Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Population: Public Enemy No. 1  (Read 74589 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 Upper Class
  • Posts: 1541
    • 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 Upper Class
  • Posts: 1212
    • 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: 180
  • 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 Upper Class
  • Posts: 1212
    • 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: 9050
    • 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.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9050
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #310 on: March 30, 2017, 03:49:24 AM »
A New Kind of Male Birth Control Is Coming
Doctors are on the cusp of launching the first new male contraceptive in more than a century. But rather than a Big Pharma lab, the breakthrough is emerging from a university startup in the heart of rural India.
...
For Sujoy Guha, the 76-year-old biomedical engineer who invented the product, the challenge is to now find a company who wants to sell it—even though male contraception is an area Big Pharma has so far shown little interest in.

“The fact that the big companies are run by white, middle-aged males who have the same feeling—that they would never do it—plays a major role,” said Herjan Coelingh Bennink, a gynecology professor who helped develop the contraceptives Implanon and Cerazette as head of research and development in women’s health for Organon International from 1987 to 2000. “If those companies were run by women, it would be totally different.”
...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-29/a-new-kind-of-male-birth-control-is-coming
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Forest Dweller

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #311 on: June 19, 2017, 03:42:06 PM »
IMHO calling population numbers the nr. 1 cause of all those nasty problems on Earth, climate, pollution and so on is a mistake.
Clearly these population numbers exploded along with the other problems as a result of industrialization, look up the graph, it is easy to see.
Do non-industrial folks overpopulate, pollute, destroy biodiversity and so on like we do?
No they usually don't, people on a shitty little island such as North Sentinel have a 60,000 year track record and the place still looks like paradise...60,000 years, let that sink in compared to our industrial society.
"Anthropocene Global Warming" is a faulty name as well for this reason.
Should be Industrial Global Warming....

Hefaistos

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #312 on: June 20, 2017, 04:34:56 PM »
Tomorrow, the UN will release the updated World Population Prospects. The last figures are from 2015 and show that we're heading to 9.7 billion people 2050, and 11.2 billion 2100, (from todays 7.5 billion).
Fertility is declining in fast-growing Africa.

Hefaistos

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #313 on: June 20, 2017, 04:36:18 PM »
Fascinating figure.

Hefaistos

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #314 on: June 21, 2017, 06:31:52 PM »
So, the 2017 revision of population forecasts are released:
"According to the results of the 2017 Revision, the world’s population numbered nearly 7.6 billion as of mid-2017 (table 1), implying that the world has added approximately one billion inhabitants over the last twelve years."

New estimates are that we're heading
to 8.5 billion people 2030,  i.e. one more billion in the next 12.5 years
to 9.8 billion people 2050,
to 11.2 billion 2100

Pretty stable estimates, figures were more or less the same in the previous report.

Hefaistos

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #315 on: June 21, 2017, 06:47:40 PM »
This graph shows that population growth is to a large extent an African issue.

Csnavywx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #316 on: June 21, 2017, 07:47:26 PM »
The good news is we've hit "peak child". The bad news is that because that number is around 2B, demographic inertia and life expectancy increases alone is enough to carry us to 9.5B even with a big forecast bust in Africa. If it's not a bust, we're looking at 11B.

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1541
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #317 on: June 21, 2017, 09:30:19 PM »
This graph shows that population growth is to a large extent an African issue.
Africa will never get to 4.5 billion by 2100 as forecast, more than tripling current population, given its current problems and in the face of ongoing climate change and resource depletion. I can hardly see it get to 3 billion before things go horribly wrong. I shudder to think of how it goes wrong. But go wrong it will.
In my humble opiniom of course.

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #318 on: June 22, 2017, 12:33:36 AM »
IMHO calling population numbers the nr. 1 cause of all those nasty problems on Earth, climate, pollution and so on is a mistake.
Clearly these population numbers exploded along with the other problems as a result of industrialization, look up the graph, it is easy to see.
Do non-industrial folks overpopulate, pollute, destroy biodiversity and so on like we do?
No they usually don't, people on a shitty little island such as North Sentinel have a 60,000 year track record and the place still looks like paradise...60,000 years, let that sink in compared to our industrial society.
"Anthropocene Global Warming" is a faulty name as well for this reason.
Should be Industrial Global Warming....

