Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Population: Public Enemy No. 1  (Read 253440 times)

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #450 on: October 27, 2018, 05:47:31 PM »
You are assuming that everyone is able to pay the growing rate for rice which is simply not the case. There are 1 billion people who are malnourished and they depend on outside market mechanisms to eat what they are able. A farmers decision to reduce the planting of any crop has nothing to do with the 30 odd million who starved to death in 2017.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2476
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #451 on: October 27, 2018, 05:54:02 PM »
You are assuming that everyone is able to pay the growing rate for rice which is simply not the case. There are 1 billion people who are malnourished and they depend on outside market mechanisms to eat what they are able.

Well, there will imminently be significant-scale famine in Yemen, but famines across the world are less of a problem generally than they used to be.

On average, more of the world is able to afford basic necessities than before.
While poor nutrition is definitely a problem, the number one nutrition-related problem across the developing world is obesity.

No, rice hasn't become cheap because fewer people are able to afford to eat.  Quite a lot more people are able to afford to eat too many calories.

Edit:  Figure attached. global rates of extreme poverty have plummeted, not increased.  Almost nobody is failing to eat rice due to inadequate income:
« Last Edit: October 27, 2018, 06:14:59 PM by SteveMDFP »

Paddy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #452 on: October 27, 2018, 09:04:36 PM »
the 30 odd million who starved to death in 2017.

Where on earth did you get that statistic from?

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2476
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #453 on: October 27, 2018, 10:15:38 PM »
the 30 odd million who starved to death in 2017.

Where on earth did you get that statistic from?

I thought I'd dig into that figure.  It may come from this story:
20 million starving to death: inside the worst famine since World War
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/1/15653970/south-sudan-hunger-crisis-famine

20 million at risk of starving.  I don't know how many actually perished.  But to bring this  back to the discussion, this famine really had nothing to do with "peak rice."  It, like Yemen today, is a result of civil war and disrupted systems for food distribution.

Rice is pretty cheap, and cheaper than it used to be.  Global incomes of the poor are up.  If we've reached "peak rice," it reflects soft demand, not resource constraints on production.

This doesn't mean the world won't face "peak food" in the near future, related to resource constraints.  It's just that that's not remotely the situation today.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25761
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #454 on: November 04, 2018, 01:51:51 PM »
Not sure if this is the best thread for this article, but it’s related:

'The most intellectual creature to ever walk Earth is destroying its only home'
By Jane Goodall
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/03/the-most-intellectual-creature-to-ever-walk-earth-is-destroying-its-only-home
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #455 on: November 09, 2018, 10:02:24 PM »
Fertility rates worldwide dropping: worldwide average total fertility rate drops from 4.7 to 2.4 from 1950-2017, population growth rate now 1.1, decreasing from 2.0

[TFR is total fertility rate, ASFR is age specific fertility rate]

"From 1950 to 2017, TFRs decreased by 49·4% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 46·4–52·0). The TFR decreased  from 4·7 livebirths (4·5–4·9) to 2·4 livebirths (2·2–2·5), and the ASFR of mothers aged 10–19 years decreased from  37 livebirths (34–40) to 22 livebirths (19–24) per 1000 women. Despite reductions in the TFR, the global population  has  been  increasing  by  an  average  of  83·8  million  people  per  year  since  1985.  The  global  population  increased  by 197·2% (193·3–200·8) since 1950, from 2·6 billion (2·5–2·6) to 7·6 billion (7·4–7·9) people in 2017; much of this increase was in the proportion of the global population in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The global annual rate  of  population  growth  increased  between  1950  and  1964,  when  it  peaked  at  2·0%;  this  rate  then  remained  nearly constant until 1970 and then decreased to 1·1% in 2017."

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(18)32278-5.pdf

open access. read all about it.

coverage at

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103

sidd

Paddy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #456 on: November 10, 2018, 02:22:58 AM »
The other studies in that series are also worth a glance, visavis the state of the world: https://www.thelancet.com/gbd?utm_campaign=gbd17

One thing that the editorial flags up is that progress in reducing adult mortality rates may be stalling just at the moment (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32858-7/fulltext "In 2017, global adult mortality rates decreases plateaued, and, in some cases, mortality rates increased.").  This is obviously bad news given the general association between death and suffering, but may also suggest a slower rate of global population growth than had been forecast, if life expectancy rise worldwide is indeed slowing down.

