Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Population: Public Enemy No. 1  (Read 149353 times)

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1738
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 409
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #650 on: December 23, 2019, 07:21:55 AM »
The idea of thousands of young adults committing to no children due to government inaction on curtailing emissions has a punch to the belly feel about it. I believe governments would react with child subsidies and tax breaks for additional children if the movement ever gained a large following.
 I can’t criticize a persons decision whether to procreate or not.  Reproduction is a very personal decision. Rich or not rich . Read the letters from those young people who have committed to no children ! 
 Nanning, The top one percent world income earners only need to earn $32,000.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
It looks to me like many of those letters are from young adults whose parents/families are on that list. So what ?
 

blumenkraft

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4255
  • Fans of Hans Ø Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1446
  • Likes Given: 2266
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #651 on: December 23, 2019, 07:42:51 AM »
The idea of thousands of young adults committing to no children ... has a punch to the belly feel about it.

Wow, really? I honestly don't understand that feeling in this context. Could you elaborate on that, Bruce?

Because i mean, there are 7.8 billion people right now and rising. And to me, only the vague possibility of fewer people is causing hope as a feeling.
“I’m an introvert. I’m just different that’s all. I’m so sorry. I don’t have a gun. I don’t do that stuff... All I was trying to do was to become better. I’ll do it... You all are phenomenal. You are beautiful. And I love you. Try to forgive me. I’m sorry.”

Elijah McClain

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2021
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 16118
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #652 on: December 23, 2019, 08:36:19 AM »
Thanks blum, I agree.

And what's an even more important consideration I think, is the morality of bringing new children in an overpopulated and much degraded world with a catastrophic ever-worsening future. For those from rich counties who are reasonably informed, it is an act of ultimate egoism, lack of responsiblity and lack of empathy  >:(.
(idea: Adopt a child from the cobalt mines in D.R.C.)

My heart is crying for all children that have to live through what the rich adults have destroyed and are still destroying. I see children everyday and know what their future will be like. I'm extremely glad that I took my responsibility and changed my life all the way. All people who didn't, and are informed, should feel a terrible guilt. I'm extremely sad that I'm about the only one who acts this way, made radical changes.

(When rich-country people read the previous sentences, I have observed that they will try to find ways to attack or discredit my actions or find obscene rich-people excuses, but they will not radically change like I did.).

The powerful people, the extremely rich people and governments are (almost) all insane. COP25 was a good illustration of the extreme contrast between the wishes of all sane people (incl. children & scientists) and the acts of our 'leaders'.
Does anyone think COP26 will be different? What are 'we' waiting for? For our governments to act meaningfully? Hahahaha  :'(

I went a bit off-topic in the end, sorry.

edit: removed the "complete"'s
« Last Edit: December 23, 2019, 04:54:04 PM by nanning »
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #653 on: December 23, 2019, 04:59:22 PM »
Not to put words in Bruce's mouth, but I think he is expressing how unbelievably sad it is that we are at this point. If I was young and contemplating starting a family today, I would absolutely, unambiguously decide not to, and I think young people should as well.  That does not negate how terrible this reality is. 

I am having dinner tonight with my nephew and his fabulous new wife.  My wife and I adore this couple and they are everything good.  I am trying to decide if I can muster the will to advise them that I think reproducing is the wrong choice.  Obviously our family would rather be looking forward to this great young couple starting a family, but that joy has been stolen from us.  That is a tragedy.

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1738
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 409
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #654 on: December 23, 2019, 05:59:30 PM »
Thanks dnem, I don’t feel like explaining why my first wife and I decided to not have children but it wasn’t climate related. A second marriage came with an adult son and later a grandson, so you can become a grandfather without being a father first. The decision not to have children is a deeply personal matter . I support the decision others may make but bringing up the no child policy with extended family yesterday didn’t go over well.
 Climate change and all it’s ramifications takes some serious research to wrap your brain around . I still haven’t been able to adequately explain acidification to my commercial fishing friends but my message has gotten through to a few people. I have seen the look of realization in a young mothers eyes.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2019, 06:09:49 PM by Bruce Steele »

blumenkraft

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4255
  • Fans of Hans Ø Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1446
  • Likes Given: 2266
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #655 on: December 23, 2019, 06:17:25 PM »
Thanks for your answers, guys. :)

... but bringing up the no child policy with extended family yesterday didn’t go over well.