On the contrary, I think overpopulation is clearly the major problem, not industrialization.  If we had a population of 1 billion people on the earth instead of 7.4 billion (with same socioeconomic distribution), we'd need 1/7th as much land used for agricultural production, and the same reduction in land use for  roads, cities, and suburban sprawl.

Beyond this, modern technologic industrialization tends to use resources more efficiently.  Transportation is more efficient, manufacturing is more efficient, and per-acre yields in agriculture are higher. 

On a per-capita basis, technological advances are part of the solution, in general.  The whole problem is too many of those capita.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #319 on: June 22, 2017, 01:26:46 AM »
On the contrary, I think overpopulation is clearly the major problem, not industrialization.  If we had a population of 1 billion people on the earth instead of 7.4 billion (with same socioeconomic distribution), we'd need 1/7th as much land used for agricultural production, and the same reduction in land use for  roads, cities, and suburban sprawl.

Beyond this, modern technologic industrialization tends to use resources more efficiently.  Transportation is more efficient, manufacturing is more efficient, and per-acre yields in agriculture are higher. 

On a per-capita basis, technological advances are part of the solution, in general.  The whole problem is too many of those capita.

On the other hand, if all of our current 7.5 billion people work working with good intent towards a solution then we would be in very good shape.  However, what our current reality is: "If 'you' are not part of the solution then 'you' are part of the problem".
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

DoomInTheUK

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #320 on: June 22, 2017, 09:34:30 AM »
It's also an aspirational problem. We probably couldn't support 1Bn people trying to live a Western lifestyle. If we're all happy to live like rural Africans or Indians then maybe 3 or 4Bn.

Sadly, I think we'll find out how this start to pan out within the next 15 years.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2068
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #321 on: June 22, 2017, 02:28:32 PM »
It was industrialization, drawing on the energy stored for billions of years, which allowed for the explosive population growth from the 1800's on. This argument about which is the root cause is pointless. The simple fact is we have exploded past a sustainable population and we have been able to do this by consuming vast quantities of stored energy in the form of fossil fuels. This fuel consumption is at the very heart of the industrialization of our food production system which supports this population. (fertilizers, pesticides, deep aquifer pumping, capital equipment to produce, transport and process the foodstuffs etc.)

It is going to get ugly. The focus over the next 100 years will consist of desperate efforts to save your life. Take care that, in the effort, you don't lose your soul.

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1212
    • 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 #322 on: June 22, 2017, 06:26:13 PM »
IMHO calling population numbers the nr. 1 cause of all those nasty problems on Earth, climate, pollution and so on is a mistake.
Clearly these population numbers exploded along with the other problems as a result of industrialization, look up the graph, it is easy to see.
Do non-industrial folks overpopulate, pollute, destroy biodiversity and so on like we do?
No they usually don't, people on a shitty little island such as North Sentinel have a 60,000 year track record and the place still looks like paradise...60,000 years, let that sink in compared to our industrial society.
"Anthropocene Global Warming" is a faulty name as well for this reason.
Should be Industrial Global Warming....

On the contrary, I think overpopulation is clearly the major problem, not industrialization.  If we had a population of 1 billion people on the earth instead of 7.4 billion (with same socioeconomic distribution), we'd need 1/7th as much land used for agricultural production, and the same reduction in land use for  roads, cities, and suburban sprawl.

Beyond this, modern technologic industrialization tends to use resources more efficiently.  Transportation is more efficient, manufacturing is more efficient, and per-acre yields in agriculture are higher. 

