Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Population: Public Enemy No. 1  (Read 52872 times)

ralfy

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #300 on: March 17, 2017, 07:31:37 PM »
: magnamentis link=topic=473.msg106460#msg106460

not saying it's not correct but still, without too many consumers consumption would not be an issue, hence ultimately it's down to overpopulation which is a known fact for many decades, just that everyone has to grow in every aspect, including population, to fill the voids from the current exploiting generation.

I have the same response as Wili. I'd also like to mention ecological footprint among the global middle class.


ralfy

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #301 on: March 17, 2017, 07:35:17 PM »
From deep Africa, where population growth is exponential, given that women marry at very young age and give birth to very many children:
"Having lots of children is the norm because they bring wealth (“they come with two hands to work but only one mouth to feed”). So why have four when you could have seven?"

According to the article, women don't want to use contraceptives, even when they are readily available, because they like to have many children.

The article illustrates why population growth is sure to continue for many decades to come.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-seven-contraception-niger
This article is so depressing. Such a poor country with such a high birth rate and such a culture. Totally hopeless.The only questions remaining are when will Niger collapse, and in what manner (Widespread famine? Civil war? Attacking neighbouring countries? A fundamentalist revolution? All of the above?)

Higher birth rates may be connected to poverty, and the opposite to greater prosperity. The catch is that prosperity may also lead to higher ecological footprint, which in turn negates any benefit from lower birth rates.

Hence, we have countries like the U.S. which has less than 5 pct of the world's population but has to consume around 20 pct of global oil production to support a middle class lifestyle.


ralfy

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #302 on: March 17, 2017, 07:42:39 PM »
: magnamentis link=topic=473.msg106487#msg106487

one can see it like that while the 80% with the much smaller consumption pollute the globe much more. just visit any african big city like i.e. "LAGOS" and compare the air and water quality with that of a 10 times greater city of the first world and you'll see that i.e. tokyo or any other huge city, including the needed heating, pollutes less than a much smaller third world city. it's not that simple and then the most damaging consumption is "FOOD" especially meet and those 80% eat not much less, except certain regions of course.

however i see what you're heading at and it would take huge resources and numbers of studies to narrow this down, it's just not as simple as your statement sounded to my understanding while at the end we agree, both
factors count a lot and it's probably useless to know exactly which more, hence i'm with you in general :-)

thanks

From what I know, rich countries have high ecological footprints per capita. Meanwhile, pollution is "outsourced" to poor countries where environmental protection is skirted to keep costs low.

Thus, people in industrialized countries see that their cities are nice and clean, but various products that they use together with some services are manufactured or involve labor in poor countries where pollution levels are higher.

On top of that, they rely on the same poor countries to become richer because their own jobs and investments are dependent on expanding global consumer markets.

ralfy

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #303 on: March 17, 2017, 07:47:16 PM »

And there are still pro-life evangelical and catholic missionaries in Africa still preaching that contraception is a sin against God to a deeply religious people.

From what I remember, several countries that have high birth rates are not predominantly Christian. Most of them, though, are poor.

Given that, it is possible that poverty is one of the main drivers of higher birth rates. That is, with a lack of financial security coupled with weak education, poor people tend to have more children.

The opposite, though, leads to lower birth rates, which explains what has been taking place in various rich countries.

The catch, though, is that greater prosperity may also mean higher resource and energy use.

oren

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 979
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #304 on: March 17, 2017, 11:14:40 PM »
Don't forget the other side, high birth rates tend to lead to poverty.
And in general, the way I look at it, of course high consumption and high population both contribute to the problem. But high consumption can be changed much quicker than demographics. Half of Niger's population is less than 15 years old. It will take 60-70 years to change the trend and lower population. In the US, theoretically the crazy consumption/ecological footprint can be lowered in 10-20 years.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 09:57:41 AM by oren »

magnamentis

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 834
    • View Profile
    • Nexpaq Modular ARA iOS Software Mobile Computing Phones Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multipelsklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgie
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #305 on: March 17, 2017, 11:56:42 PM »
: magnamentis link=topic=473.msg106460#msg106460

not saying it's not correct but still, without too many consumers consumption would not be an issue, hence ultimately it's down to overpopulation which is a known fact for many decades, just that everyone has to grow in every aspect, including population, to fill the voids from the current exploiting generation.

