Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Population: Public Enemy No. 1  (Read 157514 times)

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #150 on: March 26, 2014, 05:55:17 PM »
Are we F**ked?

Simple answer?  YES!  Absolutely, unequivocally, irrevocably f**ked!

Does that mean the things are hopeless?  No, but we have to stop being stupid.  And that is really hard to do.

I have been trying for sometime to point out a path that possibly leads out of the mess we are in.  An admittedly hard painful frightening path.  But one that careful thought about over a long time seems to avoid all the deadend pitfalls inherent in various forms of BAU approaches.  Once again, the objective is survival, the problems are AGW and achieving 'sustainability'. 

I will freely admit that I hold these views very strongly and frequently lose patience with those who cannot think  through the obvious pitfalls of the favorite approaches, admitting of course that I also am likely to be missing a few pitfalls myself - feel free to point them out.  But, I also understand that clear thinking in times of stress is not a generally common human skill and even understanding what I think are clear explanations of the various pitfalls is not going to be easy for people who are fundamentally very frightened.  Not to mention that it is clear to me that my understanding of what is going on is far and away beyond my ability to articulate that understanding.  I am not going to win the Pulitzer Prize any time in the near future.  So....?

So, I am going to turn to an alternate explanation of part of the problem which I have tried to work out the solution to many times in the past in the Population thread and others.  There are way to many people to ever fix the problem.  Now I am sure some will get a chuckle seeing my selection of an alternate way of saying what I am trying to get across, being as it comes from a PhD physicist from Harvard, as my obvious general view is that physicists cannot explain their way out of a box and understand less of human nature than the average guy in a sports bar (snark) . (You would be amazed how many times I ended up in fist fights when I was young because my genius little brother - PhD in math, 2 masters degrees and multiple BS degrees from MIT- was incapable of understanding how to be respectful to the neighborhood boys who now spend time in those same sports bars.)

The essay however is actually very good and worth the read if you are interested in possible solutions to our big problem.  He does an excellent job of laying out the logic (supported by a bunch of mathematics) and ends up pretty much where I have been pointing.  Now you might be tempted to skip across the section on the math of population growth but I recommend at least skimming it for understanding as it blows out of the water the old canard about simply educating the women of the world and this will reduce population growth and eventually result in big population declines.  All true expect for the assumption that this process 'does not' result in those population declines occurring in a time frame that is useful (sorry Sidd).  I have pointed this out to people a hundred times but it is very hard to get across as this progressive idea (I am basically an anarchist btw) is so set in their social view that it may as well be cement.

There are a few points in the article which I think are debatable - not wrong necessarily, but not followed to their natural conclusion either - and open to some vigorous discussion,  but I will leave them out for now and just see if anyone finds the discussion worthwhile.  We can always dig into details later.

All in all this essay is an articulate description of pretty much everything I have been saying here for some time about population, energy and limits.  Everything else flows from there.

The article (essay) linked to I do not think I should copy any of it as it is a submission to a yearly contest held by FQXi.  This essay contest is for the spring of 2014 and the subject to be addressed is "How Should Humanity Steer the Future? " and it is ongoing.  Please follow the link to the essay by Dr. Alan M. Kadin titled "Just Too Many People: Towards a Sustainable Future Earth".  It is a pdf download.

Quote
Essay Abstract

Our modern civilization is built on cheap energy from fossil fuels, which produces carbon dioxide, which produces global warming. The only way to avoid catastrophe is to shift away from fossil fuels to solar and nuclear energy, well before all fossil fuel reserves have been burned. But this transition cannot be achieved with a projected global population of 10 billion (10B); we need to return to a level of 100 to 200 years ago, when the population was ~1-2B. A peaceful transition is possible only if humanity collectively takes ownership of the problem.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1993
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Daniel

  • New ice
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #151 on: March 27, 2014, 09:45:11 AM »
Check out Hans Roslings predictions (11 billion people in 2100)



About 19mins in.

Well Worth to Watch the whole lecture by the way, even though I don't share his optimism.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #152 on: March 27, 2014, 03:32:31 PM »
Daniel

Welcome, I see it is your first post.

Thanks.  I am aware of that UN projection though I have never seen the video before.  I must admit that we have posted a lot about this and I have read a lot and I have never found anyone (including yourself it sounds like) who can figure out how they come up with the 11 billion in 2100.  They have to be ignoring all the negative feedbacks.

The resource requirements of 11 billion and the regular pollution they would generate are just to overwhelming to think this could happen even if we ignored AGW.  When AGW is thrown in the mix I think that population will have to peak sometime around 2050.  The confluence of so many negative factors by then points very strongly towards an earlier population peak.

To me this problem is indicative of what is going to happen with a lot of the other issues related to AGW, lack of sustainability, sharing of resources, equity and such.  Dealing with any of them requires international cooperation and fundamental changes in normal human behavior.  As we have already seen with all the failed climate, environmental, and political agreements, even minor cooperation and changes are almost impossible to achieve. 

To address population levels in a fashion which would make a  difference in terms of saving us from deep collapse and the worst effects of AGW would require a comprehensive global population growth agreement.  Such an agreement would have to override religious beliefs, national laws, be enforceable, and would imply almost a global governance (the dreaded One World Government so feared by conservatives).  To get comprehensive global action on AGW pretty much requires the same.

The above issue is one of the toughest requirements facing us.  And the one that makes it so hard to hang on to hope.  To succeed in preventing deep collapse requires that we change our way of life and behavior.  This requirement lies outside the scientific data and possible technological solutions.  The technically feasible possible approaches are not realistically possible if we cannot manage those behavioral changes.  And there is no evidence we are humanly capable of the behavioral changes. 

This is what drives me to keep insisting we take a different path.  Time is up and if we dither and delay waiting for changes which are highly unlikely to occur we just drift deeper into guaranteeing a deep collapse.  If we could trigger those behavioral changes today it is already way past the time when it would have been most effective, but we could proceed.  But I don't think even the strongest proponents of global cooperation would claim it is even close to occurring anytime soon.  But they fight for this idea and seem willing to ignore all the critical data while they wait for a change which is unlikely to ever happen.  Rational reasoning would indicate that we will not make those changes and should assume the worst and prepare for it by minimizing its effects as much as possible and stockpiling capabilities not needed now but essential post collapse.  Risk/benefit analysis.  But we will not follow that rational path I expect and since we are far from rational animals that is to be expected.

Now if everyone still wants that One World Government anyway I am sure the United States would be happy to step up and take on the burden for everyone.  In fact we would insist on it as it is quite obvious we are the only qualified candidate.  (snark - but reality also in that no one gets that job if it is not us - we insist) 

We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #153 on: March 27, 2014, 07:37:03 PM »
I wonder if removing tax deductions for children would have an effect on population growth - at least in industrialized countries.
When I was a child Canada had in place a "Baby Bonus" which was a small stipend intended to encourage population growth. It apparently wasn't successful and immigration won out.