On a per-capita basis, technological advances are part of the solution, in general.  The whole problem is too many of those capita.

 i totally agree with you! reason why most people refuse to accept that fact is that:

a) it would mean a reduction of population is needed, doable only by very nasty means, be it wars, and other catastrophes or be it by political decisions with the remaining question, who is to decide that without being a dictator and who will be the ones who would face strong restrictions in freedom of life.

b) related to a) until now no-one came up with a really good idea how to achieve that goal or in other words, even though ideas might be good, does not mean that the big mass of population would accept it and/or comply with.

so the question remains, is it worth to find a culprit without solution in sight, i say yes, because only by knowing the root problem solutions can be found (developed) that consider the root problem.

others say no because the do not believe that such a solution could exist, those of course are the same kind of people who thought that a 600000 ton machine could never fly and that locomotives directed by the devil directly from hell LOL
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1988
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #323 on: June 23, 2017, 04:00:50 AM »
The whole thread is, of course, mostly bs.

Something like 20% of the population use something like 80% of the resources.

So the thread should be called "Over-Consumption: Public Enemy No. 1"

or some such.

But most of us here on this forum are (from a global perspective) relatively well off, white, first world men; and most of us imagine that most of the population problem is caused by poor, non-white, third world women.

How very, very convenient to conclude (falsely and insidiously) that the real problem isn't the over consumption of the most privileged, but the sexual activities of those that are the most different from ourselves as can be.

It must make all of you ... sleep well at night to have such a racist sexist wet dream.

Sleep well...

(Various expletives deleted for the purpose of decorum  :D ;) :o :P )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7awW5nrDHk
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 04:17:15 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3988
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #324 on: June 23, 2017, 09:11:59 AM »
Actually, I dreamt of a middle-aged white man last night, a Frenchman called Bertrand Roux who had lost his wife several years ago and had come to Amsterdam to help me with my Arctic analysis. We were watching the Worldview satellite images, and flipping one day to the next there was a huge part of the ice pack that disappeared. And I said: Holy crap, this could mean the Arctic goes ice-free this year! Maybe I should report on this now. Bertrand agreed.

But on-topic: I also think that population is public enemy number three, after the system in general (where there is no limit on personal wealth) and over-consumption.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 274
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #325 on: June 23, 2017, 09:21:47 AM »
But on-topic: I also think that population is public enemy number three, after the system in general (where there is no limit on personal wealth) and over-consumption.

Pretty fair.  My ranking would be:
1) Consuming too much (wrong quantity)
2) Consuming the wrong stuff (wrong quality)
3) Overpopulation
4) Denial of the problem
5) Lack of preparedness for the coming changes

We generally need to address all of the above, imho.

silkman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #326 on: June 23, 2017, 09:41:25 AM »
I have to disagree.

It's not necessarily the carbon footprint of burgeoning populations, especially in Africa, that is the issue. It's the impact of their perfectly legitimate aspirations, driven by smart phone technology, to share in the wealth of the old European elite.

Without addressing the problem of economic migration the world faces a very uncertain future and the threat of Climate Change will be lost in the ensuing chaos.

Both Trump and Brexit exemplify the problem, offering temporary xenophobic "solutions" that will only exacerbate the issue.

It's not a surprise therefore that the resolve of two of the nations that should be leading the way in the Climate Change debate now have other more important problems to deal with - fundamentally driven by global population growth.

be cause

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 180
  • Citizenship .. a Lurker gets asylum
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #327 on: June 23, 2017, 10:52:14 AM »
my simple solution for those who believe in overpopulation has always been the same .. suicide
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 :)

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 274
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #328 on: June 23, 2017, 03:53:23 PM »
my simple solution for those who believe in overpopulation has always been the same .. suicide

There's no call to joke about suicide.  Nor is there any call to be needlessly hostile to those whose concerns don't entirely mirror your own.

If anyone's reading this who's considering suicide, I'd like to suggest calling your local crisis number:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1988
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #329 on: June 23, 2017, 09:20:34 PM »
Sorry if I came off grouchy above.

I like where Neven and Paddy are going, though.

