Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Population: Public Enemy No. 1  (Read 105214 times)

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #400 on: December 22, 2017, 06:04:36 AM »
Agreed re the deaths of despair, although the opioid deaths slso represent a failure in both pain control practice and public health.

A curious statistical note about this data is that age-adjusted death rates actually reduced in spite of the drop in life expectancy. This happened because life expectancy is a median figure, and the distribution of deaths changed, with older adults slightly less likely to die than previously and younger adults slightly more likely:

Quote
The age-adjusted death rate for the total population decreased 0.6% from 733.1 per 100,000 standard population in 2015 to 728.8 in 2016

...

Death rates increased significantly between 2015 and 2016 for age groups 15–24 (7.8%), 25–34 (10.5%), 35–44 (6.7%), and 55–64 (1.0%) (Figure 3).

Death rates decreased significantly for age groups 65–74 (0.5%), 75–84 (2.3%), and 85 and over (2.1%).

Total deaths in the USA, meanwhile, increased by 30000 to 2.74 million in spite of this drop in the age-adjusted death rate, an apparent discrepancy that can be explained by population aging plus 0.7% per annum population growth.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 08:43:34 PM by Paddy »

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13059
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #401 on: December 25, 2017, 01:33:23 AM »
Singapore’s Aging 'Time Bomb' Will Tick Louder in 2018
Quote
- Population of 65 years and older to match youngest: UOB’s Tan
- Faster aging will necessitate policy changes, including tax

Next year marks an ominous turning point for Singapore’s graying population, according to research by Francis Tan, an economist at United Overseas Bank Ltd. in Singapore.

In 2018, the share of the population that’s 65 years and older will match those younger than 15 for the first time, Tan wrote in a report on Wednesday. As the elderly population starts to crowd out the youth, the “demographic time bomb” may mean changes to taxes, immigration rules, and social services, he said.

“Singapore is facing one of the toughest economic and social challenges since its independence in the form of a rapidly aging workforce and population,” Tan said. ...
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2017-12-06/more-grandmas-means-singapore-time-bomb-ticks-louder-in-2018
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Hefaistos

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #402 on: January 01, 2018, 10:14:45 PM »
This is not primarily about population, but as India is one of the real fast growers in terms of population, I thought it might fit in this thread.
It's about consumption preferences as poor people get a higher average income. One of the most needed and preferred consumption good is the air conditioner. Across South Asia, whose tropical zones include some of the world’s largest cities, extreme heat waves are becoming more common and deadly, making air conditioners lifesaving pieces of technology.

 "As temperatures and incomes rise, the air conditioner is now what Nikit Abhyankar, a researcher at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory calls “a threshold good — the moment you cross into that middle-class income level, you go and buy one.”

"By 2030, Abhyankar projects, the explosion in air conditioning alone will raise India’s electricity demands by 150 gigawatts, the equivalent of adding three economies the size of California to its power grid.

Most of that electricity will come from coal, pumping out more of the carbon emissions that are blamed for worsening pollution, respiratory diseases, millions of premature deaths and hotter air temperatures — which will only push people to buy more air conditioners.

India is in the midst of one of the biggest urban transitions in history, with more than 400 million people projected to migrate to cities by 2050. "

This is one of the reasons why this thread is headlined 'Population:  Public Enemy No. 1'. Not that earth's population grows rapidly, or that we are too many people, but that it grows in the poorest countries, where the masses have consumption preferences that are very detrimental to our climate. India, Africa (south of Sahara), etc.

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-air-conditioners-2017-story.html

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2332
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #403 on: January 01, 2018, 10:31:10 PM »
It always struck me that AC should be the appliance most practically and easily sold with dedicated plug-n-play solar panels. You generally need AC most when the sun is shining, and if you can cool the temp of your home or apt enough in the afternoon, they will likely keep fairly cool through the night. I assume AC can be manufactured to take direct current right from the panel, right?

Dehumidifiers would likely also get people most of the way to the comfort they seek, at a much lower electric demand.

But yeah, the 'human feedback' you point out here is one of many that are likely to bite us. The US, of course, has long been at the forefront of AC adoption, and could point the way toward various alternatives.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2018, 01:12:18 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Hefaistos

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #404 on: January 02, 2018, 11:23:17 AM »
It always struck me that AC should be the appliance most practically and easily sold with dedicated plug-n-play solar panels. You generally need AC most when the sun is shining, and if you can cool the temp of your home or apt enough in the afternoon, they will likely keep fairly cool through the night. I assume AC can be manufactured to take direct current right from the panel, right?

Dehumidifiers would likely also get people most of the way to the comfort they seek, at a much lower electric demand.