I have the same response as Wili. I'd also like to mention ecological footprint among the global middle class.

and the same reply, the greatest ecological footprint is produced by food, especially meat production. most people think about cars and other tech. while it's true, the impact of tech is huge (adds significantly) to the footprint but nothing like food especially meat and then food that is eaten cannot be recycled LOL. further read the rest of my previous reply. 1 careless guy in an underdeveloped place can have the greater environmental impact than a caring and responsible user of technology and gadgets. again this is not meant as a now but, just mentioning that things are not so black and white as they seem on first glance.
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

be cause

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 135
  • Citizenship .. a Lurker gets asylum
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #306 on: March 18, 2017, 12:09:49 AM »
Magnamentis .. All the food I eat is recycled .. composted it becomes nutrients for food production . Human waste is a badly managed precious resource . This too needs to change for humanity to progress .
be the cause of only good
and love all beings as you should
and the 'God' of all Creation
will .. through you .. transform all nations :)

magnamentis

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 834
    • View Profile
    • Nexpaq Modular ARA iOS Software Mobile Computing Phones Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multipelsklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgie
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #307 on: March 18, 2017, 04:49:04 PM »
Magnamentis .. All the food I eat is recycled .. composted it becomes nutrients for food production . Human waste is a badly managed precious resource . This too needs to change for humanity to progress .

yeah but you don't eat that product. for me recycling was meant (in the context of the post) that from plastic waste one gets new plastic and from iron wast one gets new iron products while food has to be grown and produced 100% newly as far as the footprint is concerned. the topic was about the footprint and not about the term "recycling" and its various iterations.

beside that you're right of course LOL and do thought crossed my mind while writing the post, just that in that context i thought it's ok to call it non-recyling :-)

i know that the old greek townfathers when they met to make decisions they were 7 hours seeking agreement on terms and once they got that they made their decsions within the hour.

enjoy the weekend and thanks for the input.

cheers
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7355
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #308 on: March 18, 2017, 05:41:36 PM »
From deep Africa, where population growth is exponential, given that women marry at very young age and give birth to very many children:
"Having lots of children is the norm because they bring wealth (“they come with two hands to work but only one mouth to feed”). So why have four when you could have seven?"

According to the article, women don't want to use contraceptives, even when they are readily available, because they like to have many children.

The article illustrates why population growth is sure to continue for many decades to come.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-seven-contraception-niger
This article is so depressing. Such a poor country with such a high birth rate and such a culture. Totally hopeless.The only questions remaining are when will Niger collapse, and in what manner (Widespread famine? Civil war? Attacking neighbouring countries? A fundamentalist revolution? All of the above?)

I don't know of any woman that wants to have many many kids. It does awful thinks to their body. It is usually due to religion or coercion (husbands).

One reason for having many children is they are another set of hands to work the fields, to carry water, etc.  More children in that sense means more wealth; and given that infant moratlity rate is high, each additional child is a kind of "insurance."  If acquiring food and water were made less labor-intensive, fewer people per family would be required for survival.

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

ralfy

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #309 on: March 19, 2017, 09:50:26 AM »
: magnamentis link=topic=473.msg106718#msg106718

and the same reply, the greatest ecological footprint is produced by food, especially meat production. most people think about cars and other tech. while it's true, the impact of tech is huge (adds significantly) to the footprint but nothing like food especially meat and then food that is eaten cannot be recycled LOL. further read the rest of my previous reply. 1 careless guy in an underdeveloped place can have the greater environmental impact than a caring and responsible user of technology and gadgets. again this is not meant as a now but, just mentioning that things are not so black and white as they seem on first glance.


There is a reason why ecological footprint per capita is many times higher in richer countries than in poorer ones, and it's not because people in the former eat a lot more food.

For example, one of the components of footprint is oil, and countries like the U.S. consume up to 20 pct of world oil production even if they have less than 5 pct of the world's population. One of the reasons is that they have over 250 million passenger vehicles, or one vehicle for each adult. Similar phenomena can be seen in products ranging from smart phones to clothes.

What makes matters worse is that that consumer spending society is made possible through incredible increases in credit, part of which is invested in various countries in order to access cheap labor and various resources as well as to expand consumer markets for businesses that need to grow more gadgets, etc. Hence,

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

What this situation means is that if only 25 pct of the world's population live like citizens of countries like the U.S., Australia, and Canada, we would need more than one earth. If most people worldwide wanted the same, we'd need several earths.

And since all of that is based on a global capitalist system and competition, then businesses have to keep selling more goods and services each time to expanding markets. That means your "caring and responsible user of technology and gadgets" will not only need cheap labor and resources overseas to make his gadgets, he will need the same workers to earn (and borrow) more so that they too can buy the same gadgets. Why? Because his increase in wages, promotion, benefits, and higher returns on investment are dependent on increased sales of the same gadgets and more.