We really can't know for certain what the 'aspirations' of Africans and others are or are going to be. Especially as it becomes ever more apparent to all what a fundamentally wrong direction FF-based industrialism and consumerism ended up to be.

Africa has the largest chance of relatively large populations growth rates, but also probably the largest chance of horrific, nearly unstoppable dread disease outbreaks, as we've seen recently, sadly.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1212
    • 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 #330 on: June 23, 2017, 10:01:35 PM »
Actually, I dreamt of a middle-aged white man last night, a Frenchman called Bertrand Roux who had lost his wife several years ago and had come to Amsterdam to help me with my Arctic analysis. We were watching the Worldview satellite images, and flipping one day to the next there was a huge part of the ice pack that disappeared. And I said: Holy crap, this could mean the Arctic goes ice-free this year! Maybe I should report on this now. Bertrand agreed.

But on-topic: I also think that population is public enemy number three, after the system in general (where there is no limit on personal wealth) and over-consumption.

i know what you're saying and somehow i share your views but please consider one IMO key point.

without too many people all those factors wouldn't have the damaging impact, after all it's the number of people exploiting the planet ( by the means you mentioned and more ) that counts 1 guy living like donald has no effect, hence between one guy without impact and enough people which have that huge an impact that we are facing now must be some kind of threshold (critical number) and this number is "number of consumers, and sh...tters, it's not only consumption that contrubute to co2, it's body functions and nutrition, agriculture and many many things that all together make the whole.

as i said and i think you know by now, one of the biggest screws we should start to adjust ASAP and which we could if we really wanted, is the one with borderless wealth. there i fully agree, only that the above mentioned relation is not deniable, at least not seriously and calling this BS is way off and i have to hold myself not to reply appropriately. LOL

« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 10:11:40 PM by magnamentis »
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #331 on: June 24, 2017, 12:13:01 AM »

a) it would mean a reduction of population is needed, doable only by very nasty means, be it wars, and other catastrophes or be it by political decisions with the remaining question, who is to decide that without being a dictator and who will be the ones who would face strong restrictions in freedom of life.

Not necessarily, it all depends on how fast you want the population to go down.  Consider that quite a few nations, spanning vast stretches of the globe, already have a fertility rate below maintenance.  And only in China was that achieved by draconian means.

Everywhere else, it's achieved by educating and empowering women, making contraception available to them, and instituting a system for care of the aged, so that children don't have to be produced to care for aged parents.  This doesn't always require a high level of per-capita GDP.

Those who point the finger of blame at industrialization perhaps fail to recognize the mechanisms by which industrialization has allowed an expansion of global population.  Industrialization doesn't raise birth rates, it lowers them.  It provides better access to safe drinking water, reliable food security, basic sanitation, and essential public health, such as vaccinations.

To say that industrialization is the problem because it allows population overgrowth, is to say that people shouldn't have access to food, water, and basic health care.  It's saying that more children should die in infancy, essentially. 

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 274
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #332 on: June 24, 2017, 01:08:26 AM »
What Steve said.

There is one piece of sadder news in the mix, though - progress on access to education worldwide has stalled: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jun/21/drive-to-get-children-back-to-school-failing-worldwide-un-figures-education

This is particularly bad news for the final countries yet to go through the demographic transition.

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1045
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #333 on: June 24, 2017, 01:22:50 AM »
Wili, Could you please source your 20% of population using 80% of resources ?
Just looking at numbers
7.5 billion people.    36 billion tons CO2
With a 80/20 split you get
1.5 billion people emitting  28.9 billion tons CO2
6.0 Billion people  emitting  7.1 billion tons  CO2

So six billion people are getting by with only 1.2 tons of CO2 each ?  Damn hard to believe.
At any rate we gluttons need some lessons in frugality.  If anyone on this site thinks they are getting by on 1.2 tons of CO2 per year I'd be very interested in your story. My friend OrganicSU is probably closer than anyone else who posts here . He is someone I admire for his commitment .
 If we are putting the health benefits of modern society into the balance we should also admit our diets and resulting obesity, death by car, and drug problems balance the scale that modern medicine provides.