Perhaps every woman could be paid say $100/mo. until motherhood, then $50 until the second child was born. At this point high taxes on each additional child. Welfare (to assure each child was properly fed and cared for) would have to be rethought.


Todays system was intended to encourage the large families that were once believed to be necessary to provide a growing labor base for the country but we are now aware that this is disastrous looking forward.


I don't imagine that financial pressure alone will be enough to solve the overpopulation problem, but financial incentives for having large families should end.


Terry

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #154 on: March 27, 2014, 08:05:34 PM »
Check out Hans Roslings predictions (11 billion people in 2100)

I hardly consider 11 billion in 2100 optimistic. While fertility rates might suggest this, dramatically increasing mortality rates through the century will prevent this.

I did, however, love the video. It was refreshing to watch a very informed individual point to so much that would cause us to have hope. I, for one, was not aware of how much of the world had moved to replacement fertility rates.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 09:18:47 PM by Shared Humanity »

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5662
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 771
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #155 on: March 28, 2014, 12:16:43 AM »
" ... how much of the world had moved to replacement fertility rates."

and as rosling will tell you, this has happened exactly where women are educated and empowered

sidd

adelady

  • New ice
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #156 on: March 28, 2014, 03:12:46 AM »
I really, really like Rosling.  But his main emphasis is on telling us westerners that our semi-colonial notion about advanced and developing countries is wrong.   Simultaneously, he has to keep the officials and politicians in lots of countries of all kinds on side.  So there are some things he doesn't emphasise enough. 

He talks - vaguely - about education and employment opportunities for girls and women leading to a reduced number of births per woman.    But he says - and I think he does this deliberately - that countries and cultures and religions don't have to change their beliefs or values to reduce the number of births per woman.

But if you want to control and reduce population you have to change some values and preferences in many places profoundly.     The biggest issue is to change - in some countries change substantially - the average age at which women have their first child.   Because even if you don't want to change the numbers of children born, you do want to change the total population, so the only avenue available is to change the average number of generations within families.   And to do that you have to change the desired number of generations in a family.

In a society where the average age of first birth is 20, you have women becoming grandmothers around 40ish, and great grandmothers at 60.   And you can have plenty of 5 generation families - my mum is 89 and that's not unusual in my family and in lots of other families.   

Whereas if the average age of first birth is 30, a woman has to live to 90ish to become even a great grandmother.     If you had neighbouring cities that started out with the same populations but with these two differing approaches to family formation although the average number of births per woman remains the same, you'd have a noticeable difference in the numbers of people the two communities had to support within 40 years.  After 60 years,  that difference would be substantial.   

My own view is that this involves several changes.  One of the biggest changes would be that many women would find out that they really aren't all that keen on having any children at all when it isn't drummed into them from day one that that's what they're obliged to do.  They'll either have one or none and that would be a direct reduction in the numbers of children born per generation.   And, most importantly, they'll have nearly a whole decade extra to contribute to their communities and workplaces unencumbered by personal obligations to care for their own children and their own health problems related to pregnancy and birth.   

But a lot of people in every country I know of would have serious issues with this being an overt policy rather than simply something that happens as a result of individual decisions as has happened in many countries already.     The idea that it would be a disgrace rather than a triumph to have a 5 or 6 generation family would be a hard one for many people to swallow.   

It's one thing for a woman to live to over a hundred, that's a good thing.  It's another thing entirely for every succeeding generation of her descendants to have turned out children at the earliest possible opportunity.  That's a social burden we can't afford. 

ChasingIce

  • New ice
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #157 on: March 29, 2014, 06:31:18 AM »
Did anyone point out that the worlds current birthrate doesn't support the current population in 3 generations?


this thread is sort of disturbing.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #158 on: March 29, 2014, 06:42:08 AM »
Did anyone point out that the worlds current birthrate doesn't support the current population in 3 generations?


this thread is sort of disturbing.

Could you rephrase?  What do you mean to be saying?   
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

ChasingIce

  • New ice
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #159 on: March 30, 2014, 12:40:14 AM »
Did anyone point out that the worlds current birthrate doesn't support the current population in 3 generations?


this thread is sort of disturbing.

Could you rephrase?  What do you mean to be saying?

sure...  I believe the worlds current birthrate points to a declining population in a few generations. 

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #160 on: March 30, 2014, 05:32:11 PM »
Did anyone point out that the worlds current birthrate doesn't support the current population in 3 generations?


this thread is sort of disturbing.

Could you rephrase?  What do you mean to be saying?

sure...  I believe the worlds current birthrate points to a declining population in a few generations.

Yes, Based on this talk and the underlying research, I believe that it is only Africa that will cause the final growth to a peak population of 11 billion at which point we may begin to see declines.

It is too bad this cannot occur sooner.

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #161 on: March 30, 2014, 06:09:52 PM »
Yes, Based on this talk and the underlying research, I believe that it is only Africa that will cause the final growth to a peak population of 11 billion at which point we may begin to see declines.

It is too bad this cannot occur sooner.

I think longer range projections of population are liable to fail as there are too many things going on. Personally - I don't see population ever reaching 11 billion - collapse will prune numbers very substantially first. 8 billion might not be impossible, for a little while.

If one is relying upon demographic transition to cut birthrates - and female choice etc - the question would be whether that is a long term effect or not - as people who tend for whatever reason to have more children will outcompete those who do not (if there is any genetic propensity for having children and lots of them we would be selecting for it).

However, it should also be noted that such societies and transitions occur typically in wealthier nations. As the factors driving collapse bite - poverty will become far more widespread, and I suspect societies will regress in these respects. Accordingly I think one might well expect to actually see an increase in birth rate - at least until the death rate starts really taking out the reproductive age adults too.

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 35

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #163 on: September 19, 2014, 05:14:00 PM »
Quote
World population to hit 11bn in 2100 – with 70% chance of continuous rise

New study overturns 20 years of consensus on peak projection of 9bn and gradual decline

I have made the point in every way that I can think of that that all the BAU approaches have no chance of working unless we actively address the core problem.  Population.  There is no Green-BAU technology that is going to save us.    I fully understand the fear of dealing with this issue head-on.  But there is no problem we have that can be fixed if this problem is not substantially solved.

Quote
A ground-breaking analysis released on Thursday shows there is a 70% chance that the number of people on the planet will rise continuously from 7bn today to 11bn in 2100.

The work overturns 20 years of consensus that global population, and the stresses it brings, will peak by 2050 at about 9bn people.......


.........The research, conducted by an international team including UN experts, is published in the journal Science and for the first time uses advanced statistics to place convincing upper and lower limits on future population growth. Previous estimates were based on judgments of future trends made by researchers, a “somewhat vague and subjective” approach, said Raftery. This predicted the world’s population would range somewhere between 7bn and 16bn by 2100. “This interval was so huge to be essentially meaningless and therefore it was ignored,” he said.

