I spent some time a year ago or so reading Limits To Growth and Thinking In Systems by Donella Meadows - according to those theories, 8-9 billion is too high anyway. Their best case scenario is less than that, with everyone eventually settling into a standard of living that is about analogous to eastern European countries today (which is lower than the standard of living in the US).
No Population Bomb
61–70 of 96 posts
Re: No Population Bomb
#62I wonder if the lower frequency in nation-state warfare is an effect of increasing education levels of females?
Just to tack a few things on to other people's points, I think at least one reason the amount of nation-state warfare has decreased is because of the effects of colonialization and decolonailization. That is, we're left with a lot of countries with political borders that have little to do with underlying social/ethnic/whatever borders. As a result, you have a lot of ethnicity driven/motivated/aligned conflicts (granted, these conflicts tend to have multiple root causes, but surely ethnicity is often pretty critical) that take place within a country, rather than between countries.
Re: No Population Bomb
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously that Al-Quaeda plan will fail as greater numbers does not translate into greater power anymore. Machines are replacing humans both in industry and the military so the group with the most capital is the one who will win the game.
The Al-Quaeda (or Mexican nationalist) plan is a long game that has a track record of success. In the US, formerly marginalized groups like Catholics (Irish/Italian/polish) and eastern european Jewish immigrant came to wield considerable power in the mid 20th century, owing largely to burgeoning numbers. The Catholics actively organized colleges, universities and fraternal organizations that brought young Catholics i…
It certainly has worked in the past but it won't anymore as the homo sapiens nears obsolescence.
Re: No Population Bomb
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was amazed to learn that the abortion rate per 1000 pregnancies in the US (in 2008 or 2010) was 138 (for white women) and 501 (for black women) (and somewhere in between for hispanic, native american, etc.) I intuitively thought it was like 10-20/1000. So I think abortion is doing pretty well for itself. Euthanasia really needs to step up its game, though.
That is tied to poverty, ignorance, likelihood of victimization, and cost. Birth control has not been readily available, but abortions are paid for by Medicaid and other programs. When you don't have any money, $150 for a doctor visit and $30/mo for birth control is a lot of money.
Yeah. I am really proud of Warren Buffett's charitable work in this space (he basically funds Planned Parenthood)
Re: No Population Bomb
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was amazed to learn that the abortion rate per 1000 pregnancies in the US (in 2008 or 2010) was 138 (for white women) and 501 (for black women) (and somewhere in between for hispanic, native american, etc.) I intuitively thought it was like 10-20/1000. So I think abortion is doing pretty well for itself. Euthanasia really needs to step up its game, though.
That is tied to poverty, ignorance, likelihood of victimization, and cost. Birth control has not been readily available, but abortions are paid for by Medicaid and other programs. When you don't have any money, $150 for a doctor visit and $30/mo for birth control is a lot of money.
[deleted]
Re: No Population Bomb
#66The argument that 'everyone has been wrong so far' is not a solid one. The green revolution was basically pouring oil (pesticides) and pumping natural gas (fertilizer) into the fields. As oil flow rates are peaking this is an increasingly costly process, and as EROEI lowers on what's left we run into more problems. Same for NPK inputs - they are getting harder and more expensive (both $$ and energy) to extract. To a lesser degree (but of growing concern) all resources - we now mine 3-5% ores where we once mined 70% ores for example.
Exponential curves don't go on forever in the real world. Ideas don't replace energy, nor do they replace resources. Saying it hasn't happened yet so those who are worried about it are wrong is naive and logically flawed.
Re: No Population Bomb
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now we are running out of phosphorous Phosphorus is the 11th most common element in the earth's crust. Let that sink in for a while. It running out makes about as much sense as the humanity running out of hydrogen. Deposits economically extractable at present market prices will run out within a few decades. This doesn't mean we run out of phosphorus, it just means that the market price will rise until other extract…
You are nit-picking my post. Like I said, we are reached peak phosphorous as we mine it currently, and reaching peak energy as we currently use mostly fossil fuels. And like I said, I believe we can use new technologies (like, solar power... or underwater phosphorous mining) to fix it.
I read Tuna's comment as disagreement with your claims, not nitpicking. Do you have any reasoning to support your claims that we'll run out of phosphorus or energy?
Re: No Population Bomb
#68The population bomb has already been reached.
7 billion is way too much. We simply cannot continue to eat cows at that rate. Worse: if we want to stay at 7 billion the "poor" countries won't be able to raise their standard of living. We already bombed: too many cows farting, too many fossil fuels being extracted.
We're already killing bees, potentially disrupting the gulf stream (up to the point where it's expected to be so problematic for planes in as few as 25 years that planes shall need to use safer, and longer, aerial routes). We're already seeing people trying to push "protein from eating insects" in the western world: simply because we're way past the limit with cows. We're also killing too many trees.
"No more population bomb", I agree with that. But we already bombed and it's gonna get ugly.
Re: No Population Bomb
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technology races ahead faster and faster while population flattens out yet lots of people insist on doom against reason. It is a psychological problem.
bring your reasonable arguments instead of insulting the people you argue with, please.
Sorry, kzrdude. I meant that in general. The end is always nigh, yet it always fails to materialize, this is a known phenomenon. I should be more clear. Sorry to have offended you.
Re: No Population Bomb
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now we are running out of phosphorous Phosphorus is the 11th most common element in the earth's crust. Let that sink in for a while. It running out makes about as much sense as the humanity running out of hydrogen. Deposits economically extractable at present market prices will run out within a few decades. This doesn't mean we run out of phosphorus, it just means that the market price will rise until other extract…
You are nit-picking my post. Like I said, we are reached peak phosphorous as we mine it currently, and reaching peak energy as we currently use mostly fossil fuels. And like I said, I believe we can use new technologies (like, solar power... or underwater phosphorous mining) to fix it.
I think what's he's saying is that "peaking" is meaningless.
There's a book that was written back in the early 90s called The Ultimate Resource, by Julian Simon. A fair amount of it is typical libertarian wishful thinking, but he very strongly makes the point that in a free society, there is no such thing as a peak. There are always alternatives, and if a resource becomes more expensive, we will start switching to them. If need be, we will also change our behavior to accommodate these alternatives.
To take a great example, look at gasoline prices. There is no shortage of gasoline in the United States. The price goes up, and suddenly fuel efficiency becomes much more important. As a result, economy cars are much more common, as are hybrids and electric cars. Consumption then goes down.
This would be the case even if gasoline were ten dollars or even twenty dollars a gallon. People would simply take the alternative options, which become more and more attractive as the "default" becomes more expensive.