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1988
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #334 on: June 24, 2017, 01:25:57 AM »
"...1 guy living like donald has no effect..."

What a bizarre thing to say.

Impact/footprint pretty much correlates with wealth/income.

That an infinitesimally small percentage of the world's population has more money than the poorest 50% pretty much means that those wealthiest individuals are causing the same level of harm as that poorest half. Just because you can't imagine that one life (or relatively few lives) can do that much harm does not mean it isn't in fact the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined
« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 01:39:54 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1988
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #335 on: June 24, 2017, 01:35:49 AM »
Probably at the time I was thinking of the famous Pareto Principle:

https://www.google.com/search?q=pareto+principle&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

But according to the World Bank, over 70% of the world's population is poor or low income.

Poor means living on less than $2 a day. Hard to burn much FF on that.

Low income means $2 - $10/day, probably most toward the lower end of that. Again, not much FF burning going on there. Most of the world's poor spend half or more of their income on food, which is often grown locally and is mostly plant based (because...cheap).

http://www.pewglobal.org/interactives/global-population-by-income/

Further:

1% of people own more wealth than the other 99% combined

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

It is quite probable that nearly everyone on this forum is in that top 1%.

If You Make More Than $35K US You Are In The Global 1% Of Income Earners

https://www.diygenius.com/the-global-inequality-problem/

(Sorry for the big font, but people don't seem to know these important facts about the mal-distribution of wealth)
« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 02:25:42 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1212
    • 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 #336 on: June 30, 2017, 11:15:18 PM »
Probably at the time I was thinking of the famous Pareto Principle:

https://www.google.com/search?q=pareto+principle&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

But according to the World Bank, over 70% of the world's population is poor or low income.

Poor means living on less than $2 a day. Hard to burn much FF on that.

Low income means $2 - $10/day, probably most toward the lower end of that. Again, not much FF burning going on there. Most of the world's poor spend half or more of their income on food, which is often grown locally and is mostly plant based (because...cheap).

http://www.pewglobal.org/interactives/global-population-by-income/

Further:

1% of people own more wealth than the other 99% combined

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

It is quite probable that nearly everyone on this forum is in that top 1%.

If You Make More Than $35K US You Are In The Global 1% Of Income Earners

https://www.diygenius.com/the-global-inequality-problem/

(Sorry for the big font, but people don't seem to know these important facts about the mal-distribution of wealth)


and what in your opinion does the distribution exactly tell about global warming and what would the exact relation to overpopulation be?

if one states that the more people live on this planet the more trouble arise, often based on needs but as often based on envy and many other difficult conditons depending on region and political system, that makes somehow sense.

an one point should never be forgotten, a poor man who eats 3-4000kcal per day in cheap food and a rich man who eats the same (often less) kcal in hyper expensive food does not change the impact on the ecology a lot to the negative IMO (there is a difference i know)

so if 7 billion or 8 billion people have to be fed makes a huge difference and has probably the greater impact in the long run (water and food supply )

as well the body waste including methane and everything is not less form a poor mans bean meal than from a rich mans caviar toast.

now some whould say that meat production takes up much more resources than beans, corn or wheat. true that but i think one greater errors is that people in poor countries eat significantly less meat.

a few decades back when i was roaming the streets in several african countries there was more meat made on fire in the street than soups or vegetables.

of course there is much more to this and the subject fills entire libraries, hence cannot be discussed to the end here, just basics and getting perhaps a bit of new input to consider.

thanks for your contribution, it was known here but still never a bad things to be pointed out ;)


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

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #337 on: June 30, 2017, 11:34:36 PM »
The richest 10% (700 million) produce half the world's GHG emissions. Just that expensive food for the rich emits massively more GHG's in the process of growing, processing, transportation, and storage (like those organic grapes in the local whole foods store in Toronto in the middle of winter). No comparison to the world's poor, the bottom 50% (3.5 billion) produce just 10% of emissions. These figures ignore historical emissions, which would probably be even more skewed.