But the new research narrows the future range to between 9.6bn and 12.3bn by 2100. This greatly increased certainty – 80% – allowed the researchers to be confident that global population would not peak any time during in the 21st century........


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/18/world-population-new-study-11bn-2100




We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #164 on: September 19, 2014, 08:27:46 PM »
JimD
Quote
In Ireland before the famine, potatoes, with some milk and pigs could support a population density approaching 10 people per hectare (1).

The world now has about 0.5 people per hectare.

That’s about 5% of the population density of pre-famine Ireland.

So the problem is not food (calories, protein & etc.) per. se.
http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/food-whos-right-scientists-or-amateurs/

Since we are worried about climate catastrophe driven by green house gasses, perhaps we should look at the life-styles of the affluent and aspiring who
  • Fly in planes
  • Drive in fossil fuel cars (or electric ones with high embodied carbon)
  • Eat beef and lamb
  • Build houses, flats, offices &etc of bricks, steel, concrete
  • &etc

Poor people and knowledgeable green people don't do those things.   

At a guess 2 billion (at most) affluent polluters could be sustained on Earth but over 50 billion really green people could be sustained.

Let's begin the transition to a sustainable world with a carbon tax of, say, $100 CO2e rising yearly by $100 until we get a result.

The Earth's human inhabitants have an average lifestyle that is nowhere near sustainable at present because of excessive carbon intensive per capita. This is biased by the top end consumers. How do you propose cutting carbon emissions quickly enough? Are you proposing to kill off the excess population?

I would prefer a carbon tax.

Now you say

Quote
The resource requirements of 11 billion and the regular pollution they would generate are just to overwhelming to think this could happen even if we ignored AGW.  When AGW is thrown in the mix I think that population will have to peak sometime around 2050...

To address population levels in a fashion which would make a  difference in terms of saving us from deep collapse and the worst effects of AGW would require a comprehensive global population growth agreement.

Peak in 2050 with current increases in carbon intensive consumption?  Far too slow and the program of international agreement much  too difficult.

Now if the largest market in the world were to have a decent carbon tax and tax the carbon content of imports, it would force the rest of the world into line just as California did the US car manufacturers
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/californias_clean_car_rules_help_remake_us_auto_industry/2492/

But have I misunderstood you?

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #165 on: September 25, 2014, 03:47:47 AM »
Geoff

Quote
But have I misunderstood you?

Ahh, yes...largely. 

I am sorry, but at least for the last few months and into an indeterminate future I have stopped writing extensive pieces full of details.  I am sort of letting the body of work sit there.  All of the details of what I am trying to say are buried back in the many earlier posts in this topic and the others on the forum here.  And lots elsewhere as well as before I stopped writing a few months ago I had written 250-300 thousand words in the previous year.  I stopped because I don't think it is doing any good.  People are hell bent on BAU and there is no turning them away from it.

But to briefly answer your question.

Population levels and continuing growth make it logically impossible to avoid collapse and no version of BAU or Green BAU will change that.  Educating women, solar panels, wind energy, Teslas, reducing consumption, getting the affluent to give up most of their lifestyle, and hundreds of other little topics like those are always thrown out as examples of things we could do (if we only would do them of course) and all would magically get better.  But it wont get better.  At best it will get worse more slowly.  But all roads in the BAU world lead to collapse and catastrophe.  As Einstein said, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity."  Our civilization is insane.  And I totally include the Green-BAU people among those I consider insane.

We dramatically start population reductions immediately or else.  There is no other answer.  Unless we are depending on miracles.  But the miracle just might be getting rid of about 80% of the people.

If everyone one on Earth, no exceptions, lived with the carbon footprint of the average African global co2 levels would continue to rise at a steady rate (and that does not count in ANY positive feedbacks).  So Green BAU ideas wont solve the problem - they are technologies for post resolution of the problem  -  maybe.  Yet, we are hell bent on adding an additional 2.4 to 4? BILLION!!! people to this toxic mix?? 

Well that is about all I can stand.  I am largely ignoring the climate change topics lately.  I might pay more attention again if I start to see evidence of any commitment to effect meaningful change.   I watch the empire, war and economic issues, along with other collapse triggers.  I seek evidence which provides forewarning of such events.  But I am in the "GOT popcorn?" frame of mind right now.  I don't plan on doing anything about any of it.  No motivation.

Best of luck to you.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #166 on: September 25, 2014, 07:38:25 PM »
JimD

Thanks. I don't want to argue with any of that. I think I am only 1% less pessimistic than you.

I agree GreenBAU is futile. I've just written Greenwash from Stern?
http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/green-wash-from-stern/

Sorry to have put you to that effort.
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #167 on: August 11, 2015, 10:07:35 PM »
Just to help reinforce my point I was making earlier in the other thread. 

You can't fix anything if you don't fix population.  Collapse is going to roll over us like a tidal wave. 

Quote
Today at the 2015 Joint Statistical Meetings in Seattle, John R. Wilmoth, director of the United Nations Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, had a startling report to present to a session on demographic forecasting:

The world's population will increase from the 7.3 billion people of today to 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100.

Quote
The UN put the probability that world population growth will end within this century at 23 percent.

Quote
The primary driver of global population growth is a projected increase in the population of Africa. The continent's current population of 1.2 billion people is expected to rise to between 3.4 billion and 5.6 billion people by the end of the century. The continent's population growth is due to persistent high levels of fertility and the recent slowdown in the rate of fertility decline, notes a statement on the report.

Asia (current population: 4.4 billion) will probably maintain its title as the most populous continent. Its population is projected to peak around the middle of the century at 5.3 billion, and then to begin to dip to around 4.9 billion people by the end of the century.

http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/world-population-likely-surpass-11-billion-end-century.html
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

OldLeatherneck

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #168 on: August 12, 2015, 01:08:59 AM »
JimD,

I agree that the global population problem is the most prominent "Root Cause" of most of the crises we are facing today.  Re-reading the many posts on this thread reminded me of an essay I wrote several years ago, while  taking an on-line course on Sustainability.  We had come to the point of discussing the earth's carrying capacity.  Having knowledge of resource depletion (Peak Oil) and AGW/CC, I decided to write the below linked essay entitled "A 'BABY BOOMERS' Apology to Future Generations."  Before for posting here of the forum, I made some changes to the final paragraph.  Since it addresses more than population growth,  I  posted it in the Off-Topic Category.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1359.msg60389/topicseen.html#msg60389
"Share Your Knowledge.  It's a Way to Achieve Immortality."  ......the Dalai Lama

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 669
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #169 on: August 12, 2015, 09:16:21 AM »
There are still reasons for hope.  For instance, the Millennium Development Goals left out anything that might reasonably contribute to population control besides female education.  Their successors, the Sustainable Development Goals, are rather longer and more comprehensive, and as presented in the current Agenda, include the following:

Quote
This Agenda is a win for women and girls. ... The goals and targets require every country to take measures to ... eliminate violence against women ... ensure that everyone has access to ... sexual and reproductive health care services and the fulfilment of their reproductive rights. It will ensure that the 225 million women who want to, but cannot, access modern contraception will be able to finally make decisions about their families, their bodies and their futures.  It will help end early and forced marriage, which currently sees 15 million girls married before their 18th birthdays every year.