But yeah, the 'human feedback' you point out here is one of many that are likely to bite us. The US, of course, has long been at the forefront of AC adoption, and could point the way toward various alternatives.

Sure, it's no big deal, technically speaking. But it will add to cost, so poor Indians won't buy the AC with solar panels. In the quoted article, it's evident that Indians are extremely cost conscious as they arise from poverty. An AC that costs $500 is beyond reach for most people, and if you add solar panels to the unit it will be an option only for the richer hipsters.
De-humidifiers also suck a lot of energy, b.t.w. A bit less than an AC, but not that big difference, afaik.

ghoti

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 756
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #405 on: January 02, 2018, 03:12:59 PM »
Quote
It always struck me that AC should be the appliance most practically and easily sold with dedicated plug-n-play solar panels.
Solar PV doesn't produce enough electricity per m2 to be practical to power A/C. At peak output you'd need about 5 m2 of panel to produce 1000W and that's not enough to power most small A/C units. You need a large array and probably batteries to run an air conditioner.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3627
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 360
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #406 on: January 02, 2018, 04:03:04 PM »
Back in 1990 when in Karachi one of my Brit colleagues noticed how many of the houses come with flat roofs. He said we could collect heat on the roofs, use it to power a compressor that compressed air into a cylinder at high pressure, and then a pressure valve releases the air into the rooms below -  air released this way is cold. In other words - a really cheap frigidaire.

The hotter the weather the better the system would work.

We found no takers.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

pileus

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 466
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #407 on: January 02, 2018, 04:31:50 PM »
Nothing has solidified my sense of hopelessness for the future climate more than driving through (more technically correct, being driven through by a driver) several of India’s large cities.  Knowing that consumption is only going to increase and multiply as living standards raise, and much like traffic there the results will be chaotic.  I’ve always thought that sanitation and access to clean water and toilets should be a larger priority than something like AC, as more than a half billion there practice open defication.

None of this is to suggest that Indians are more culpable than the US and western countries that have created the great majority of the global warming crisis.  It’s just disconcerting for the future biosphere as hundreds of millions across India and Asia come on line as consumers and polluters.

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #408 on: January 02, 2018, 04:37:19 PM »
There are much cheaper ways to cool buildings than traditional A.C., such as a Bangladeshi invention called the Eco-cooler: https://inhabitat.com/this-amazing-bangladeshi-air-cooler-is-made-from-plastic-bottles-and-uses-no-electricity/

But yes, solar a.c. units cost at least a couple thousand us $

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4111
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #409 on: January 02, 2018, 06:57:21 PM »
There are much cheaper ways to cool buildings than traditional A.C., such as a Bangladeshi invention called the Eco-cooler: https://inhabitat.com/this-amazing-bangladeshi-air-cooler-is-made-from-plastic-bottles-and-uses-no-electricity/

But yes, solar a.c. units cost at least a couple thousand us $
I'm truly sorry to rain on this parade, but if this were to operate as advertised it would at best provide the benefits of a fan, not an air conditioner.
If the ambient temperature is 35 C, this apparatus might help bring the interior temperature down toward this 35 C temperature, always assuming that provisions have been made to exhaust an equal volume of air, but never lower.
An A/C on the other hand will drop the temperature of the air by ~10 C every pass through the coils.


Reverse chimneys can lower temperatures close to wet bulb temperatures which can be quite chilly in low humidity regions. They require no electricity if provisions are made to get water to the apex of the unit, and they provide a fan like airflow.


The State of Arizona has been using these at highway rest stops for decades.


I've designed on paper a positive flow chimney that sucks input air through ground level inlets covered by wet pads, thereby eliminating the need to get the water to above the roof height, but it still requires water being evaporated, and a fairly airtight structure to be effective.
Terry

ralfy

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #410 on: February 01, 2018, 02:49:33 AM »
Probably at the time I was thinking of the famous Pareto Principle:

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

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

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

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

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

Further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In order to earn more, the businesses that the rich own and that the middle class work in have to sell more goods and services to expanding markets worldwide. That's because the global economy in which those businesses operate is capitalist and competitive. At the same time, the same economy has to continue growing, as more more is created through borrowing and reinvested in the same economy, leading to expansion of businesses, and in turn requiring expanding markets.

In short, the middle class can only maintain its status if they are able to sell more goods and services to others, but for others to buy more they eventually have to become part of the same middle class. And as markets become saturated, then the same middle class will have to count on a growing population, as that means more clients and customers for their growing businesses.

At the same time, more goods and services available (including more food, better sanitation and health care, etc.) were likely some of the reasons why the population increased significantly from 1945 onward, and why it continues to rise through population momentum.

These imply that there are many public enemies.

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #411 on: February 01, 2018, 03:43:27 PM »
Let us assume for argument's sake that the third world's working poor are on the same path as the first world's were a century ago.  Throughout the path taken to reach a significant middle class, safety and the environment were ignored.  Building a reasonable shelter, putting enough food on the table, and receiving adequate medical treatment trumped all.  Now that the first world has achieved their current status, significant attention is being paid to safety and environmental issues.  Every country went through this stage, and China and India are in the midst of it today.  Additionally, once they emerge out of this transition period, population growth declines rapidly, and may stagnate.  As long as they remain poor, population will continue to grow at a rapid pace. 

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16479
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #412 on: February 06, 2018, 12:32:49 AM »
While estimates of current world populations vary, the linked website indicates at as of February 5, 2018 we are essentially at 7.6 billion people on the planet"

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13059
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #413 on: February 09, 2018, 10:12:02 PM »
”It seems to me that we’re living in the wizard’s world, but we are guided more and more by the prophet’s politics.”

Wizards and prophets face off to save the planet
https://grist.org/article/wizards-and-prophets-face-off-to-save-the-planet/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #414 on: March 07, 2018, 06:55:55 AM »
Lawler over at calculatedrisk has a post on Census projection overestimates of US population due to higher mortality in the 15-44 age group. Looks like the new projections out next month will be siignificantly lower. Lawler also has numbers on increased drug deaths which are a contributor the the underestimate.

Since the US is one of the highest percapita emitters, the projections for US emissions ought to drop as well, but that is not his focus.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2018/03/lawler-population-outlook-uncertainty.html

sidd

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #415 on: March 07, 2018, 11:50:25 PM »
Thank Gawd for opioid crises.

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #416 on: March 15, 2018, 10:51:42 PM »
Lawler details census underprojections of mortality and overpredictions of immmigration and household growth in the USA. The last will have significant impact on the real estate market, which is why CalculatedRisk and Lawler are analysing it. There is also impact on preditions of working age population.

"What this means, of course, is that if one were to incorporate the higher “actual” death rates the US has recently experienced into population projections over the next several years, the result would be substantially lower projections in the size of the “working age” population "

"Obviously, an updated population projection from those from 2014 produces slower projections for labor force growth, and significantly slower if one uses “realistic” growth rates. Similarly, household projections using 2014 projections are a LOT higher than those using updated assumptions and realistic death rates. E.g., from mid-2018 to mid-2020 a reasonable projection for annual household growth using the 2014 population projections of about 1.455 million. Using the “raw” 2017 projections would, using similar headship rates, produce an annual household growth forecast of about 1.345 million. Adjusting the 2017 projections for more realistic death rates, however, would (using same headship rates) result in an annual household growth forecast over the next two years of about 1.245 million, or about 210,000 a year less than one would get using the old C2014 projections."

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2018/03/lawler-new-long-term-population.html

sidd

idunno

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 185
  • wonders are many
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2972
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 592
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #418 on: March 18, 2018, 05:40:13 PM »
The population bomb has been defused...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-16/decline-in-world-fertility-rates-lowers-risks-of-mass-starvation
Good article, very well written, though I disagtee with the headline and the optimism throughout. 11 billion is IMHO much over the Earth's carrying capacity, and this will manifest itself one way or another.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3627
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 360
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #419 on: March 23, 2018, 07:23:25 PM »
The population bomb has been defused...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-16/decline-in-world-fertility-rates-lowers-risks-of-mass-starvation
Good article, very well written, though I disagtee with the headline and the optimism throughout. 11 billion is IMHO much over the Earth's carrying capacity, and this will manifest itself one way or another.
This should provoke a comment or two. I like Prof. Ehrlich's humour.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/22/collapse-civilisation-near-certain-decades-population-bomb-paul-ehrlich

Paul Ehrlich: 'Collapse of civilisation is a near certainty within decades'

Quote
In May, it will be 50 years since the eminent biologist published his most famous and controversial book, The Population Bomb. But Ehrlich remains as outspoken as ever.

The world’s optimum population is less than two billion people – 5.6 billion fewer than on the planet today, he argues, and there is an increasing toxification of the entire planet by synthetic chemicals that may be more dangerous to people and wildlife than climate change.

Ehrlich also says an unprecedented redistribution of wealth is needed to end the over-consumption of resources, but “the rich who now run the global system – that hold the annual ‘world destroyer’ meetings in Davos – are unlikely to let it happen”.

Ehrlich is also concerned about chemical pollution, which has already reached the most remote corners of the globe. “The evidence we have is that toxics reduce the intelligence of children, and members of the first heavily influenced generation are now adults.”

He treats this risk with characteristic dark humour: “The first empirical evidence we are dumbing down Homo sapiens were the Republican debates in the US 2016 presidential elections – and the resultant kakistocracy. On the other hand, toxification may solve the population problem, since sperm counts are plunging.”

"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #420 on: March 24, 2018, 06:25:58 PM »
The population bomb has been defused...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-16/decline-in-world-fertility-rates-lowers-risks-of-mass-starvation
Good article, very well written, though I disagtee with the headline and the optimism throughout. 11 billion is IMHO much over the Earth's carrying capacity, and this will manifest itself one way or another.

It is a good article.

It's worth noting that the relative change in population, and thus the extent to which carrying capacity is stretched, should drop year on year.  It's not like global population will leap to 11 billion overnight, but instead it's loosely forecast over the next 80 years.  (Not that we can really trust any population projection more than ten years in advance).

dnem

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #421 on: March 25, 2018, 02:15:00 PM »
It's worth noting that the relative change in population, and thus the extent to which carrying capacity is stretched, should drop year on year.  It's not like global population will leap to 11 billion overnight, but instead it's loosely forecast over the next 80 years.  (Not that we can really trust any population projection more than ten years in advance).

No, if you accept that the carrying capacity for humans has already been exceeded, the extent that it will be exceeded will continue to rise until human population finally peaks and begins to fall. If the added billions are part of the global consumer class the degree that carrying capacity is exceeded may even continue to rise at an accelerating rate.  If we can successfully decouple consumption from environmental harm, perhaps the rate of added harm can begin to level off.

Hefaistos

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #422 on: April 01, 2018, 11:35:17 PM »
Some interesting insights into the population dynamics of Middle east societies.

"The Mideast is doomed. Egypt alone needs to create 700,000 jobs every single year to absorb the new job seekers out its 98 million population. A third of this population already live below the poverty line (482 Egyptian Pounds a month, which is less than $1 a day). The seeds of the vicious circle that the Mideast region finds itself in today were planted at least 5 decades ago. Excessive public spending without matching revenues were the catalyst to a faulty and dangerous incentive system that helped to balloon populations beyond control. A governance system that was ostensibly put in place to help the poor ended up being a built-in factory for poverty generation. Excessive subsidies helped misallocate resources and mask the true cost of living for households. Correlation between family size and income was lost.

Successive Mideast leaders are often referred to as evil dictators. I see them more as lousy economists and poor users of simple arithmetic and excel spreadsheets that can help demonstrate the simple, yet devastating power of compounding. Unless you are a Gulf-based monarchy enjoying the revenue stream from oil and gas that can postpone your day of reckoning, the numbers in nearly every single Arab country don't add up."


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-01/peak-fragility-why-middle-east-doomed

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1089
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #423 on: April 02, 2018, 12:28:51 AM »



https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-01/peak-fragility-why-middle-east-doomed

Every word of this *might* be true.  It fits with my perceptions.  However, zerohedge not infrequently has anonymous material -- this is an example.
"Authored by "Ehsani" - a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical analysis blog, Syria Comment. "

This blog tries to stick to more authoritative/scholarly/verifiable information sources.  We owe it to each other.

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #424 on: May 27, 2018, 11:12:08 PM »
A small piece of good news on the population front: Ireland has liberalised its abortion laws. Not a huge difference in itself as it applies to only 2 million out of the 1.25 billion women without access to safe abortions, but it's a step in the right direction.

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #425 on: May 28, 2018, 09:20:18 AM »
US death rates jumping : "substantial increase in death rates for the 15-44 year old age groups from 2014 to 2016."

Prime childbearing years, this will reverberate. Not the least in  projections for the economy.

Wonder how much this is due to a hopeless life

"the fruitless years behind us, the hopeless years before us ..."

As i have posted before, Case and Deaton(2014, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1518393112 ) have shown increasing mortality among white folk above 30 from poisoning, suicide, chronic liver disease, and cirrhosis. I attach fig 4. Might be spreading to younger folk too, and thats what i hear.

Coroners office at Dayton has bodies stacked in refrigerated trailers, cant process em (what a term) fast enuf.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2018/05/lawler-us-deaths-jumped-in-2017.html

sidd


Alexander555

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #426 on: May 28, 2018, 11:14:54 AM »
A few weeks ago there was something in the newspaper about a guy that has a transport company. Before they started with the European Union he had 10 trucks, and he made more money with these 10 trucks. Than with the 100 trucks he has today. Probably they hoped that it would lower their costs by bringing these borders down. But it mainly created more competition. It made everything almost worthless. And now they have to print money day and night. The ECB printed already 2500 billion in the last 3 years. Obama printed 10 000 billion. But it want help. The only winners are the criminals. The human trafficers, the drug dealer. They can go wherever they want, no barriers anymore.

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1089
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #427 on: May 28, 2018, 07:02:15 PM »
  The ECB printed already 2500 billion in the last 3 years. Obama printed 10 000 billion. But it want help. 

Clear language can be helpful here.  I believe the EU operates in a system essentially like the US.  Fiscal (government) spending is funded by a combination of tax revenues and issuance of bonds.
The federal bond debt is NOT "printed money" by itself.  It's entirely borrowed from the private sector.

Only the central banks have the ability to "print money."  It's the electronic equivalent these days.
Currently, the US Federal Reserve holds ~4.4 trillion dollars on it's balance sheet, procured by printing money.  That's effectively the sum total of all "printed money" involved.  And it's falling slowly.

Note that while "printing money" has awful connotations to most people, it's not bad.  It purchased real, bona fide securities.  Exactly the kind you or I might have in our retirement accounts.  Macroeconomically, this is the exact equivalent of a "sovereign wealth fund."  The sort that Norway and Saudi Arabia have trillions of.  Nobody whines about these sovereign wealth funds, so why should the Fed's balance sheet come in for criticism?

The Fed creates and eliminates money circulating in the economy.  Printing money is absolutely essential when economic contractions happen, when the money supply contracts on the private side of the economy.  It also needs to happen as an economy grows.   

Too much printing, and inflation becomes a problem.  That's the ONLY downside.  Inflation hasn't been a problem for 20 years or more.  Ergo, there's been no excess of money printing.

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #428 on: May 30, 2018, 12:07:12 AM »
As i have posted before, Case and Deaton(2014, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1518393112 ) have shown increasing mortality among white folk above 30 from poisoning, suicide, chronic liver disease, and cirrhosis. I attach fig 4. Might be spreading to younger folk too, and thats what i hear.

From the stats I've seen, life expectancy in the USA has dropped among both white and black people (whose life expectancy is significantly lower again, if not so low as native americans'). But it doesn't seem to have dropped among americans of hispanic origin, whose life expectancy is significantly better than the white american average https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/life-expectancy.htm (more akin to that of people in western european countries). Would americans on this forum have any guesses on why there is this ethnic divide?

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13059
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #429 on: June 25, 2018, 05:17:21 PM »
Would you give up having children to save the planet? Meet the couples who have
The environmental toll of having even one child is enormous - 58.6 tonnes of carbon each year. So is going child-free the answer to our climate crisis?
Quote
When people ask her if she has children, Münter, who is 44, has a prepared answer: “No, my husband and I are child-free by choice.” Saying child-free, she argues, doesn’t imply you are deprived, as the more standard “childless” might. And by letting them know it isn’t a sad topic to be avoided, she says, “it opens up the door for them to ask: ‘Oh, that’s interesting, why did you choose not to?’” Münter wants to move the awkward topic of overpopulation into the mainstream. “The more we talk about it, the more comfortable people will feel talking about it and then, maybe, things will change.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having-children-couples-save-planet-climate-crisis
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2972
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 592
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #430 on: June 25, 2018, 05:27:12 PM »
My sister and her husband are child-free by choice, though the reason is mostly a personal lifestyle choice (but also awareness of the dire situation of the environment and the poorer prospects going forward). I note they are also vegan, and strongly anti-consumerism. We need many more people of their attitude and opinions.
I also note with sadness that children being born are brought up mostly by those who hold other attitudes and opinions. An inevitable catch-22.

ralfy

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #431 on: July 25, 2018, 08:47:11 AM »
From List of countries by ecological footprint:

Quote
The world-average ecological footprint in 2012 was 2.84 global hectares per person (22.1 billion in total). With a world-average biocapacity of 1.73 global hectares (gha) per person (9.2 billion in total), this leads to a global ecological deficit of 1.1 global hectares per person (7.8 billion in total).


sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #432 on: August 01, 2018, 09:08:07 PM »
Population projections for India may be too high:

"Since education level across all of India has increased over time, and is associated with a lower fertility rate, the same projection may predict a drastically smaller population when accounting for education and increasing urbanisation.

Combining both effects, the influence of education appears to dominate, resulting in a lower population projection."

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-s-population-growth-rate-is-overestimated-says-study/story-WhmIANZ4ktoVKbkmHaEkwL.html

sidd

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #433 on: August 05, 2018, 08:05:32 PM »
Aging poulations in India and China:

"Recent reports from the Indian Government show that those over the age of 60 now account for 8.6 percent of the country's population of 1.21 billion, based on the 2011 census.

According to a report by the Ministry of Statistics, the population of those over the age of 60 has increased by 35.5 percent from 76 million to 103 million. This hike has been the largest since India gained Independence in 1947. By comparison, China has 222 million people aged 60 years or older as of the end of 2015, which makes up 16.1 percent of its total population. "

"India's population between 2001 and 2011 grew by 17.7 percent while the population of those over 60 grew at the rate at 35.5 percent."

" the Railways – one of India's top employers – has to foot a huge pension bill with the number of pensioners now at 133.5 million. "

 http://en.people.cn/n3/2018/0803/c90000-9487568.html

sidd


bbr2314

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1231
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #434 on: August 05, 2018, 08:20:15 PM »
Population projections for India may be too high:

"Since education level across all of India has increased over time, and is associated with a lower fertility rate, the same projection may predict a drastically smaller population when accounting for education and increasing urbanisation.

Combining both effects, the influence of education appears to dominate, resulting in a lower population projection."

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-s-population-growth-rate-is-overestimated-says-study/story-WhmIANZ4ktoVKbkmHaEkwL.html

sidd
Well luckily they will have hundreds of millions of Bangladeshis fleeing across the border within the next decade or two to make up for the shortfall.

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #435 on: August 06, 2018, 05:19:29 AM »
Regarding the aging population, it's worth noting that this is increasingly a worldwide phenomenon. See the world bank data here https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS

The proportion of the world's population over 65 is now rising increasingly sharply. And it's going to keep on rising, since as Hans Rosling put it, we hit peak child in the 1980s. This means we don't expect to hit peak 60 year old until at least the 2040s [assuming no drastic die-off by then], peak 70 year old until the 2050s, etc. Or indeed a tad later, due to a subsequent drop in mortality before age 60.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2018, 07:19:51 AM by Paddy »

RikW

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #436 on: August 06, 2018, 12:56:27 PM »
Though this graph is probably the most important one (more girls --> more possible pregnant women in 10-30 years)
 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.0014.FE.IN

And that number is still rising

anthropocene

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #437 on: August 06, 2018, 11:06:26 PM »
Recent "Warm Regards" podcast hits the nail on the head (About half way through) and shows why making people the enemy of climate change is wrong-headed. 
https://soundcloud.com/warmregardspodcast/this-is-zero-hour-the-voices-behind-the-july-21-youth-climate-march

Basically this thinking  comes from "blue dot" planet earth environmentalism: i.e. The earth is a pristine natural wonder and it is people that have caused all the problems. Not a very effective political statement and it hasn't got very far up to this point. Also setting people vs people (e.g. developed countries against developing, developing countries that are controlling population growth vs those that aren't) is most likely to have negative consequences. Yes, I most probably am part of the "blue dot" generation - time's moved on & that should now be history. Fortunately the next generation have it right - putting people left, right and centre in the potential impacts of climate change and also the solutions.

As usual, Warm Regards is a good listen - if nothing else - because of how motivational it is.


sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #438 on: September 25, 2018, 11:53:37 PM »
US fertility drops to all time low:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db318.htm

sidd



sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #439 on: October 20, 2018, 08:11:46 AM »
More on US fertility drop:

"the trend holds across races and for urban and rural areas."

"The biggest recent drops in birthrate have been among teenagers as well as people in their 20s. In 2016, the teen birthrate hit at an all-time low after peaking in 1991."

"William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, said that what struck him about the new report is the figures on Hispanic women, who have traditionally had high fertility rates. From 2007 to 2017, Hispanic women experienced a 26 percent drop in fertility rates in rural areas, a 29 percent drop in smaller metro areas and a 30 percent decline in large metro areas.

He said the fertility rates for Hispanic women in urban areas are now below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 children per woman, which would keep the population stable."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2018/10/19/us-fertility-rates-collapse-finger-pointing-blame-follow/

report at

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db323.htm

sidd

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2972
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 592
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #440 on: October 20, 2018, 08:28:45 AM »
Thanks for the article sidd. Good news for Mother Earth, considering the high levels of cosumption and pollution in the US.
What's driving me nuts is quotes like this:
Quote
Fertility and birthrates are among the most closely monitored indicators of a country’s economic health. When too high, a surging youth population might be unable to find work and become susceptible to unrest. When too low, economies can rapidly contract, and a small working-age population has to support a large retired population. The United States is somewhat more buffered because of its relatively high levels of immigration, but if the decline in fertility continues, demographers say, the country may face an extreme population imbalance in the future.
Oh dear, the economic ponzy scheme is at risk. The children are planned as slaves to the old people, we must have them.
We are told that world population should stabilize at 10 billion in 2050. Part of that will be, has to be, developed countries in contraction. So instead of embracing it people are alarmed, and next will come policies to increase birth rates, while the globe is far over carrying capacity.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2018, 11:20:15 AM by oren »

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2972
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 592
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #441 on: October 20, 2018, 11:25:41 AM »
I found this comment to the article as insightful:
Quote
I'm a young Millennial/Gen Z and myself and most of my friends aren't planning on having children. It's not that we don't want to, it's that it doesn't feel within reach for us in this current economy. 

In an America where wages are stagnant, good jobs are hard to find, hospital bills (even for something like a routine uncomplicated birth) can bankrupt a family beyond repair, cost-of-living is rising faster than we can keep up, climate change is going unaddressed, and the average college graduate is saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, is it REALLY any wonder why people aren't having kids?

I note all this is before having to bail out improperly funded pension plans and social security, knowing full well their own generation will never get the same terms.
And of course the ever-receding affordability of housing.

dnem

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #442 on: October 20, 2018, 02:24:37 PM »
Oren this is one of my absolute biggest pet peeves!!  You are so right.  If we know population has to peak and recede at SOME point, likely in just a few decades, what possible rationale is there for not tackling the demographic transition NOW, rather than later?  It will be easier down the road??

I fear the answer is that our "planners" know full well that the global economy and its underlying system of finance, money creation, interest and growth will become catastrophically unstable under contraction.  Without a new economics, there is no hope of ever taming the beast.

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #443 on: October 20, 2018, 09:00:21 PM »
In terms of CO2 emission, i note that, in general,  cutting birthrate in developed countries helps more than cutting birthrates in poor ones, since hunas in rick countires emit much more fossil carbon.

sidd

wdmn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #444 on: October 21, 2018, 12:11:44 AM »
In terms of CO2 emission, i note that, in general,  cutting birthrate in developed countries helps more than cutting birthrates in poor ones, since hunas in rick countires emit much more fossil carbon.

Except the populations in developed countries don't stop growing. We just import people from other places. You could argue that this is even worse, since it allows a population growing much to fast for its own borders to alleviate some of the pressure through emigration, meaning not only does the population of the developed world not decline (and so CO2 consumption is unaffected), but the population growth in the developing world slows down less quickly.

Red

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 181
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #445 on: October 26, 2018, 12:19:20 PM »
Some people think there exists a conspiracy that prevents the media from ever mentioning the charged word, "overpopulation." Conspiracies do exist but, in this case, my impression is that population is such a charged issue simply because it has to do with the fact that we are all humans and discussing about reducing population touches some inner mechanisms of our psyche that we feel uncomfortable about.

But there is more to that: the real problem with overpopulation is that most decision makers lack the concept of "overshoot,"  a view that didn't exist in the study of social systems until Jay Forrester introduced it in the 1960s.If you don't understand overshoot, at best you can understand that there are limits to population, but you can't understand that population could exceed the limits and crash down ruinously with the deterioration of the agricultural system that feeds it.

The lack of a the concept of overshoot may well be what leads the concerned and the unconcerned to minimize the problem. Many people seem to think that the "demographic transition," the reduction in fertility observed in most rich nations of the world, will spread over all humankind and stabilize the world's population at a sustainable level without any need for governments to intervene to force lower birth rates.

Almost certainly, it is too late for that: we should have started decades ago. But only China implemented a serious policy birth control -- for the rest of the world it was a historical failure.

In the discussion, below, Bernard Gilland discusses the problems we will face in the attempt of stabilizing the human population mainly in terms of the degradation of the agricultural system in its dependence on non-sustainable resources. It is not the only problem, with climate change potentially able to do even more damage to agriculture. At the same time, the many young people in poor countries will push population onto a still growing trajectory. If these two tendencies, population growth and agricultural decline, crash against each other, the result might well be a Seneca Cliff for the world's human population.

https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com

Paddy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #446 on: October 27, 2018, 01:56:11 PM »
No need to suppose a conspiracy.
- Most media attention falls on national issues, but population is a global concern. (And national population trends are often very different to global trends)
- Most media attention is focused on sudden new events, ie news, but population growth is a constant steady process (the absolute growth of 75 to 80 million people per year has basically been unchanged for the last forty years, and the fact it’s forecast to gradually slow down makes it still less dramatic)
- Some media sources get wary of printing anything that might be construed as backing family planning
- Many media sources get wary of printing anything that might be construed as racist
- Practically no major politicians or celebs beyond David Attenborough are bringing the subject up, and media attention also tends to be very personality driven.

TLDR: Important is not the same as newsworthy
« Last Edit: October 27, 2018, 07:02:31 PM by Paddy »

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #447 on: October 27, 2018, 04:01:23 PM »
We have blown well past the human carrying capacity of the planet and anyone who would suggest otherwise is either misinformed or duplicitous.

vox_mundi

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #448 on: October 27, 2018, 04:54:14 PM »
This could go in Limits to Growth, but population is the ultimate cause. Peak Food is in the rear-view mirror...