Its that 10% that need to work out how to live with much, much, lower GHG emissions, then share that knowledge with the rest that aspire to their levels of wealth. If anyone should be slashing birth rates perhaps it should be the rich? I havn't seen numbers for within the 10%, but its probably highly skewed to the 1% and .1%. What's the carbon footprint of the Trump family?

As Kevin Anderson notes, the rich include the policy makers and climate scientists that keep flying to conferences. Also, the rich hollywood types that make movies about climate change, like DiCaprio.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/03/01/leonardo-dicaprios-carbon-footprint-is-much-higher-than-he-thinks/#4926df912bd5



https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 11:47:32 PM by rboyd »

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1541
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #338 on: June 30, 2017, 11:57:27 PM »
The richest 10% (700 million) produce half the world's GHG emissions. Just that expensive food for the rich emits massively more GHG's in the process of growing, processing, transportation, and storage (like those organic grapes in the local whole foods store in Toronto in the middle of winter). No comparison to the world's poor, the bottom 50% (3.5 billion) produce just 10% of emissions. These figures ignore historical emissions, which would probably be even more skewed.

Its that 10% that need to work out how to live with much, much, lower GHG emissions, then share that knowledge with the rest that aspire to their levels of wealth. If anyone should be slashing birth rates perhaps it should be the rich? I havn't seen numbers for within the 10%, but its probably highly skewed to the 1% and .1%. What's the carbon footprint of the Trump family?

As Kevin Anderson notes, the rich include the policy makers and climate scientists that keep flying to conferences. Also, the rich hollywood types that makes movies about climate change.



https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam

As I take these numbers with some skepticism, I looked up the report itself. It has this to say on the methodology:
A technical summary of the methodology behind the estimates presented in this briefing is available at http://oxf.am/Ze4e. The approach adopted assumes an elastic relationship between income and emissions. Put simply, it takes data on income shares of different percentiles at the national level and distributes aggregate national emissions to those percentiles.
It draws on two datasets: national income distribution data from analysis by Branko Milanovic based on household surveys for 118 countries in the benchmark year 2008; and estimates of CO2 emissions associated with household consumption (which we here term ‘lifestyle consumption
emissions’) from Glen Peters based on a Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) trade model, covering 121 countries, for the year 2007.
Critically, the CO2 model represents emissions from consumption rather than production. The underlying trade model allocates emissions associated with goods/services to the territory in which consumption takes place rather than the country in which the production occurs. This gives a more realistic picture of the actual emissions of citizens of different levels of income within a country. Emissions associated with consumption by governments, capital and international transport are therefore excluded. The proportion of total consumption emissions attributed to the lifestyle consumption of individuals varies by country, but globally accounts for around 64% of the total.
Oxfam’s estimates should only be considered indicative of the orders of magnitude, but also as conservative, for two reasons. Firstly a significant number of mostly low-income countries are missing from the datasets; if they were included it would lower the average per capita emissions of the bottom 50% poorest people, and lower the share of the global total
attributed to the bottom 50%. Secondly, we have assumed a nationally determined threshold of minimum emissions, raising the lower end of the distributions that may otherwise produce emissions values lower than might be considered plausible. See the technical note for a description of the approach taken and rationale.
Clearly there will have been some changes to the income and associated emissions distributions since the benchmark year for the data of 2008; however the orders of magnitude presented here – notably the difference between the richest and poorest people globally – are likely still to hold.
There will likely be a smaller but still very significant share of the global poorest 40% in some middle-income countries like China and Brazil, where growth has been fastest and relatively more inclusive, and a growing representation of some middle-income countries in the global richest 10% (see section 2).


It's a mixed picture, but bear in mind total household consumption emissions do not equal total emissions.