In principle, more access to contraception, less violence against women, and fewer early marriages should all contribute to people having fewer children over their lifetime (and having those that they have later).  Which should help further slow down population growth. 

Also, globally, we aren't that far off replacement level fertility... if you look at the worldwideNet Reproduction Rate (mortality adjusted number of daughters per woman), we're currently at 1.1.  All we need is to reduce that to 1.0 for long term sustainability. 

(Looking at Total Fertility Rate, which is the number of children per woman in a lifetime w/o mortality adjustment, gives the impression of being further from replacement level fertility, since it's currently at 2.5, compared to a replacement level of 2.05; however, one big thing that TFR overlooks is the greater number of boys being born than girls in China, India and elsewhere; and the number of girls born will ultimately drive how many women there are to have kids in the next generation).

EDIT: The latest UN population predictions have just had a brief but decent write up in the World Bank's blog, incidentally.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 01:00:09 PM by Paddy »

anotheramethyst

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #170 on: August 16, 2015, 09:59:02 PM »
Well I'm a Pagan so that leaves me out...I think.

hey, me too!! awesome :D

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #171 on: August 18, 2015, 07:48:43 PM »
Paddy

Quote
There are still reasons for hope.

Hope does not get anything done unfortunately. 

All of this constant making of excuses (not talking to you specifically here but about the large movement of institutions and political viewpoints which promote the kind of verbiage you have in your post) trying to find some way to say there is 'hope' and the population situation is not going to crush us leave me cold.

All one has to do it look at the data and leave out emotions and political ideology and one comes to a very different conclusion.

Falling birth rates - of all the various kinds and ways of counting - are far too slow and inconsistent to accomplish lowering the population sufficiently - if they actually would result in lowering the global population which the data does not prove.

Educating women throughout the world is (to most of us here in the developed world anyway) is a admirable ideal and goal, but the data does not show any kind of proof that is will result in population reductions in anytime frame meaningful to this discussion.  And in many local cases it has also been shown to be inconsistent in resulting in a low birthrate and in some it raises again after a time.

I won't go on with specific items to disprove as there is no real point in it.  The UN reports on expected population levels are written by demographers who are fully witting of all you write about and innumerable other pertinent details used to figure out the numbers for the projections.  In other words they are taking all into account.  And the numbers for global population they are coming up with, if they occur, will result in catastrophe long before any of the ways to get birth rates down would have effect.

If we have 2.2-2.5 billion more people on earth in 2050 as all the projections they come up with say we will have that alone will trigger a large scale collapse due to our exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity by huge amounts.  This is independent from the effects of climate change by the way.  Climate change of course is dramatically worsened by rapidly growing population and thus it will simultaneously be reducing the global carrying capacity.  This combination of issues, especially when other significant factors are taken into account, guarantees some form of collapse and population reduction. 

You mention the greater number of boys than girls being born in China and India as a positive.  You do realize the methods that are used to make that happen right?  Selective abortion and infanticide.  Some find those methods objectionable.

Our only chance of avoiding major collapse is to dramatically reduce population - not just slow the increase down a bit.  Assuming we want to avoid genocide, mass famine, plague and the like as being a bit inhumane then I can think of only one way to do it.  And I do not think we have the global will to take that path but I do think it would work.

That path would be to collectively share the cost of that population reduction among everyone rich and poor.  We must skip about a generation or a bit more of children.  That is we all agree that NO ONE gets to have any babies for a good 20-25 years straight.  That would result in a population in 2050 about 50% of what is projected to exist by the UN and others.  This dramatic lessening of the human populations impact on the biosphere and huge reduction in emissions might just allow us to avoid deep collapse.  And it does not require a miracle for it to work as all the other ways being pursued do - unless you count it a miracle to get such an agreement in place, which is a completely different kind of miracle than the other ones mentioned.

We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Theta

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 174
  • Grips
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #172 on: September 07, 2015, 09:47:58 PM »
Podcast that illustrates the consequences of the large growth of the human population through summarising the issues related to the current Refugee crisis in Europe and how that could progressively get worse as time passes.



The most important thing to note about this video is how our current situation with the migrants is compared to the Roman Empire's problem with the Barbarians and how a wall was built to keep these people out, but after a number of centuries, the wall could not be maintained and the Barbarians invaded. It is stated in the video that a similar feet will be attempted and the result will be very similar.
Can't think of a signature

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #173 on: August 20, 2016, 05:18:22 AM »
I have brought this issue up many times.  Below is someone else doing the same.  Worth reading.

Quote
....He cites a study from 2010 that looked at the impact of demographic change on global carbon emissions. It found that slowing population growth could eliminate one-fifth to one-quarter of all the carbon emissions that need to be cut by midcentury to avoid that potentially catastrophic tipping point.

Rieder's audience seems to want an easier way. A student asks about the carbon savings from not eating meat.


Excellent idea, Rieder says. But no amount of conservation gives you a pass. Oregon State University researchers have calculated the savings from all kinds of conservation measures: driving a hybrid, driving less, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, windows and light bulbs.

For an American, the total metric tons of carbon dioxide saved by all of those measures over an entire lifetime of 80 years: 488. By contrast, the metric tons saved when a person chooses to have one fewer child: 9,441
.....

I note that this data is from way back in 2010 - that should make one shed a tear or two.

Green BAU won't save the future.  The only path to a solution runs through massive population reductions  - and then all that other stuff has value.  Absent population reductions that other stuff just results in a greater consumption of resources.

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #174 on: August 20, 2016, 06:13:42 PM »
I agree that population is public enemy #1. Pre-industrial carrying population was at 1 billion. Given the magnificent technologogical advances of the last 200 years, I would imagine that, if we were to adopt the simple lifestyle that characterized the condition of pre-industrial human societies while applying the best of the new technologies (not all rape this magnificent planet), we might be able to arrive at an equilibrium population of between 2 and 3 billion.

If you want to imagine what this might look like, you first must explore what that simple life meant to a single human being born into the 1400's and not get trapped looking first at the application of technologies. For example, the typical human being rarely traveled any large distance and often died in the exact same area in which they were born. The items they used and consumed were rarely, if ever, brought from great distances. They were produced and consumed locally. And those things consumed supplied our needs and only a very few of our wants. In fact, we had only a few wants. I am certain there are other salient features of the simple life of the typical human being of the 1400's that need to be considered that I cannot think of.