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #457 on: November 10, 2018, 04:30:22 PM »
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103
"The report, part of the Global Burden of Diseases analysis, says affected countries will need to consider ... introducing policies to encourage women to have more children, which often fail. Report author Prof Murray argues: "On current trends there will be very few children and lots of people over the age of 65 and that's very difficult to sustain global society."

OMFG!!! OK demographers, answer these questions: "Is INFINITY the ideal population for humans on planet Earth? (I didn't think so). If not, when is the best time for our species to plateau its global population and take on the challenges of the "demographic transition", including an aging population for a generation or two?" Oh, right, sometime in the future. That makes sense.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #458 on: November 10, 2018, 05:55:09 PM »
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103
"The report, part of the Global Burden of Diseases analysis, says affected countries will need to consider ... introducing policies to encourage women to have more children, which often fail. Report author Prof Murray argues: "On current trends there will be very few children and lots of people over the age of 65 and that's very difficult to sustain global society."

OMFG!!! OK demographers, answer these questions: "Is INFINITY the ideal population for humans on planet Earth? (I didn't think so). If not, when is the best time for our species to plateau its global population and take on the challenges of the "demographic transition", including an aging population for a generation or two?" Oh, right, sometime in the future. That makes sense.

Growth systems require and/or cause growth of every major input or output of the system. Humans as both units of production and consumption are arguably the most important component of this growth system which we have used to organize global society. If we were to somehow halt the growth of the world's population or perhaps establish a trend of a subtle decrease, we would bring capitalism to its knees.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2018, 06:33:10 PM by Shared Humanity »

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #459 on: November 10, 2018, 06:19:19 PM »
Exactly, SH, exactly.  There is no plan to tame the beast because the beast can't be tamed.  The economic order is far less stable than the ecological order.

Paddy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #460 on: December 03, 2018, 11:35:31 PM »
US life expectancy dropped a little further in 2017: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46389147

Population growth worldwide may yet slow down still further if more countries hit a life expectancy peak. Currently it seems to be just the UK and USA, though...

wdmn

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #461 on: December 05, 2018, 04:56:54 AM »
Thought I would share these two graphs. The first shows the correlation between CO2 ppm in the atmosphere and global population from 1958 to 2018. The correlation is 0.9941975 (with 1 being perfect correlation and 0 being inverse correlation).

The second graph shows the same thing but with the global urban population. The correlation is 0.9996965. When a simple linear regression model treating urban population as a predictor for CO2 ppm in the atmosphere is run on an 80:20 test (to predict 20% of the data that we already have) the results are:

actual            predicted
1. 315.2910   314.7350
2. 315.9758   315.6139
3. 318.9867   319.3612
4. 330.2383   330.3226
5. 341.1258   340.4967
6. 342.7775   341.9325

I'm not suggesting that this is a complete picture by any means, but it's interesting.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 05:46:53 AM by wdmn »

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #462 on: December 05, 2018, 07:38:58 PM »
Thought I would share these two graphs. The first shows the correlation between CO2 ppm in the atmosphere and global population from 1958 to 2018. The correlation is 0.9941975

The second graph shows the same thing but with the global urban population. The correlation is 0.9996965.
How did you resist saying that, all other things being equal, a rise in population to x billion implies a CO2 ppm of y ?
"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)

wdmn

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #463 on: December 06, 2018, 03:10:05 AM »
Thought I would share these two graphs. The first shows the correlation between CO2 ppm in the atmosphere and global population from 1958 to 2018. The correlation is 0.9941975

The second graph shows the same thing but with the global urban population. The correlation is 0.9996965.
How did you resist saying that, all other things being equal, a rise in population to x billion implies a CO2 ppm of y ?

Hah, I've been batted down for making bold claims so many times that I thought I would play it safe. But also, both models (population total, and urban population), tended to under estimate the co2ppm the closer to present and into the future. So, for example, it predicts 408.3 ppm for a population of 8 billion, though we're already over 408.3 ppm and just under 7.7 billion.

That said, ceteris paribus, a global population of 9.5 billion would be 437.28ppm, 10 billion would be 446.94 and 11 billion gives 466.26 ppm. Again, all are likely to be low. Just for fun, upper estimate for population for 2100 is about 16 billion, which predicts 562.87 ppm of co2.

Just to demonstrate how striking this correlation is. Compare it to the one that exists between co2 ppm in the atmosphere to global energy consumption of co2 emitting fuels in TWH (I included nat gas since CH4 eventually contributes to co2). Correlation is 0.9927435, a worse fit than either of the other two.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2018, 03:16:06 AM by wdmn »

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #464 on: December 06, 2018, 03:58:47 AM »
I don't think this has predictive value. Both curves are sadly growing steadily and appear to correlate well, but their drivers are quiet different. And should population plateau at last, CO2 will most probably continue growing.
Total population x Affluence x Emission intensity = Rate of change of CO2.

wdmn

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #465 on: December 06, 2018, 05:05:14 AM »
I don't think this has predictive value. Both curves are sadly growing steadily and appear to correlate well, but their drivers are quiet different. And should population plateau at last, CO2 will most probably continue growing.
Total population x Affluence x Emission intensity = Rate of change of CO2.
Why'd you have to go and ruin the fun oren? Of corse it is one of those beautiful correlations that are overly simplistic.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #466 on: December 06, 2018, 05:06:18 AM »
Sorry...  :-[

wdmn

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #467 on: December 06, 2018, 05:16:11 AM »
Sorry...  :-[
Science would be so much easier if it didn't have to be right.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #468 on: December 06, 2018, 05:32:29 AM »
Re: Science would be so much easier if it didn't have to be right.

And prettier. Many beautiful theories have foundered on ugly facts.

sidd

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #469 on: December 06, 2018, 07:52:06 AM »

A wonderful job making the graphs wdmn!
Did you make them believing they might follow so closely?

The correlation is amazing, and unexpected - at least by me.

Terry

wdmn

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #470 on: December 06, 2018, 08:04:22 AM »
Thank you Terry. I actually got the idea from looking at the attached graphs. I couldn't help but notice that the shape of growth in co2 (upper left blue) and population (upper left red) were nearly identical, going back even as far as pre-industrial.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #471 on: December 06, 2018, 06:33:46 PM »
Thank you Terry. I actually got the idea from looking at the attached graphs. I couldn't help but notice that the shape of growth in co2 (upper left blue) and population (upper left red) were nearly identical, going back even as far as pre-industrial.
As Oren said:-
Total population x Affluence x Emission intensity = Rate of change of CO2.

Looking at the graphs, the GDP growth is far steeper than population growth (post WWII), and this would produce a lower correlation if used instead of population? Is this because Emission Intensity per unit of GDP has fallen somewhat.

And again, this equation surely gives CO2 emissions.

To do the change in CO2 ppm, one would have to put in the effectiveness of the carbon sinks. E.g. the scripps keeling curve website states that the effectiveness of the ocean sinks today is less than in pre-industrial times.

Suddenly a beautiful simple X-Y equation has A, B, C, D......... to be chucked in as well.

Ho-hum.

Ps: The point is still valid. Until today (and until 2030 at least) the more people, the more economic activity, the more emissions and the more CO2 ppm (even if the well-off do more than their fair share). It is built into the IPCC scenarios.
"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)

wdmn

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #472 on: December 06, 2018, 08:02:42 PM »
Global GDP per annum and co2 ppm have a correlation of 0.9734885.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0

Sebastian Jones

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 716
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #474 on: January 05, 2019, 06:05:35 AM »
This is fabulous news!
It is very important, even though the linked article bemoans the trend as presaging a drop in GDP growth.
If the juggernaut of population growth can change course in a nation like China, there may be hope for the world after all.
Now I just hope this trend continues and expands in tandem with the shift to renewable energy and away from ICE transportation.
It is a rare thing indeed to see such a hopeful announcement.

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #475 on: January 05, 2019, 03:15:43 PM »
I am always totally mystified by the "demographic crisis" cries when a society reaches peak population or begins to recede.  Do these people truly believe that "infinity" is the best population level for their country? And if not, don't they see that the peak will have to come at some point, so why not "now"?! It makes no sense.  What makes them think it will be easier at some unspecified point in the future?  We need a complete paradigm shift whereby tackling the demographic transition NOW becomes the organizing goal of every society.

Paddy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #476 on: January 05, 2019, 06:32:31 PM »
I am always totally mystified by the "demographic crisis" cries when a society reaches peak population or begins to recede.  Do these people truly believe that "infinity" is the best population level for their country? And if not, don't they see that the peak will have to come at some point, so why not "now"?! It makes no sense.  What makes them think it will be easier at some unspecified point in the future?  We need a complete paradigm shift whereby tackling the demographic transition NOW becomes the organizing goal of every society.

There's a happy medium where a population pyramid looks basically rectangular with a fertility rate of about 2 children per woman. Right now, the lower half of China"s population pyramid looks more like a mushroomhttps://goo.gl/images/pPBTzA . This has the risk of going down to fewer and fewer children to support the elderly of generations before, now that there's a culture of one child families and with each generation there'll be fewer people of reproductive age to have children as well.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #477 on: January 05, 2019, 06:42:45 PM »
I think that given the global population is above the planet's sustainable carrying capacity, the new generation must be smaller than the one before.  The alternative is much worse.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2476
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #478 on: January 05, 2019, 06:47:54 PM »
This has the risk of going down to fewer and fewer children to support the elderly of generations before, now that there's a culture of one child families and with each generation there'll be fewer people of reproductive age to have children as well.

This argument, too few workers to support too many retirees,  makes intuitive sense, but I don't think it makes economic sense.  A hundred years ago, when there were no social programs, a typical family might have one bread winner supporting a wife, six children, and an elderly grandparent or two.  Perhaps (I'm guessing) an 8:1 ratio of dependents to workers.

A worker back then represented much less real income than a worker today--we've had 100 years of productivity gains per employee.

Now, a dependent today costs much more to support (especially medical care for the elderly).  Nevertheless, if we could could support such a high ratio of dependents per worker back then, I don't see why we should have much of a challenge with perhaps a 4:1 ratio today.

Seems to me the big challenge isn't the shape of the demographic pyramid, but having too little of the accumulated productivity gains going into workers' paychecks.  It's a wealth/income inequality problem that necessitates having so many workers per dependent.

Medical costs would be the second great challenge.  For the US, simply adopting cost controls used by every other advanced economy would solve most of that problem.

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #479 on: January 05, 2019, 07:32:32 PM »
I understand the basic argument that demographers are making about the supposed need for younger workers to support the elderly.  The point is - as Oren points out - that we are already far past the global carrying capacity for humans and we need to peak, and then reduce, the human population.  It will not be easier to do this in the future when natural systems are more degraded than they are now.  We need to take it on NOW. Anything else is just kicking the can down the road.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #480 on: January 05, 2019, 07:40:46 PM »
I understand the basic argument that demographers are making about the supposed need for younger workers to support the elderly.  The point is - as Oren points out - that we are already far past the global carrying capacity for humans and we need to peak, and then reduce, the human population.  It will not be easier to do this in the future when natural systems are more degraded than they are now.  We need to take it on NOW. Anything else is just kicking the can down the road.
So we have two options here.

1) Have an annual event where everyone over retirement age is placed on ice floes and left to their own devices in the Greenland Sea or another location equally hostile to life.

2) Have more wars in developing regions where surplus young labor from all countries is expanded on the fronts, generating $$$ for mechanization and increasing automation back on the home fronts, until the abundance of global youth is brought into line with employment needs under an economy that is by then, proportionally substantially less reliant on young human labor.

Surprisingly, the second option actually sounds quite reasonable! This is also what keeps things moving along (or rather, cemented in place) in 1984, which can hardly be coincidental.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2476
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #481 on: January 05, 2019, 07:56:19 PM »
I understand the basic argument that demographers are making about the supposed need for younger workers to support the elderly.  The point is - as Oren points out - that we are already far past the global carrying capacity for humans and we need to peak, and then reduce, the human population.  It will not be easier to do this in the future when natural systems are more degraded than they are now.  We need to take it on NOW. Anything else is just kicking the can down the road.

Totally agree.  The civilization-threatening problems we face are multiplied by overpopulation.  I was just pointing out that non-optimal demographic age curves are a relatively trivial problem in comparison.  We can (and should) afford to have lots of retirees per worker, if that's a consequence of getting overpopulation and excessive births under control.  I find it gob-smacking that so many people don't see this.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #482 on: January 05, 2019, 08:40:30 PM »

Medical costs would be the second great challenge.  For the US, simply adopting cost controls used by every other advanced economy would solve most of that problem.
Can you expand on the bolded.
I've never head of "cost controls" on healthcare since I left the US.
AFAIK every Canadian, or at least every Ontarian, is entitled to the best treatments available anywhere.
Unproven quackery excepted of course.


Terry

Paddy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #483 on: January 05, 2019, 08:45:29 PM »
I think that given the global population is above the planet's sustainable carrying capacity, the new generation must be smaller than the one before.  The alternative is much worse.

It's not just a larger or smaller binary choice, though. Imho, the best thing would be if each generation was *slightly* smaller than the one before. If the next generation is *a lot* smaller, however, you run into the problems I've described above. So we might be better off aiming for a fertility rate of 1.9 rather than 1.1 (EDIT: or than 1.5), basically.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 09:08:17 AM by Paddy »

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2476
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #484 on: January 05, 2019, 09:36:54 PM »

Medical costs would be the second great challenge.  For the US, simply adopting cost controls used by every other advanced economy would solve most of that problem.
Can you expand on the bolded.
I've never head of "cost controls" on healthcare since I left the US.
AFAIK every Canadian, or at least every Ontarian, is entitled to the best treatments available anywhere.
Unproven quackery excepted of course.


Terry

Sure.  There's no shortage of concrete examples.  When the Canadian (or UK, or EU, or Singapore, or...etc) decide to make Viagra available, they decide (in negotiations with Pfizer) exactly how much each pill will cost the health care system.  In the US, Pfizer charges whatever the market will bear.  Offhand, I'm guessing Viagra costs 3 times as much  in the US.

Multiply that by every other kind of pill by every manufacturer in the world.  Availability of generics reduces that differential, but US doctors get perverse incentives to prescribe patent-only meds.

In the US, the same holds for daily charges for hospital bed-days, including ICU bed-days.  Medicare pays fixed amounts, but each hospital gets to demand what they demand of insurers.  Big insurers, having more market clout, get better rates.  Uninsured folks, insanely, have to pay the very highest amounts.

In the US, the same holds for medical devices.  You need a stent for a cardiac artery in the US, the cost will be whatever the market will bear, not a price negotiated on behalf of the whole healthcare system.  Or use of a defibrillator.  Or a patented bed for control of pressure ulcers. Or, or, or, or. . .

Insanely, US doctors are vehemently opposed to "price controls."  It's insane, because doctor fees are the *only* part of the system that are currently under effective price controls.  Medicare pays a specific, set, non-negotiated fee for a doctor's time, and all the insurers pay a fixed percentage close to that.  Of course, uninsured folk have to pay whatever the market price will bear.  And almost nobody shops for doctors on the basis of the demanded fee structure.

So, yes, Canada has strong price controls while making sure all essential needs are covered.  The US has minimal price controls, where "coverage" isn't necessarily what determines what consumers actually can afford.

This isn't a feature of single-payer healthcare.  Some countries enact effective price controls under "all-payer" healthcare systems.  Medicare in the US (currently) is a single-payer system, with utterly inadequate price controls.  That's why Medicare is far more expensive than the Canadian system, while still imposing steep premiums, copays, and deductibles.  "Medicare for all" isn't remotely a solution.  Cost controls would make *any* system vastly more affordable, certainly including the ObamaCare structure.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #485 on: January 06, 2019, 07:02:46 AM »
Chinagov confirms: population decline unstoppable

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-46772503

sidd

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25761
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #486 on: March 27, 2019, 05:42:37 PM »
Male Birth Control Pill Passes Human Safety Tests
Quote
A new male birth control pill passed tests of safety and tolerability when healthy men used it daily for a month, and it produced hormone responses consistent with effective contraception, according to researchers at two institutions testing the drug. The Phase 1 study results was presented Sunday, March 24 at ENDO 2019, the Endocrine Society's annual meeting in New Orleans, La.

The experimental male oral contraceptive is called 11-beta-methyl-19-nortestosterone dodecylcarbonate, or 11-beta-MNTDC. It is a modified testosterone that has the combined actions of a male hormone (androgen) and a progesterone....
https://www.technologynetworks.com/drug-discovery/news/male-birth-control-pill-passes-human-safety-tests-317223
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #487 on: April 22, 2019, 05:23:59 AM »
I reply to

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2205.msg196289.html#msg196289

Over my life and in my experience i have seen exactly one policy that cuts fertility rate and that is education of girls. Economic standing does not seem to matter, the same results are seen in saud as in bangladesh and africa and india.

it takes a generation, but it works. Educated women take control of their own bodies and their family and, most important,  make sure all their children are educated.

One of those gifts that keep on giving. Oddly, or perhaps not so oddly, educating boys has much smaller effect. Men think with their penis too much of the time.

sidd


Paddy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #488 on: April 22, 2019, 04:55:02 PM »
I think one key reason why educating women and girls works is that without access to education, the main route to gaining social status and financial security as a woman will always be getting married and having kids. The alternatives without education are generally low status options like manual labour, prostitution, or never moving out of your parents' house. But these would neither get you social status nor get you someone to look after you in your old age.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #489 on: April 23, 2019, 01:06:46 PM »
As a would be astronomer, the long term growth rate of a planet's population must be zero. Not +0.001%/annum, not -0.001%/annum, but zilch. Anything else leads to extinction through overshoot and collapse or dieoff.
Might as well be ASAP, while we still have a rich biosphere.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #490 on: April 23, 2019, 01:21:02 PM »
It's actually minus 4 % Tom. Edit: (at least for us as humans now)

BTW, this is like the best talk i've ever seen; a must watch even if you are not into maths and modeling.


Mike Lee: World Modelling


« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 01:35:10 PM by b_lumenkraft »

Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #491 on: April 23, 2019, 03:32:22 PM »
b_lumenkraft:
That is actually the short term necessity (from the astronomical viewpoint).

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #492 on: April 23, 2019, 03:36:42 PM »
Okay, from an astronomical standpoint, what is humans anyway?  :P

Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #493 on: April 23, 2019, 05:57:05 PM »
b_lumenkraft:
From an astronomical perspective, bupkis. From a human perspective, a little more.

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10163
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3510
  • Likes Given: 745
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #494 on: April 24, 2019, 04:46:36 AM »
For Some Millennials, Climate Change Clock Ticks Louder Than Biological One   
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna993331

“I had this internal struggle: ‘Do I really want to bring a child into this world?’” a Seattle 29-year-old said.

... “There is this sense that if you don’t have kids soon, you could be putting them in a harder position,” Lundahl said. “But if you do have them, that will not be easy either, with the storms, the intense droughts, the precariousness of the times. It’s like you are playing with two ticking time bombs — yours and the planet’s.”   

... With each child, citizens of the developed world increase their carbon footprint sixfold, adding roughly 60 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, one oft-quoted study concluded. The calculation figures the probability that each offspring may also reproduce — potentially expanding an individual's carbon footprint for decades after they die. Put another way, forgoing having a child has more than 25 times the carbon-reducing impact of giving up a gas-burning car.

... “Procreating both contributes to climate change and creates a new victim of climate change,” said Rieder, a research professor and father of one. “I don’t know whether people should have kids, or whether they should have a big family, but I do believe that climate change should be part of their deliberation, because the consequences of bringing a new person into a changing world are really morally serious.”
« Last Edit: April 24, 2019, 04:55:49 AM by vox_mundi »
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― anonymous

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

Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #495 on: April 24, 2019, 01:23:43 PM »
 The calculation figures the probability that each offspring may also reproduce — potentially expanding an individual's carbon footprint for decades after they die.

Then it should also figure the probability that each of those offsprings's children will also reproduce...ad infinitum, so that the carbon contribution of having a child is millions of times greater than not having a child.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #496 on: April 24, 2019, 01:36:49 PM »
The best way to control population growth is not to bring the rich countries down. It's bringing the poor countries up that has a real impact!

See Youtube video above for numbers and arguments.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #497 on: April 24, 2019, 05:51:05 PM »
The best way to control population growth is not to bring the rich countries down. It's bringing the poor countries up that has a real impact!

See Youtube video above for numbers and arguments.
I don't mean to be rude but this is incredibly wrong and is the reason why we have had exploding GHG emissions and worsening AGW since the 1970s-1980s.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #498 on: April 24, 2019, 05:56:04 PM »
Have you even watched the video Bbr?

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #499 on: April 24, 2019, 07:15:35 PM »
Have you even watched the video Bbr?
Have you seen China's impact on the planet since it was "elevated"? India's impact as it is "elevating"? Truth > propaganda, the burgeoning global middle class is the reason the planet is being obliterated.