As to the question of who should stop (or slow down) making babies - GHG emissions hurt the emitter just as much as they hurt everybody else. In contrast, explosive population growth mainly hurts the country where it happens. So the "justice" issue is very different.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #339 on: July 01, 2017, 12:16:44 AM »
From the research done by the French economist Piketty (he authored "Capital in the Twenty First Century", a best seller on inequality), pretty close to the other figures.

" Global CO2e emissions remain highly concentrated today: top 10% emitters contribute to about 45% of global emissions, while bottom 50% emitters contribute to 13% of global emissions. Top 10% emitters live on all continents, with onethird of them from emerging countries."

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/ChancelPiketty2015.pdf

Oren, you state that "GHG emissions hurt the emitter just as much as they hurt everybody else". No they don't. The impact of GHG emissions will depend upon a numbers of factors which will include location (localized AGW impacts and ability of society to adapt) and wealth (individual ability to adapt/move). AGW will tend to impact the poor much more than the rich. DiCaprio will suffer much less from his emissions than a poor African farmer, for example.

If AGW is the problem, then more poor people is not a big contributor. The consumption of the rich is. Also, the relatively rapid population growth in some of the richer nations such as Canada and the USA.

On an individual happiness basis, the rapid rates of population growth we will see in an African continent that will be hit hard by AGW, may be a disaster.

Public Enemy Number 1 is consumption per capita, which is increasing much faster than population in the richest 50% of the population. China is a great example.


AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12744
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #340 on: July 01, 2017, 12:56:47 AM »
The globalist need to learn to better manage the implications of the Elephant Chart or they will lose out to populists (like Trump):

Title: "The hottest chart in economics, and what it means"

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/hottest-chart-economics-means/

Extract: "The Elephant Chart. Rarely has one economic picture had as much impact as this one. Tonight’s Making Sen$e Thursday story on the PBS NewsHour profiles its creator, economist Branko Milanovic. It explains the rise of populism in the developed world and so much more."
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 02:59:30 AM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #341 on: July 01, 2017, 02:00:04 AM »
Great chart, havn't seen this before. Neoliberal globalization at its best, the rich make more money (quite a lot of it by moving work to abroad and the resulting lower wages at home) and pay less taxes! The rich, such as the bankers, also get bailed out when they fail.

Let's not forget massive amounts of illegal immigration (in the US) and legal immigration (misuse of the H1B Visa program in the US for example), to knock down local wages. The UK got hit by the same thing when the poorer Eastern European countries joined the EU and their citizens had the right to work in the UK (their second language tending to be English).

Let's also remember that the poorer end of the Elephant are increasing their incomes from a very low level.

Populism can be Corbyn and Sanders rather than Trump, if their party establishments allow it!

pileus

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 337
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #342 on: July 01, 2017, 08:16:47 PM »
Some positive news on US birth rates.  Hopefully fertility rates will continue to decline, not just in the US but in all developed countries.

Also, the attached chart from ourworldindata.org is a great visualization of historical fertility and replacement rates.

-----
Americans keep having fewer babies as U.S. birthrates hit some record lows

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-us-birth-rate-20170630-htmlstory.html

In 2016, the U.S. general fertility rate hit a record low of 62.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. In 2015, the general fertility rate was 62.5.

Another useful statistic is the total fertility rate. This is an estimate of the total number of babies that 1,000 women would have over their lifetimes, based on the actual birth rates for women in different age groups.

In 2016, the total fertility rate for American women was 1,818 births per 1,000 women. That’s the lowest it has been since 1984.

In order for a generation to exactly replace itself, the total fertility rate needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women. The U.S. has been missing that mark since 1971 (though the country’s population has grown due to immigration).


Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9050
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #343 on: July 06, 2017, 09:02:57 PM »
Elon Musk: The world's population is accelerating toward collapse and nobody cares
- Musk tweeted Thursday to his nearly 10 million followers: "The world's population is accelerating towards collapse, but few seem to notice or care."
- He was replying to a New Scientist article titled, "The world in 2076: The population bomb has imploded."