Once this has been completed, we can turn to modern technologies to imagine how they can be applied to support this simple life while simultaneously enriching society, culture and the human experience.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18904
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2025
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #175 on: August 20, 2016, 06:37:53 PM »
I have brought this issue up many times.  Below is someone else doing the same.  Worth reading.

JimD,

Thanks for the link to the NPR article (focused on Travis Rieder) entitled: "Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?"; and  correctly pointing out that Green BAU will not save the world.  However, regarding your statement that: "The only path to a solution runs through massive population reductions  -  and then all that other stuff has value."; I note that it is quite possible/probable that TPTB have come to the same conclusion years/decades ago but decided to use the Darwin Award approach for reducing world population when we exceed the transient carrying capacity of the Earth (see the attached image), thus leaving a drastically reduced population. Furthermore, I note that in the extract below Kukla indicates that progressive penalties on procreation would make it easier for wealthy people to have children, each with much larger carbon footprints (think an America full of Donald Trumps) than the 9,441 metric tons of CO₂ emissions that Rieder cites.  In our war on climate change we must fight on all fronts (including: population; consumption per capita; revenue neutral carbon fees; regulations; etc.) and still prepare for adapting to the socio-economic collapse that will eventually come (as we are already beyond Earth's long-term carrying capacity):


http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change

Extract: "Kukla appreciates that Rieder's penalty on procreation would be progressive. But since it could not be so high as to be coercive, she says it would inevitably be unfair.
"What that will actually translate into is it becoming much easier for wealthy people to have children than for other people to have children," Kukla says.

An even bigger hurdle is the sheer unlikelihood of it all.

"The situation is bleak, it's just dark," he says. "Population engineering, maybe it's an extreme move. But it gives us a chance."

Still, Rieder wonders: Is it really so crazy? Scientists have proposed incredibly risky schemes to geoengineer the clouds and oceans. They're researching ways to suck carbon out of the air on a mass scale. Some have even called for overhauling the global system of free-market capitalism.
Compared to all that, Rieder says, bringing down the fertility rate seems downright easy.
"We know exactly how to make fewer babies," he says. And it's something people can start doing today."

Best,
ASLR
« Last Edit: August 20, 2016, 06:49:34 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #176 on: August 20, 2016, 06:57:12 PM »
.......and still prepare for adapting to the socio-economic collapse that will eventually come (as we are already beyond Earth's long-term carrying capacity):

I have always felt we are headed for a spectacular collapse of human society (a dark ages like no other) and have argued this point on many of these threads. BAU guarantees this.

There is, however, a way out and it depends on the human species engaging in a new and rapid period of evolution, driven by necessity and one that we choose. We must embark on a rapid evolution of the human consciousness.


AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18904
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2025
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #177 on: August 20, 2016, 08:19:49 PM »
.......and still prepare for adapting to the socio-economic collapse that will eventually come (as we are already beyond Earth's long-term carrying capacity):

I have always felt we are headed for a spectacular collapse of human society (a dark ages like no other) and have argued this point on many of these threads. BAU guarantees this.

There is, however, a way out and it depends on the human species engaging in a new and rapid period of evolution, driven by necessity and one that we choose. We must embark on a rapid evolution of the human consciousness.



SH,
From our past exchanges of posts, I hope that you appreciate that my basic views of life are more or less in-line with that depicted in the "Empathic Civilization" video; and more specifically as explained by Vipassana mindfulness, as I discussed in the Adapting to the Anthropocene thread.  That said, mindfulness requires proper work (ala Maxwell's Demon's use of information to reduce entropy) in order to reduce the suffering of a complex group; otherwise, we run the risk of creating more suffering (more entropy ala the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics) as a whole, even though some small subsets may benefit while the whole is suffering more.   This second option is the approach that Trump is promoting, where he encourages his follower to believe that by "putting on airs/posturing" (or by acting like Donald Trump) they can protect themselves from a hostile uncertain world by benefitting at the expense of others.  This second approach is promoted by modern capitalism as explained in the following linked videos entitled: "The Paradox of Choice" and "Smile or Die".

The Paradox of Choice:


&

Smile or die:



In order to get back to the first option one must be prepared to accept full responsibility for ones choices in a truthful manner, which requires hard work (ala Maxwell's Demon).  Unfortunately, it is difficult to achieve the first option with 7.5 going on 10 – 12 Billion people; and it is more likely that the first option will be achieved when the collapse reduces the population by a factor of ten or more.

Best,
ASLR
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #178 on: August 20, 2016, 08:25:58 PM »
I have never felt otherwise of you. I hope for the best but fear the worst. We are going to crash. It will be horrible. While some of us will survive, no one will be spared this rapidly approaching disaster. It is the meaning of my nym. We share a common fate.


AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18904
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2025
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #179 on: August 20, 2016, 10:22:02 PM »
I have never felt otherwise of you. I hope for the best but fear the worst. We are going to crash. It will be horrible. While some of us will survive, no one will be spared this rapidly approaching disaster. It is the meaning of my nym. We share a common fate.

Thanks for explaining the meaning of your handle; and to paraphrase the great man himself: "We never fail until we stop trying".
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18904
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2025
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #180 on: August 21, 2016, 02:17:27 AM »
As Einstein pointed out, man is tied to our planet's biodiversity and we abuse it at our peril; which as the linked article indicates may well be sooner than most people think:

Tim Newbold, Lawrence N. Hudson, Andrew P. Arnell, Sara Contu, Adriana De Palma, Simon Ferrier, Samantha L. L. Hill, Andrew J. Hoskins, Igor Lysenko, Helen R. P. Phillips, Victoria J. Burton, Charlotte W. T. Chng, Susan Emerson, Di Gao, Gwilym Pask-Hale, Jon Hutton, Martin Jung, Katia Sanchez-Ortiz, Benno I. Simmons, Sarah Whitmee, Hanbin Zhang, Jörn P. W. Scharlemann & Andy Purvis (15 Jul 2016), “Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment”, Science, Vol. 353, Issue 6296, pp. 288-291, DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2201



http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6296/288



Overview: “The planetary boundaries framework attempts to set limits for biodiversity loss within which ecological function is relatively unaffected. Newbold et al. present a quantitative global analysis of the extent to which the proposed planetary boundary has been crossed (see the Perspective by Oliver). Using over 2 million records for nearly 40,000 terrestrial species, they modeled the response of biodiversity to land use and related pressures and then estimated, at a spatial resolution of ∼1 km2, the extent and spatial patterns of changes in local biodiversity. Across 65% of the terrestrial surface, land use and related pressures have caused biotic intactness to decline beyond 10%, the proposed “safe” planetary boundary. Changes have been most pronounced in grassland biomes and biodiversity hotspots.”

