about love, women, children" — there was applause from the assembled officials — "family, and Russia's most acute problem today: demography."

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. The green revolution only delayed that

but he was right

Carrying capacity in any system IS FINITE

[scheming daemons]

16. Only if the system is finite and/or you are relegated to just one system

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Which in the reality I happen to live in, we are....

we have NOT YET sent genships to Epsilon Eridani, in the Eridanus system, where an EARTH LIKE planet MIGHT exist

Nor have we terraformed Mars... or even sent a manned mission

So in the short to medium term, WE ARE

I happen to live in reality, not in the what may be when we do the above.

That means we have reached AND most likely surpassed the carrying capacity of THIS PLANET

The accelerating extinction of top animals in food chain are the canary in the mine...

Guess what we are?

[scheming daemons]

29. extinction is going on continuously... and has been, since life formed

on this planet.


New species are cropping up continuously as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Yes but high level extinction events usually herald the extinction of the

dominant species

I know you also did not address the other point. WE LIVE IN A CLOSED SYSTEM

[wuushew]

37. That line of thought results in environmental nihilism

whats the point of doing anything, we are just going to die.

[PufPuf23]

65. You are dangerously stupid

Extinction (and new species emergence) is not linear. There have been prior periods of mass extinctions on Earth found in the geologic record.

Now we are in a period of mass extinction rate comparable to highest spikes in the geologic record.

The difference now is that rather than a comet or an ice age or volcanos or whatever, the human species is the causal factor to the spike. This has occurred in the brief period of time that humans have unrbanized and industialized based upon fossil fuels. As a biological process, extinction is much faster and less flexible than evolution.

[SergeyDovlatov]

48. agree with finite capaciy, disagree with applicability to humans

He based his theory on behavior observed in animals, where "enough food to eat" means "multiply".

It can be observed that that relationship does not hold for humans. Countries with the biggest calories intake have low birth rates and declining population.

Countries with highest birth rates and also the ones where there is high child mortality and low calorie intake.

In fact, UN estimates that the earth will reach population peak of 9.22 billion in 2075 and then the population will start slowly going down reaching 8.97 in 2300

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

[ferrous wheel]

7. Well, our capabilities are largely dependent on resources which are very much finite.

...

[scheming daemons]

18. The sun will burn for 3 billion more years... yes, that's finite....

...but from our perspective, it is a largely untapped resource that is infinite.

[ferrous wheel]

27. So it is finite and infinite, both.

How convenient.

[scheming daemons]

31. For our purposes... 3 billion years is infinite

As much as anything can be.

[Subdivisions]

17. Oh yeah. The mudpie-eating Haitians sure learned to adapt.

:eyes:

[scheming daemons]

19. In any species, there will be a subgroup that fails to adapt

But that doesn't mean the species as a whole doesn't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. But teach, some of us HAVE

ah the Malthusian curve... I hated the damn thing in college... I truly did

And I had a teach who spoke of the wonders of the green revolution... them me I asked, trouble maker, what happens when we run out of oil? I mean, it has only delayed it.

He hmmm and hahaed for a while... then he said... not in my life time

It was in the 1980s.... it was a seminar, the other two faculty members were chuckling hard...

I guess those were the kinds of discussions they had in the lounge....

Later, when I learned MORE of us politics I realized he was a hard core GOP free market type

Go figure, in a liberal arts college


:sarcasm:

[eridani]

8. And what about soil?

Industrial farming is destroying that as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Yep, it is.

in the short term, like clearing forest and burning, you get quite a yield, but in the long term... you are up a creek with no paddle

[SergeyDovlatov]

44. Go back 100 years and ask: What if we run out of coal?

We really cannot predict what will be the prevalent energy source hundred years from now.

[dysfunctional press]

5. oh, well...

one way or another, things WILL balance out.
perhaps a die-off is EXACTLY what we need....:shrug:

[Taverner]

13. Thing is we can prevent it

We can do it - we just have to end things like the babymaker benefit

[dysfunctional press]

22. not really...

the united states is not responsible for very much of the worldwide population explosion- how would u.s. tax policies stop the baby boom in other countries? :shrug:

btw- the u.s. is nowhere near it's population capacity, anyway.

[Taverner]

28. Our citizens leave much more of a footprint than say a Sri Lankan

We consume wayyy too much

So one American is equal to about 3 Sri Lankans

[dysfunctional press]

35. again- not really.

but- since you want to appear so knowledgeable, and all- just EXACTLY how many americans can the earth support? and how many sri lankans? how many brits? how many aussies? how many "people" total?

:shrug:

[NeedleCast]

40. Two Kids Each!

According to this poster's other OP on this topic, two is the ideal amount of kids for all of us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4995915

Anything more is "utterly irresponsible."

[dysfunctional press]

42. well then i guess that settles it...

:eyes:

btw- the u.s birth rate is already 2.1 kids per couple, so we're pretty much there already.

[NeedleCast]

53. I have already volunteered to give up my two kids credit

in exchange for large cash rewards.

[wuushew]

56. Both legal and illegal immigration are adding to overall numbers

A trend that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

[dysfunctional press]

58. immigrants aren't part of the overall birth rate-

when they increase the population in one place by going there, they lower the population where they came from by the same amount.

[scheming daemons]

23. The United States has practically achieved population equilibrium

We're only having 2.1 kids as it is.


The United States is not the issue when it comes to population explosion.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Actually, I best most of us heard about Malthus many years ago.

And we've also heard that post-industrial societies can have negative population growth, rendering his theory null and void.

[Taverner]

11. Not null and void

Punctuated Equilibrium did not make Darwin's Natural Selection null and void

It just meant that the scientific mind now has to put in an appendix.

[jmg257]

14. A "die-off" huh? Sounds ugly...need to get more ammo. (and have more kids to help fight ;) nt

[dkofos]

20. I predict it will happen in the next 4 years.

[Taverner]

26. Nah - we have enough oil to last us at least until 2020

Even the most freaked out peakoilers know that

As for the food supply - well that depends on how quickly our population grows in the next 4 years

But chances are we probably have another 20-30 years at least

[dysfunctional press]

36. nobody alive today will live to see the oil run out.

nt

[Taverner]

38. Maybe, maybe not

Actually the US Dept of Energy says we (the world) have enough to last us until 2030, if we don't find more sources

[dysfunctional press]

43. link?

:shrug:

[wuushew]

45. Please clarify your statement

do you mean current rates of consumption of oil will continue for at least 80 years?

Most likely we are on the right side of the production curve already.

[dysfunctional press]

47. how much clearer could it be...?

but current rates are not sustainable. but then- rates of consumption are never stable over long periods.

[SergeyDovlatov]

49. we will not run of oil ever

By the time oil become scarce enough to make the price go very high, we will switch to electric cars or some other technology.

[ferrous wheel]

61. Ah yes, we can burn the furniture to make the electricity.

:eyes:

[SergeyDovlatov]

62. Geotermal, wind, solar. So many ways, as the oil becomes ...

more expensive. Alternatives will look more and more attractive.

[wuushew]

64. Energy will never be as cheap as it is today

In our industrial age progression from wood-->coal-->oil-->natural gas, each has had a higher energy value per unit of mass. We have never transitioned to an inferior form energy. We will be in uncharted territory going forward.

Look for a big slide in the standard of living. Unless radical changes come to our political and economic system there will be more pain.

[SergeyDovlatov]

66. what kind of radical changes do you envision?

[wuushew]

67. Economics in a Full World

http://sef.umd.edu/files/ScientificAmerican_Daly_05.pdf

[SergeyDovlatov]

21. UN puts population peak at 9.22 billion at 2075 and going down slightly after that reaching ...

8.97 in 2300.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

A lot of developed and somewhat developed countries have demographic issues of low birthrate and shrinking population.

Where on the earth do you get the information that we are facing overpopulation?

[ferrous wheel]

24. I imagine many of us recall Lenina's Malthusian belt in BNW

:-)

[NeedleCast]

30. Yes, works created 300 years ago should definitely

be used as the end-all be-all source for this topic.

[scheming daemons]

32. Exactly.... quoting Malthus is no more relevant than quoting scripture

Neither had access to the science we now have.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Perhaps we should also not use Newton

Never mind that his classic mechanics get us from here to the moon and back... and are responsible for the satellites we have going around us

Oh never mind about Johannes Keppler, who was an ignoramus, never mind his orbital mechanics are critical in getting spaceships from here to Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and points beyond

Or for that matter the father of genetics... and for godsakes, do NOT under any circumstances rely on Darwin


The only thing that matters is what we discover ourselves in the right now, never mind it is built upon what OTHERS have done

Oh and free clue... the Malthusian curve is a CRITICAL element of even MODERN biology.

I guess if you do not believe it is relevant it is not?

[scheming daemons]

52. Subsequent scientific discoveries have found gaping holes in Newton's science

Malthus had some things right... but had gaping holes in his theories that the past 300 years have exposed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. And the point is? exactly what? That since they got some things wrong

so did Einstein by the way, we should just discount the whole thing?

And yes, the Malthusian curve is STILL IN USE in biology and even taught in BASIC biology courses... THAT IS THE FREAKING POINT

And yes, there are many problems with Classical Mechanics, it does not work at the quantum level... but it is used as written to send ships from here to the moon and back... so are the stellar mechanics of Johanness Keppler

So just because they got some things wrong, which I am sure would not surprise THEM... you are willing to throw the baby with the bath water? Oh I forgot, resources in this closed system are infinite since the sun will keep shining for three billion years...

I forgot about that one.

[Subdivisions]

57. Ok, lets try Prof. Albert Bartlett then...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

And be sure to watch the WHOLE 8-part series.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Population growth in advanced developed secular nations controls itself just fine.

All by itself.

So long as people are free, have reproductive rights and have access to contraception. Those are the facts.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Paul Ehrlich did

And history showed that he was wrong.

[Davis_X_Machina]

50. Every educated woman...

..every schoolgirl in the third world is another bite taken out of Malthus' argument. This should be the focus of development programs, once the immediate food needs of people are met.

[Cid_B]

59. The name seems like it belongs to a Dr. Who villain

[Lance_Boyle]

60. Start your own book club, Oprah. Most of us here don't care what you've read.

N /FUCKIN'OBVIOUS/ T

[Juche]

63. Human population is set to stabalize at 9-10 billion

Once a nation obtains a basic level of healthcare and per capita income the average woman stops having more than 2 children, probably because they realize their kids will survive into adulthood and they can devote all their resources to 1-2 kids. Having 2.1 children is considered the replacement rate, so we will enter a stage where population stagnates instead of grows. As the world becomes wealther (which it will again after this economic collapse is over) most women stop having more than 2-3 children.




If you look at TFR, about 100 countries and territories (out of 223) already have a TFR below 2.1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

We'll be fine. The only real risk is that in the next 100 years we will probably conquer aging, which means people will no longer die of old age. In that case human population will grow linearly at about 4 billion every 25 years or so. Who knows what we'll do then, but I'm sure we will have the technology to deal with the problems.