“Rather than a meltdown where the Earth's population outstrips the planet's ability to feed everyone, we could be headed toward a more subtle but equally disastrous outcome where our population simply does not replace itself fast enough.”

"The world has hit peak child," the late Hans Rosling, a professor at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, said in the article.

Indeed, Japan's fertility rate is 1.4 children per woman, well below what is required to sustain population growth.

While Japan is perhaps the most well-known example of a country's population aging, the article in the London-based magazine also points to Germany and Italy, both of which "could see their populations halve within the next 60 years."

The article spells out some of the problems an older population might bring, including less innovation, cultural shifts and worse and more recession-prone economies.
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/elon-musk-the-worlds-population-is-accelerating-toward-collapse-and-nobody-cares.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

ghoti

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 579
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #344 on: July 06, 2017, 09:49:41 PM »
The hysteria over population collapse has been driven in the last couple of decades by American evangelicals who rail against contraception and women's rights. My take is their real fear is that Christians are becoming a smaller and smaller part of the world population. In reality over-population is still the real issue.

Darvince

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
    • NSIDC Daily
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #345 on: July 08, 2017, 01:13:50 PM »
I will attempt to explain this seemingly strange comment about falling world populations.

Elon Musk is very much an optimist, but not a climate optimist (otherwise why would he have made Tesla/Solar City?). As such, he likely believes we will be able to produce ten-fold sustainable improvements in farming efficiency (i.e. through in vitro meat and gene editing of plants). He is also very much a believer in capitalism as he has skyrocketed from a South African nobody to the world's most important visionary, and why wouldn't you after such an experience?

And unlike some people have said on this topic, the carrying capacity of Earth for humanity is not a fixed number, and never was the second we began innovating. It started rising as soon as we began intentional ecosystem modification and has continued rising ever since, although currently long-term carrying capacity is far below the population due to unsustainable farming practices.

If carrying capacity was fixed, of our 7,516,913,663 people, about 7.506 billion of us would be doomed to die from famine and starvation rather imminently, with perhaps 10 million making it out on the other side.

I do, however, highly doubt that a falling population will ever be a problem, because
1) advancements in genetics and biology will likely allow us to grow infants entirely outside the womb in 10-25 years time
2) a growing population is only necessary to sustain an exploitative profit-based capitalism

And with that, I went and checked his Twitter feed and the culprit tweet seems conspicuously absent  ???

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 610
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #346 on: July 08, 2017, 02:22:04 PM »

Elon Musk likely believes we will be able to produce ten-fold sustainable improvements in farming efficiency (i.e. through in vitro meat and gene editing of plants).

I do, however, highly doubt that a falling population will ever be a problem, because advancements in genetics and biology will likely allow us to grow infants entirely outside the womb in 10-25 years time


With luck I will be dead by the time the world accepts that in vitro meat, gene editing and growing babies outside the womb is normal.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3988
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #347 on: July 08, 2017, 03:38:58 PM »
1) advancements in genetics and biology will likely allow us to grow infants entirely outside the womb in 10-25 years time

Ever read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World?
Il faut cultiver notre jardin

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2068
    • View Profile
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #348 on: July 08, 2017, 09:15:27 PM »
1) advancements in genetics and biology will likely allow us to grow infants entirely outside the womb in 10-25 years time

Ever read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World?

Just because it is technically possible does not mean society will actually implement the technology. In 25 years, science will be far more focused on desperate geoengineering in an ultimately futile attempt to halt accelerating global warming.

Darvince

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
    • NSIDC Daily
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #349 on: July 08, 2017, 10:40:00 PM »
1) advancements in genetics and biology will likely allow us to grow infants entirely outside the womb in 10-25 years time

Ever read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World?
Yes, actually. I don't believe that because of its depiction in the book that the technology by itself is a horrible thing, but I also don't believe it will ever be widely necessary. Sure, LGBT and other couples incapable of making babies in their own wombs will use it, but I don't think there will be wide adoption just to bring population numbers up. (There's always robots for that! ;) )