Abstract: “Land use and related pressures have reduced local terrestrial biodiversity, but it is unclear how the magnitude of change relates to the recently proposed planetary boundary (“safe limit”). We estimate that land use and related pressures have already reduced local biodiversity intactness—the average proportion of natural biodiversity remaining in local ecosystems—beyond its recently proposed planetary boundary across 58.1% of the world’s land surface, where 71.4% of the human population live. Biodiversity intactness within most biomes (especially grassland biomes), most biodiversity hotspots, and even some wilderness areas is inferred to be beyond the boundary. Such widespread transgression of safe limits suggests that biodiversity loss, if unchecked, will undermine efforts toward long-term sustainable development.”
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #181 on: August 21, 2016, 04:04:00 PM »
ASLR

Quote
... I note that it is quite possible/probable that TPTB have come to the same conclusion years/decades ago but decided to use the Darwin Award approach for reducing world population when we exceed the transient carrying capacity of the Earth (see the attached image), thus leaving a drastically reduced population....

I have pretty much baldly stated that a number of times as well.  This similar opinion of mine also comes from my time serving in the belly of the beast.  I have a good understanding of what they know and how they think.  This is certainly the most likely path the strong will take in the future and what they would plan for today.  The dilemma we are in today has no logical solutions as we have learned over the last decade plus of study.  As, as unpleasant as the above approach might be, it does not lack a clear logical foundation.  If the ship is going down and there are life rafts for only a small percentage, who decides who gets on the raft?  Democracy and fairness does not come to my mind as anywhere near the most likely methods to be employed.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18904
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2025
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #182 on: August 21, 2016, 08:38:13 PM »
The linked article was written by Chloe Maxmin (a fellow with "The Nation"), and in it she acknowledges that Neoliberal thinking has become “The Washington Consensus”, by means of a long-term, well planned coup; and that the climate movement currently has no such clear plan of action and is left playing defense by allowing climate skeptics to endlessly frame the discussion in the media, so that the climate movement cannot make significant progress.

Indeed, Maxmin concludes that the climate movement must take the time (decades) to develop a comparable action plan with a shared intellectual platform, clear mainstream messaging, and methodical implementation at all levels of society (from grass roots to the stratosphere).
Assuming that she is correct that the climate movement will continue to flounder without such a multi-decade effort to develop an action plan, we can conclude that by then the global socio-economic collapse will have occurred and that the action plan should be developed for the less than 1 Billion people remaining, or else we will wind-up with the feudalism envisioned by JimD.

In such a post-collapse society, I envision two main socio-economic frameworks keeping mankind above feudalism, which are: (a) the inheritors of those orchestrating the "4th Industrial Revolution" (AI, robotics, biotechnology, etc.) who will acquiesce personal freedom in order to focus on enhanced effectiveness via the information-driven fruits of the 4th Industrial Revolution and (b) the inheritors of the mindfulness movement who rally around a clear compelling message focused on "Free Will" as understood by millennia of wisdom from such traditions as the Vipassana movement.


https://www.thenation.com/article/what-the-climate-movement-can-learn-from-the-neoliberal-coup/

Extract: "What the Climate Movement Can Learn from the Neoliberal Coup
With its strategy and our moral compass, the climate movement could be unstoppable.


 How can the climate movement develop the political power to fight effectively?

To glean a few answers, I looked to what I regard as one of the most successful examples of social change in the modern era: the neoliberal coup. Between 1975 and 2008, an ideological movement called “neoliberalism” evolved from fringe theory into the dominant economic paradigm of our age, with great help from the Republican Party, and then, the Democrats as well.


 In 1958, 73 percent of Americans trusted their government.

All that changed in the 1970’s. Stagflation—high unemployment, high inflation, and stagnant growth—gripped the US economy. Keynesian policies did little to alleviate the crisis

 Then came neoliberalism’s true champion, Ronald Reagan, in 1981. He mesmerized the country (and the world) with free market idealism expressed in anti-big government rhetoric, policies, and practices. Reagan’s focus.

 Neoliberal thinking is now the status quo among Republicans, many Democrats, and most major institutions—it’s called “The Washington Consensus.”

 The Republican’s neoliberal movement rests on a shared vision and a long-range understanding of how to translate that vision from theory to practice. From the very beginning, neoliberals were committed to a disciplined long game.

 The climate movement has developed as a social force since the 1980s, but it does not yet have the shared vision or long game capable of changing the core of American society.

 The neoliberal movement’s vision was forged among an exclusive group of thinkers and then fed to a political party that champions elites. The climate movement will need to produce a shared vision in ways that are consistent with our democratic values.

 An important step in the neoliberal ascent was clean, clear, compelling messaging that exemplified neoliberal values, garnered support, and could flow through the Republican Party. One word did most of the work: freedom.

 Another key component of the mainstream infusion was think tanks—institutions that incubated ideas and policies. Neoliberalism’s converts developed a “transatlantic network,” as Jones calls it, that established think tanks to further the cause. As Jones comments, these “nodes” absorbed ideas from neoliberalism’s Founding Fathers and turned them into innovative policy formulations. It was these think tanks that then nurtured neoliberal thinking for three decades, maintained close relationships with Republican politicians, and ultimately fed innovative policies to Washington’s elite for mainstream diffusion. The Heritage Foundation was ground zero for the GOP’s original position on individual mandates for health insurance. (In 1983, Ronald Reagan told a Heritage gathering that they were leading an “intellectual revolution.”)

…  “The real action is in the think tanks these days.” Mirowski adds that the left has “no conception of the amount of regimentation it takes to achieve something like this.”
 The lack of a shared intellectual platform, clear mainstream messaging, and methodical implementation leaves the climate movement playing defense.

 The best defense is a good offense. Brulle agrees that we need to “start taking examples from how effective the conservative movement has been and try to apply some of the strategies…. we need to expand our tactics to encompass some of this.” We focus on local specific campaigns to defend ourselves against the ever-present threats to home, family, and life. This work is crucial, but we also need to take the time to develop a vision, incubate our thinking, develop policies, disseminate new intellectual frameworks, and implement new action strategies. Some will say that the climate movement doesn’t have time to develop this kind of intellectual and political apparatus. My response: We don’t have the time not to.

 The next lesson to learn from the Republican neoliberal coup is the impressive top-down and bottom-up political apparatus. As Mirowski told me, true success stems from having a “central intellectual guide and a set of projects at the local, individual, parochial level.”

 The climate movements offers our society truth instead of denial, survival instead of chaos, justice instead of injustice, equality instead of inequality, and democracy instead of oligarchy."