Yeah, i know! Had this myself several times.

Without kids, you are not a 'complete' person in most peoples views. This notion is very strange to me.
“I’m an introvert. I’m just different that’s all. I’m so sorry. I don’t have a gun. I don’t do that stuff... All I was trying to do was to become better. I’ll do it... You all are phenomenal. You are beautiful. And I love you. Try to forgive me. I’m sorry.”

Elijah McClain

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2021
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 16118
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #656 on: December 23, 2019, 07:21:37 PM »
Quote from: Bruce Steele
I have seen the look of realization in a young mothers eyes.

Wow. That might have had a deep impact. Have you talked to her afterwards? And hugged her? :)

Thanks to all for your personal stories. I find them interesting and touching.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1973
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 767
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #657 on: December 23, 2019, 09:27:25 PM »
Thanks for your answers, guys. :)

... but bringing up the no child policy with extended family yesterday didn’t go over well.

Yeah, i know! Had this myself several times.

Without kids, you are not a 'complete' person in most peoples views. This notion is very strange to me.

It is not that strange.

You are born of people and one thing you can do is have kids yourself. It used to be inavoidable if you were actually interested in consumating your marriage. Having kids is an utterly natural thing.

I first did not want them because we had enough people on the planet anyway but when i got older at some point i started to see it differently. In a sort of selfish way having them insures a future to look forward to. You have no kids you just age and die. You have kids you can watch them grow, buy really noisy presents for the grandkids and hang out with them.

It is a more complete way to live a normal live.

If that is possible now is another thing. (I bought a copy of Storms of my Grandchildren for my mom and read it before wrapping it up and that is were i gave up the kids idea after all).



Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1738
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 409
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #658 on: December 24, 2019, 03:09:41 AM »
Kassy, “you just age and die” seems kinda harsh. Not offended but rather amused.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2021
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 16118
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #659 on: December 24, 2019, 05:40:47 AM »
Thanks kassy and Bruce for your (hard) choices.

<snip>
It is a more complete way to live a normal live.

Only in civilisation culture is it a normal life.

From my research: Most non-civilisation (non-expanding) tribes didn't have fathers and didn't have separate mother/father/house-units because it is against our nature. You have to strongly force humans to stay with 1 partner. In living nature it is not normal for all social mammals to have offspring. It is not a right because then your group is out of control (is there enough food? is it the right time? Will it be a strong addition?). Newborns have to be/were a group responsibility and rational choice. With group I mean less than 50 people (I'm not 100% sure about that number but there are (many) constraints for an optimal group size, just look at living nature). A natural group, very much intimately together, forming a strong unit, like herds and other groups of social mammals. Everyone is a direct part of the whole and everyone has a function. Every child is very special and being cared for by everyone. Endearing. A new part of the intimate group.
"We only eat when everyone has to eat"
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 561
  • Likes Given: 155
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #660 on: December 24, 2019, 11:01:34 AM »
I never married because I have always felt that I was not up to the responsibilities of being a husband and a father. I have enough difficulty surviving with the help of my cousin/guardian and would not want to inflict my problems on anyone else. Also, I have never had a wish to marry.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 906
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #661 on: December 24, 2019, 07:19:57 PM »
I used to get married ~once/decade, but then I slowed down. The present one has over 30 years in my garage & I'm not ready to trade her in. She handles well, her chassis is still in great shape, the joints need lubrication, but her computer acts as though it has all of the latest upgrades. ;D


Terry

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2021
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 16118
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #662 on: December 24, 2019, 08:49:53 PM »
What a way to talk about your wife. I get that it's a metaphore.
Not ready to trade her in? Sorry Terry, I may not understand all and may be wrong in my interpretation (please correct me), but that text gives me a bad feeling, my morality-toes play up again.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 906
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #663 on: December 24, 2019, 09:04:38 PM »
All in fun nanning. I grew up in the middle of the sexual revolution - on the front lines in Southern California.