The World Has Reached Peak Chicken, Peak Rice, And Peak Milk
https://www.fastcompany.com/3041927/the-world-has-reached-peak-chicken-peak-rice-and-peak-milk

We still haven’t reached peak oil. But peak milk happened in 2004, peak soybeans in 2009, and peak chicken in 2006. Rice peaked in 1988.

A new study published in Ecology and Society explains that 21 key resources that humans rely on–mostly food–have already passed their peak rate of production.

“Peak,” in this case, doesn’t mean that we’re actually producing fewer chickens or less milk yet. Instead, the researchers looked at the fact that the rate of production has plateaued, at the same time that population is increasing.

The researchers analyzed production rates over time for 27 key resources, including some fossil fuels. But while they found that nonrenewable resources like coal, oil, and gas haven’t peaked, most foods have.

“We were actually surprised to find so many peak year signs–surprised that this is such a consistent pattern happening in the last 10-20 years,” Seppelt says.

The production rate is slowing across so many foods at the same time partly because each relies on the same limited resources, like land and water. Some foods rely on each other, like meat, an industry that uses around 70% of the grain grown in the U.S.

... “We approached the whole thing with an open mind,” he says. “We didn’t want it to be apocalyptic. We tried to seek patterns that give reliable information about how we really harvest the Earth, knowing that no one really wants to experience the time when the whole thing plateaus.”

... “The major part of the story is that renewable resources aren’t as infinite as we always thought,” ... “We should carefully use them. ...”
____________________________

Open Access: Seppelt, R., A. M. Manceur, J. Liu, E. P. Fenichel, and S. Klotz.  Synchronized peak-rate years of global resources use. Ecology and Society 19(4): 50. 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07039-190450


Fig. 4. Synchrony of the peak-rate years is evident. For each of the 16 out of 20 statistically independent global resources showing a peak-rate year, one peak-rate year out of the 5000 from the bootstrap resample was randomly selected. The mode of the resulting smoothed distribution of 16 peak-rate years was obtained, and the process repeated 5000 times resulting in the mode histogram, with a median of 2006 (1989-2008) in red. A nonparametric goodness of fit test rejected (P < 0.001) the two-sided null hypothesis that the histogram was sampled from a uniform distribution (i.e., no synchrony).

Quote
Introduction
Sustainable appropriation of nonrenewable and renewable resources is required for society’s long-term well-being. Four decades ago, Meadows’ limits to growth model reignited the old Malthusian debate about the limits of the world’s resources (Mathus 1798, Bardi 2000, Griggs et al. 2013). Limits to growth of specific resources such as oil (Hallock et al. 2014) or fossil water (Gleick and Palaniappan 2010) have been analyzed separately, by estimating the peak-rate, or maximum, year, defined as the year of maximum resource appropriation rate. For which renewable and nonrenewable resources can a peak-rate year be identified given the most up-to-date time series of human resource appropriation? Exploring the relation among peak-rate years for multiple resources then raises an important second question: are global peak-rate years synchronized, i.e., occurring at approximately the same time in the long history of human civilization? Calculating the appropriation rate of resources allows the detection of the maximum increase year or peak-rate year, which indicates the timing of scarcity or change in demand (Fig. 1). We analyzed peak-rate years for many of the world’s major resources and found synchrony in the peak-rate years of statistically independent resources by a method that is standardized, nonparametric, generalizable, and allows analysis of nonrenewable and renewable resources (Table 1), and we will conclude by giving clear implications for sustainable development goals (Arrow et al. 1995).

We focused on 27 nonrenewable and renewable resources essential for human well-being and daily needs, e.g., energy and food. ...

The data sources are listed in Table 2. All data is accessible at Figshare http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.929619.
“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

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1089
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #449 on: October 27, 2018, 05:44:17 PM »

. . .
We analyzed peak-rate years for many of the world’s major resources and found synchrony in the peak-rate years of statistically independent resources by a method that is standardized, nonparametric, generalizable, and allows analysis of nonrenewable and renewable resources (Table 1), and we will conclude by giving clear implications for sustainable development goals (Arrow et al. 1995).

We focused on 27 nonrenewable and renewable resources essential for human well-being and daily needs, e.g., energy and food. ...

The data sources are listed in Table 2. All data is accessible at Figshare http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.929619.
[/quote]

Something doesn't make sense at all with this analysis.  They note stabilization of production rate of a range of products, rather than continued increase, and *presume* that resource limitation is the cause. 

If this were the cause, commodity prices would have been increasing since the "peak" of their production.  Demand for food is quite inelastic.  We're all going to eat to satisfy hunger.  If there isn't enough grain being produced, prices will skyrocket.  Here's the past 10 years of rice prices, attached.

I have no doubt but that resource limitations in the face of increasing population will devastate humanity.  We're just simply not there yet.

Low prices have inhibited increased production, not resource limitations.