See also:
http://www.chloemaxmin.com/

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1840
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 474
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #183 on: August 21, 2016, 10:14:31 PM »
I think comparing NeoLiberalism and The climate movement is problematic. If I might oversimplify things NeoLiberal goals can be reduced to maintaining growth. Without growth banking and what passes for monetary policy fails. Climate policy on the other hand ,also in simplified terms , can be reduced to the IPCC goal of eliminating all fossil fuel use by some date in the future.
Our problem of attaining the climate goal is nobody has a clue how to achieve that goal. The one option that would actually get us there is reverting to Neolithic technologies. Although I might be happy with that option I don't think most people would . Without even one example of one single person ,family or small village actually achieving the zero ff goal other than those few tribes deeply hidden in the amazon we are collectively in deep trouble.
 We on the left simply don't agree! I have taken some heat on the subject of meat consumption here on the forum . Neolithic society obviously consumed meat. Farming at any large scale starts the slide towards excess emissions, rice farming or large scale tillage both are problematic.
 To sum the Neoliberals have a goal they can attain , until earth systems retaliate , while we on the left and climate policy can maintain little more than a pipe dream .
 

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18904
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2025
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #184 on: August 22, 2016, 02:14:27 AM »
To sum the Neoliberals have a goal they can attain , until earth systems retaliate , while we on the left and climate policy can maintain little more than a pipe dream .

While Chloe Maxmin may be trying to save everyone; the focus of my post was to acknowledge that all people die at some point, so it is best to focus on helping future generations; rather than to desperately cling to a "Me" based socio-economic system that will inevitably collapse (and whose collapse is only accelerated by neoliberal actions).

« Last Edit: August 22, 2016, 03:05:52 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

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1840
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 474
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #185 on: August 22, 2016, 03:31:06 AM »
Only the deepest respect for both you and Jim.  Chloe however appears to be gaming the issues.
The floods I was somewhat hoping for last year has transformed into what may be dry wells for me in the not too distant future. Cachuma dam is now dropping below 9% and will be dead pool at 3%. All the cities and agriculture users are now in a race to the bottom of a very shallow aquifer.  For me it is emblematic of larger issues we are faced with here on the forum but locally there isn't even a discussion of how the problem should be dealt with re. long term drought. No water restrictions, no requests for diversion curtailments , and I am getting kinda edgy. Please excuse me , I can deal with my problems but there is much pain and death in store for wildlife that doesn't seem to bother anyone around here.
Civilization isn't civil, I won't bemoan it's passing.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #186 on: August 22, 2016, 07:27:19 AM »
As we sit and watch while the once mighty polar ice cap melts at the hands of our betters, so we also sit watching as our feckless leaders poke and paw at Putin's well armed Bear.


If the nukes come out, and we're apparently going to spend $Billions to upgrade ours, we'll solve that intransigent 'Population Problem' in very short order. That failed coup in Turkey could have relieved much overcrowding in that region, but we've now managed to retrieve those older model bombs from Incirlik & Erdogan doesn't seem as willing to do his part supplying the many named invaders overthrowing Assad.
Libya, Sudan Iraq and Afghanistan have been relieved of much of their surplus populations, and we're doing our best for Syria. Vietnam and even Japan seem to have forgiven and re-populated, though North Korea appears bent on holding a grudge, or possibly even returning the favor.


Depopulating countries seems to be something that we've become increasingly adept at. Could this be TPTB's plan for survival in the Anthropocene?


Terry

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 669
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #187 on: August 22, 2016, 09:48:24 AM »
If any grand worldwide conspiracy is aiming to depopulate the world through conflict, they're doing a very poor job of it - conflict deaths worldwide are at a really low level, historically speaking. http://io9.gizmodo.com/this-chart-shows-how-many-people-have-died-from-conflic-1713625114

Not that the Syria conflict etc need any such conspiracy theory to explain how they happened, in any event. Or that war generally leads to population reduction (if anything, during and after periods of instability people tend to have more children, because they can feel less secure in putting it off etc).

Anyway, on the topic overall: if we want people to have fewer children later in life, we have a few things we can do:
- Encourage womens' rights, particular access to work and education. This seems to be the biggest single driver of reductions in national birth rates, besides a good thing in itself.
- Increase access to contraception and safe abortion
- Increase LGBT rights: obviously, this only affects a minority of the population, but closeted people forced into sham heterosexual marriages to keep up appearances will tend to have more kids than out gay people.
- Increase peace, prosperity, and so forth worldwide: people will tend to put off having fewer kids til later when they are better off and more secure themselves.

But overall, it's worth noting that most of the world, from the Americas and Europe to much of Asia are having kids at a pretty sustainable rate now, of about 2 per mother. And if we push it much lower than this, we risk the misery of an aging population with nobody to support them. And I'm the remaining places, anything imposed from abroad to try to change how many kids people have is likely to meet with a lot of suspicion and resistance. So in the absence of being able to change a lot here at a population level, we have to continue changing all the other factors we can with regards to sustainability of consumption.

Aporia_filia

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #188 on: August 22, 2016, 01:31:11 PM »
I did post this in #35  from   Psychology of Climate Change Denial, thread (which shouldn't be in Arctic Background):
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160802104526.htm

I reckon is showing us two different ways used by evolution for our development.
One is what we are all involved in, business as usual. An exponential way of growth.
The other is what it was only possible in the deepest corners of the Amazon or Papua New Guinea, small tribes with stable populations: NO growth.
Other way to look at it:
The first one is a parasitize relation with the environment
The second one is a symbiotic relation with the environment

It is too late for us to save our civilization, we are witnessing the physical end of exponential growth (like a virus killing his hostage). As any other animal we only realise the impossibility of keep growing exponentialy when we have reach the last generation before the collapse of the whole system.

Because we behave as we are: Animals. Even though we can create beauties like: E=mc2

Think of what happened to other civilizations, to economic bobbles, to Moore's law, ... (it will also happen to Internet unless the big chaos starts sooner)     

Are there other ways to live and evolve??? That's a question we are all making but it will only be answered by geological times.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18904
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2025
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #189 on: August 23, 2016, 03:26:56 AM »
Civilization isn't civil, I won't bemoan it's passing.

While many people stop thinking when they foresee the coming socio-economic collapse; but as the attached plot indicates, if our pre-collapse efforts keep global temperature rise well below 5C (assuming that ECS is 4.5C instead of 3C), then we will be doing future generations a world of good.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Darvince

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 295
    • View Profile
    • NSIDC Daily
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #190 on: August 23, 2016, 04:03:29 AM »
But overall, it's worth noting that most of the world, from the Americas and Europe to much of Asia are having kids at a pretty sustainable rate now, of about 2 per mother. And if we push it much lower than this, we risk the misery of an aging population with nobody to support them. And I'm the remaining places, anything imposed from abroad to try to change how many kids people have is likely to meet with a lot of suspicion and resistance. So in the absence of being able to change a lot here at a population level, we have to continue changing all the other factors we can with regards to sustainability of consumption.
I'd have to disagree with the aging population worry, because as technology gets more advanced, which is happening more and more rapidly, less people will have to work many hours to support the same number of beneficiaries as goods become more automated. Although we are partially there already and a very odd situation has cropped up where many office workers only actually work for 1 to 2 hours a day and spend the rest of their 9-5 day messing around or otherwise not doing productive work.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5662
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 771
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #191 on: August 23, 2016, 06:48:36 AM »
" ... a very odd situation has cropped up where many office workers only actually work for 1 to 2 hours a day and spend the rest of their 9-5 day messing around or otherwise not doing productive work."