This one's a keeper, and I knew it from the first time we met.


Who falls in love for the first time in their 40's? She was the only gal I'd ever met with more books than I had!
Terry

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2021
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 16118
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #664 on: December 24, 2019, 09:07:55 PM »
Thanks for explaining :). Good. Have a great couple of days Terry.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 906
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #665 on: December 24, 2019, 09:13:32 PM »
Thanks nanning!
Off to an Xmas dinner in a few minutes, then a New Year's Day Levee next week.


Live is good here & I hope yours is also.


The Best
Terry

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #666 on: December 30, 2019, 11:39:24 AM »
What a great example of how differences in native tongue, use of idiom, etc. can cause misunderstandings in our little international forum! I hope we can all try and assume the best motives of each other in the New Year.

Cheers!
dnem

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17525
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 812
  • Likes Given: 296
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #667 on: December 30, 2019, 02:44:36 PM »
“If a woman has sex with 100 random men in a year, she can still only produce one full term pregnancy. If a guy has sex with 100 random women in a year, he can produce 100 full term pregnancies. So why exactly are we only talking about regulating women?”

We’re Controlling The Wrong Bodies
https://www.scarymommy.com/regulating-womens-bodies-abortion-rights/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5505
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 726
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #668 on: December 31, 2019, 09:10:02 AM »
US population growth lowest in a century:

"declining births, increasing deaths and the slowdown of international migration"

"natural increase — the number of births minus the number of deaths — was less than 1 million in the U.S. "

"Four states had a natural decrease, where deaths outnumbered births: West Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont."

"Florida stands to gain two [congress House of Representatives] seats, while Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon each stand to gain a seat. Besides, California, other states that will likely lose a seat are Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia."

https://apnews.com/f2fc555b185859a3816b7369b69da11d

sidd

blumenkraft

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4255
  • Fans of Hans Ø Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1446
  • Likes Given: 2266
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #669 on: February 07, 2020, 08:32:40 PM »
“I’m an introvert. I’m just different that’s all. I’m so sorry. I don’t have a gun. I don’t do that stuff... All I was trying to do was to become better. I’ll do it... You all are phenomenal. You are beautiful. And I love you. Try to forgive me. I’m sorry.”

Elijah McClain

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #670 on: February 09, 2020, 05:20:59 PM »
That's a really useful graph, bk. Personally, I will not be surprised if the thin purple crosses the X-axis sometime before 2050.  That is, the human death rate will overtake the birthrate and the human population will begin its inevitable decline.  This will be a momentous event in the history of our species.

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #671 on: February 09, 2020, 08:26:27 PM »
The graph comes from https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

Very nice graphics and well worth poking around there!

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #672 on: February 09, 2020, 09:47:44 PM »
That's a really useful graph, bk. Personally, I will not be surprised if the thin purple crosses the X-axis sometime before 2050.  That is, the human death rate will overtake the birthrate and the human population will begin its inevitable decline.  This will be a momentous event in the history of our species.

This would require regions of the planet to experience horrific mass deaths and I do think this is possible. (famine, war etc.)

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #673 on: February 09, 2020, 10:04:59 PM »
According to that website, there are about 141 million births and 60 million deaths a year right now.  The projections are for 92 million deaths and 143 million births in 2050.  It would not take any sort of overwhelming calamity for the births to fall by a few tens of millions and death to rise by a few over 30 years for the lines to cross.  Just a steady erosion of conditions everywhere.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2021
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 16118
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #674 on: May 25, 2020, 09:54:53 AM »
(copied from the 'Places becoming less livable' thread)

Overpopulation (and hunger) in Africa is caused by
   theory by Nanning S. Poelsma

EDIT: My assumptions about pre-western-colonists Africa was wrong so this theory is falsified.

 Overpopulation (and hunger) in Africa is caused by the arrival of western conquering colonists who brought Biblical religion and with it, father/mother/family-groups of 2 persons. Up until then the Africans lived in tribe-groups of 30-50 persons (estimate) with no separate houses and no fathers/families.
The colonists also introduced agriculture whilst most Africans used to be hunter/gatherers.

Overpopulation.
 By this cultural shift, the original African tribe-groups of, say, 40 persons transitioned into father/mother-groups of 2 persons. Both types of group are procreating but where 1 extra person doesn't mean significant growth for a tribe-group of 40, it is definitely a significant growth for a father/mother-group. The father/mother-group isn't complete with 1 extra person (child) because Africans were used to live in larger tribe-groups and they need extra hands to help with living in an agriculture system as opposed to hunter/gatherer.

So population change went from
      (40+1) * number of tribes    ->
      (2+6) * number of father/mother-groups + delayed creation of 6 new father/mother-groups.
(6 children is my crude conservative estimate)

This has clearly started a population explosion.


Hunger.
 The earlier tribe-groups of 40 persons were able to survive by cooperating as an intimate group, mostly hunting/gathering (e.g. the San people). Even with agriculture they would be able to survive without expanding their numbers.

The father/mother-groups of 2 persons are, perhaps with some exceptions, not hunter/gatherers but dependent on the agriculture system brought by the colonists. To survive on agriculture without technology, the father/mother-groups needed to expand their numbers by more than 1. In my crude estimate I wrote 6 children but it is probable that the average was/is higher.

 Agriculture means settled/localised/ownership/borders and father/mother-groups that are much more dependent on weather, 'pests', war/violence, theft etc. When a harvest fails, they generally won't leave 'their' land and will suffer the consequences.

 Together with population explosion and AGW (and western technology) an increasing amount of father/mother-groups (with many children) have become very vulnerable to hunger.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2020, 05:51:42 AM by nanning »
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2021
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 16118
Re: Places becoming less livable
« Reply #675 on: May 25, 2020, 10:06:01 AM »
Thank you very much for engaging oren.
I have copied the population post to the 'Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1' thread.


 Agriculture started in the Middle East (and S.America) I think and it is plausible that the settling and agriculture lifestyle was taken to Africa even before the Romans. But that didn't influence the whole of Africa imo but likely only the part between the Sahara and the Mediterranean Sea.
 I am by no means an expert in anthropology and history but I work from a pattern of deep fundamental umbrella understanding that has consequences/spin-offs, many of which let me check if that consequence/spin-off is indeed what has happened and partly validates my understanding.

Line of reasoning:

 Before agriculture there was only the (natural) hunter/gatherer lifestyle. People's civilisation bias makes them almost incapable to understand that the father/mother/family system was started some time after the start of civilisation and not before and not outside of civlisations. The hunter/gatherer lifestyle goes together with the tribes system as that's how humans have lived since inception. We have to conclude that humans from the southern part of Africa were still living without civilisation and therefore as hunter/gatherers and in tribes groups.
This article is an indication for the plausibility of my assumptions (no hierarchy):
   https://originalpeople.org/east-africans-5000-years-ago-lived-in-peaceful-communities-that-shunned-social-hierarchies-according-to-evidence/
   https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/aug/20/kenya-burial-site-shows-community-spirit-of-herders-5000-years-ago
Also the documentary youtube video about the San people of Southern Africa are in line with my thinking, even though the commenters on that video suffer from civilisation bias in projecting civilisation's values and customs onto those old tribes.

 To see that humans are not naturally monogamous you only need to observer the behaviour of teenagers, the problems with staying loyal to ones partner, songstexts and other cultural aspects, the lack of a 'father-instinct' and, in my case, the conflict of monogamy with everything I know from human tribes before 10000bc and the observations of real monogamous animals in living nature as opposed to humans and other primates.

Open mind (please don't find this tiresome).
You just wrote in the melting season thread that you value an 'open mind' and I wholeheartedly agree with the importance thereof. The whole of science is based on an 'open mind'; hunting down and eliminating biases and other errors in your brain and way of thinking. I have become a non-academic scientist because the academic system is brimfull with cultural biases, and I have observed that finding and removing biases is very difficult to do and only very few people are able to really clear their mind of biases and look at it 'from a distance'/have an alien perspective. I had to fundamentally change my life to do my science and open up my mind for 'alien' patterns and understanding. Smoking joints and being outside helped with that, as did talking thought-streams out loud.

A little bit further:
The agricultural lifestyle induced the insane system of ownership. First of land and then to all other living nature, objects and abstractions. This has nothing to do with the natural territorial instincts. Before agriculture most (all?) humans were nomadic.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 561
  • Likes Given: 155
Re: Re: Places becoming less livable
« Reply #676 on: May 25, 2020, 10:34:42 AM »
nanning, it seems agriculture was inevitable if it started twice independently (and probably thrice...you forgot China). Maybe we were doomed to this dilemma.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2021
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 16118
Re: Re: Places becoming less livable
« Reply #677 on: May 25, 2020, 04:03:24 PM »
Yes, I think you're right Tom. But I think the initial cause is the supremacy of humans and their technology; to go beyond living nature's bounds. That will inevitably lead to agriculture I think by the, with time, expanding technological control of living nature, once you go for the insane (outside of reality, fantasy) temptations of use of technology outside of nature's constraints (low morality), you are sold because there is no way back once it's in your culture. This was the very beginning of 'progress' which consists of processes outside of natural selection and living nature's bounds (low morality).

Technology beyond the paleo-lithic is in general bad technology. That's my understanding. I had to adapt my thinking to this extremely confronting truth but I have had more time and effort put in. And now I try to explain it.

Rational arguments, logic and perceived counter examples welcome :).
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1973
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 767
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #678 on: May 25, 2020, 04:39:24 PM »
The colonists also introduced agriculture whilst most Africans used to be hunter/gatherers.

well...

Ancient and Traditional Agriculture, Pastoralism, and Agricultural Societies in Sub-Saharan Africa 
Andrew B. Smith

African domesticated animals, with the exception of the donkey, all came from the Near East. Some 8,000 years ago cattle, sheep, and goats came south to the Sahara which was much wetter than today. Pastoralism was an off-shoot of grain agriculture in the Near East, and those herders immigrating brought with them techniques of harvesting wild grains. With increasing aridity as the Saharan environment dried up around 5000 years ago, the herders began to control and manipulate their stands resulting in millet and sorghum domestication in the Sahel Zone, south of the Sahara. Pearl millet expanded to the south and was taken up by Bantu-speaking Iron Age farmers in the savanna areas of West Africa and then spread around the tropical forest into East Africa by 3000 b.p. As the Sahara dried up and the tsetse belts retreated, sheep and cattle also moved south. They expanded into East Africa via a tsetse-free environment of the Ethiopian highlands arriving around 4000 b.p. It took around 1000 years for the pastoralists to adapt to other epizootic diseases rife in this part of the continent before they could expand throughout the grasslands of Kenya and Tanzania. Thus, East Africa was a socially complex place 3000 years ago, with indigenous hunters, herders and farmers. This put pressure on pastoral use of the environment, so using another tsetse-free corridor from Tanzania, through Zambia to the northern Kalahari, then on to the Western Cape, herders moved to southern Africa, arriving 2000b.p. They were followed to the eastern part of South Africa by Bantu-speaking agro-pastoralists 1600 years ago who were able to use the summer rainfall area for their sorghum and millet crops.

Control and manipulation of African indigenous plants of the forest regions probably has a long history from use by hunter-gatherers, but information on this is constrained by archaeological evidence, which is poor in tropical environments due to poor preservation. Evidence for early palm oil domestication has been found in Ghana dated to around 2550b.p. Several African indigenous plants are still widely used, such as yams, but the plant which has spread most widely throughout the world is coffee, originally from Ethiopia. Alien plants, such as maize, potatoes and Asian rice have displaced indigenous plants over much of Africa.

https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-179

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2021
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 16118
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #679 on: May 26, 2020, 05:45:03 AM »
Thank you very much kassy for your posts and effort. I will read the articles/papers and learn, but always with a sceptical mind because I think there is not a lot of written history about non-civilisation parts of the world (such as about the old Frisians etc). I'm especially careful with interpretations that may be carrying civlisation's cultural biases.

I wish that you do agree on the fact that before the start of civilisation(s); humans lived in tribes; had no separate houses (no father/mother units); were mostly nomadic. I am interested if you have more details on those so I'll be able to refine my understanding, especially about the details and time periods etc.
What do you think of my 'line of reasoning'?

As I stated, I am not knowledgable about these time periods of civilisation and was wrong in my assumptions. I still have questions but they may go away after having read the articles. e.g. I can't see the European slave-takers finding and taking Africans that were living in father/mother systems in stead of tribe-systems.

My overpopulation theory (hypothesis) about western colonists is wrong.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2020, 05:52:26 AM by nanning »
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1973
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 767
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #680 on: May 26, 2020, 06:00:02 PM »
Since that is about your theory and not the threads topic i would happily discuss it in the OTOT thread.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2021
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 16118
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #681 on: May 27, 2020, 05:14:30 AM »
Thank you kassy, much appreciated!
First I'll read the paper you linked to. And won't post here again about my specific African-overpopulation-theory.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2021
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 16118
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #682 on: June 01, 2020, 06:59:14 AM »
This is nagging me, so a small amendment to my disproved theory/hypothesis:
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,473.msg265583.html#msg265583)

This part:
Quote from: nanning
     (2+6) * number of father/mother-groups + delayed creation of 6 new father/mother-groups.

Should read:
     (2+6) * number of father/mother-groups + delayed creation of 3 new father/mother-groups.

Otherwise there's double counting.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

vox_mundi

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1960
  • Likes Given: 249
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #683 on: June 09, 2020, 10:26:24 AM »
Scientists Lament 'Humpty Dumpty' Effect On World's Spectacular, Rare Wildlife
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-scientists-lament-humpty-dumpty-effect.html

Some of the world's largest, most spectacular and unheralded mammals are silently slipping away, species like Tibetan wild yaks and Patagonia's huemul, Bhutan's takin and Vietnam's saola. Even Africa's three species of zebras and wildebeest have suffered massive reductions over the last several decades.

The research team said worldwide food webs have become irretrievably altered by humans, with little hope to reconstitute even recent past conditions or to put back the ecological functions once created by native species.

The reasons for these losses are more than disease and habitat fragmentation, deforestation or wildlife trade, according to researchers. Ultimately, the cause is rampant human population growth. And unless human behavior changes in unprecedented ways, these scientists warn that future communities of these mammals will never resemble those of the recent past or even today.

The findings are based on a new study, "Disassembled food webs and messy projections: modern ungulate communities in the face of unabating human population growth," published June 9 in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

"We all must realize we're members of a broad, beautiful and living planet, and we must find ways to subsist in this together or suffer more severe consequences than what we already see," said Berger, also a senior scientist at the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). "For many assemblages of animals, we are nearing a moment in time, when, like Humpty Dumpty, we will not be able to put things back together again."

Joel Berger et al, Disassembled Food Webs and Messy Projections: Modern Ungulate Communities in the Face of Unabating Human Population Growth, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution (2020).
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2020.00128/full
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

jens

  • New ice
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #684 on: June 09, 2020, 10:31:52 AM »
People often argue, what is the biggest problem, but I'd say everything is. Both overpopulation and overconsumption are a problem. Both developing countries (overpopulation) and developed countries (overconsumption) have a problem in their hands with regards to degrading environment and resource depletion. Every born person consumes, however rich people consume way more than poor people.

In any case, I have to admit I have found the UN projections amusing. They are so out of touch with climate projections and realities that it isn't even funny. And it's not just that, they don't take into account resource depletion or any other practical degrading world factor either. There is no way we are going to reach 10B people. I'll go out on a limb and claim that population peaks in the 2020's.