David Graeber is worth reading.

http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

His book called "Debt: The First 5000 Years" is good.

I submit that in Graeber's  terms of debt, obligation, and state level force, the situation is not so odd after all.

sidd

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #192 on: August 23, 2016, 06:54:56 AM »
ASLR
Your graphic errs when "Global Nuclear War" is seen as less of a problem than "Global Warming".
 Even under the worst scenarios some mammals will survive warming.
Terry

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18904
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2025
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #193 on: August 23, 2016, 11:05:07 AM »
ASLR
Your graphic errs when "Global Nuclear War" is seen as less of a problem than "Global Warming".
 Even under the worst scenarios some mammals will survive warming.
Terry

The figure comes from the UK, and was inspired by the 2006 Stern Review, as is image attached to this post (which assumes that ECS is 3C, ignores cliff failures & hydrofracturing, ignores ice-climate feedback, assumes moderate Arctic Amplification and only considers CO2 concentrations and not CO2-equiv).  Such graphics indicate that above 6C we are talking about watching the rubble bounce.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2016, 05:24:19 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #194 on: August 24, 2016, 05:54:11 PM »

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6188
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2247
  • Likes Given: 1885
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #195 on: August 24, 2016, 07:11:14 PM »

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #196 on: August 24, 2016, 07:51:38 PM »
Here is the idiocy we have to overcome.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-galka/10-maps-that-prove-the-wo_b_11622454.html
California obviously deserves more electoral college votes ;>}
Terry

OrganicSu

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #197 on: August 25, 2016, 06:06:09 PM »
If population is public enemy no 1 is it good that
- a refugee boat overturned (6 less)?
- a suicide bomber went off at a wedding (51 less)?
- an earthquake struck (>240 less)?
Each of these has caused immense pain and anguish for those concerned.
If current population of > 7 billion was swiftly reduced to 1 billion would the pain and anguish be worth it so that some could fly/drive/eat food from faraway or out of season/buy stuff that's not needed (and isn't almost everything not needed?)?

For me CO2 is public enemy No1.
The fastest way for me tackle that problem is reduce what I am responsible for, especially the structural emissions. After drastically reducing structural emissions most emissions can become a conscious choice (e.g. coffee in throwaway plastic or coffee in reusable cup or alternate coffee from something that grows locally (for me that's terebinth tree berries) or no coffee).

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6188
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2247
  • Likes Given: 1885
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #198 on: August 25, 2016, 06:47:00 PM »
If population is public enemy no 1 is it good that
- a refugee boat overturned (6 less)?
- a suicide bomber went off at a wedding (51 less)?
- an earthquake struck (>240 less)?
Each of these has caused immense pain and anguish for those concerned.
If current population of > 7 billion was swiftly reduced to 1 billion would the pain and anguish be worth it so that some could fly/drive/eat food from faraway or out of season/buy stuff that's not needed (and isn't almost everything not needed?)?

Well you could say new births (specifically early and many per woman) are the public enemy number one at this stage of human civilization.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #199 on: August 26, 2016, 05:24:22 PM »
If population is public enemy no 1 is it good that
- a refugee boat overturned (6 less)?
- a suicide bomber went off at a wedding (51 less)?
- an earthquake struck (>240 less)?
Each of these has caused immense pain and anguish for those concerned.
If current population of > 7 billion was swiftly reduced to 1 billion would the pain and anguish be worth it so that some could fly/drive/eat food from faraway or out of season/buy stuff that's not needed (and isn't almost everything not needed?)?

For me CO2 is public enemy No1.
The fastest way for me tackle that problem is reduce what I am responsible for, especially the structural emissions. After drastically reducing structural emissions most emissions can become a conscious choice (e.g. coffee in throwaway plastic or coffee in reusable cup or alternate coffee from something that grows locally (for me that's terebinth tree berries) or no coffee).

It would be hard to be more backwards in one's viewpoint.

High CO2 is a 'consequence' of a high population not the other way around.  Cart before the horse here.

Tragic deaths are, in general, also a consequence of too high of a population as they are quite traceable to a lack of resources and room to live.  I would urge you to spend some time considering the consequences to everyone (including and especially our descendants) not just to those who exist today.  Those who will live in the future are far more innocent of fault than anyone alive today.  Your actions today determine how much pain and suffering they will experience.  That will be on you and me.

The only choice we have is to either choose to 'manage' in as humane as possible a way to minimize the pain and anguish of that reduction to 1 billion which is critically required, or not.  The other side of that choice is to follow the Green/Black BAU sirens to an inevitable catastrophic civilizational collapse.  The pain and suffering of that approach will be orders of magnitude greater than a managed population reduction.  It is worth pointing out that the pain and suffering of human existence we see today is but a tiny fraction of what we are heading for by following the BAU approaches.  Taking approaches which makes ones own life easier at the expense of unborn innocents has a very nasty name.

What you propose doing in your life to 'fix' will have no meaningful effect as I am pretty sure you actually realize.  But just in case let us point out an uncomfortable fact.  The human carbon contribution of the average African is still substantial.  Are you even slightly prepared to reduce your lifestyle to one below that of the average African to get your "structural' contributions down to a point it would make a difference?  I point out that this would require you to be living in the homeless camp out in the trees on the edge of town. 

If absolutely everyone on the planet lived at a life style of the average African CO2 levels would not stop their constant rise by any means.  Not even close.  There is nothing in the Green BAU toolkit that can overthrow the laws of physics.  All of modern technology has a resource trail and must adhere to the laws of thermodynamics..there is no free lunch.

We have no chance of dramatically easing the human causes of climate change and maintaining some semblance of 'modern' civilization unless we dramatically reduce population.  Since all technology results in effects on climate change issues and global carrying capacity the total numbers of humans attempting to live this way is the critical path number.  The fewer the better obviously.   The global carrying capacity of the Earth in pre-modern times was somewhere in the range of 1 billion..and those number still resulted in massive damage to the global ecosystem.  A population of 1 billion living a modern lifestyle inevitably has a much greater impact than pre-modern lifestyles.  Therefore there is only one direction to go regarding population and due to the present circumstances our only option is to move in that direction at a very rapid rate.  There is nothing in the current demographic numbers which has any chance in following that path either.  Radical change in human population levels is essential.

Civilization as we currently seem to conceive it is unsustainable in any meaningful sense of the word.  Our goal therefore is not really to achieve real sustainability but rather to stretch out as far into the future the inevitable collapse of the global ecosystem.  Doing this would give humanity its best chance of having a long existence and hopefully achieving some meaningful purpose.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein