Overpopulation Is Not the Problem • Hacker News Board

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#41

Post by antris » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:40 PM UTC

smoyer wrote: post #30

IsThisObvious wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're already seeing the first stages. Can you support this? We're not seeing any mass deaths which are sufficient to even slow the population growth rate, and instead, seem to simply be seeing more statistically unlikely events as the population grows larger - which is what we would expect.

There have been several articles posted here recently on the health of the oceans, specifically how the oxygen levels are decreasing leading to a decrease in sea-life (with the exception of species like jellyfish that thrive in that environment). While I'm sure the human race could survive as vegetarians, I think it's also important to protect the systems that convert CO2 back into oxygen ... we're still going to nee…

Of course, there's the whole global warming debate

It's not a debate, it's science.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#42

Post by lutusp » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:40 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #20

lutusp wrote: post #4

This is the most purblind, misguided editorial opinion I have read in weeks. It repeats an old saw often repeated by people who don't understand the Logistic function and its role is describing biological systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function The Logistic function concisely describes the behavior of biological systems that don't have any control over their numbers, as humans most certainly do not. A…

> By contrast, when the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped in March 1932, it made national headlines for years -- years -- until the perpetrator was apprehended, tried, and executed in 1936. It's the story of one family, one child, one murder. Today that story wouldn't be able to compete with the latest mass murder account. "Oh, Bashar Assad has killed 1,500 people in a nerve gas attack. Oh, well, they're not anyone I know…

> it doesn't mean that there needs to be some Malthusian die-off localized in space and time ...

Yes, that's true, but that isn't an argument that it won't happen, only that it's needn't happen. Modern history is increasingly an account of population control by mass death.

> nor does it need to involve people going crazy.

Certainly not, and as time passes, more and more crazy behavior is rationalized as a creative adjustment to trying times. Sandy Hook. Columbine. Boys will be boys.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#43

Post by reitzensteinm » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:40 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #26

IsThisObvious wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Michael Jackson's death drew a worldwide audience.

Lindbergh's baby wasn't an international superstar before someone grabbed him out of his crib.

Lindbergh was, though. Both before and after the kidnapping.

"In the coming days, Lindbergh became the most photographed, most filmed, and most famous living person on earth."

"On June 13, Lindbergh was greeted by over four million people at events honoring him in New York City."

"At the center stood the two most famous men in America: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who championed the interventionist cause, and aviator Charles Lindbergh, who, as unofficial leader and spokesman for America’s isolationists, emerged as the president’s most formidable adversary"

http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/Charles_Lindbergh.htm http://lynneolson.com/those-angry-days/

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#44

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:44 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #4

This is the most purblind, misguided editorial opinion I have read in weeks. It repeats an old saw often repeated by people who don't understand the Logistic function and its role is describing biological systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function The Logistic function concisely describes the behavior of biological systems that don't have any control over their numbers, as humans most certainly do not. A…

[deleted]

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#45

Post by chr1 » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:44 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #24

wildtype wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carying capacity for human increase, while decreasing carying capacity for other species.

Yes, that's true, but it's a temporary adjustment, always followed by mass death. This is easily shown in the laboratory -- in the first phase of a multi-species model, one species wipes out all the others. Then the winners turn on themselves.

We are in that temporary zone for quite some time already, and all we need is 100~200 years more until we can get colonies on other planets.

If by some miracle human population was reduced to say 1bln it would make space colonies much less likely, and we'll slowly eat out our petri dish without a chance to enlarge it.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#46

Post by lutusp » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:44 PM UTC

jasonkolb wrote: post #40

lutusp wrote: post #4

This is the most purblind, misguided editorial opinion I have read in weeks. It repeats an old saw often repeated by people who don't understand the Logistic function and its role is describing biological systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function The Logistic function concisely describes the behavior of biological systems that don't have any control over their numbers, as humans most certainly do not. A…

What a myopic view. I think Joseph Stalin had the perfect response to your argument: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. When one dies, it is a tragedy. When a million die, it is a statistic."

> Joseph Stalin had the perfect response ...

That's not a perfect response to people's attitude toward population control by mass death, which is what I'm describing -- it's exactly the same argument that's offered in the linked article: "In moving toward a better Anthropocene, the environment will be what we make it." Indeed it will.

> What a myopic view.

It's myopia to imagine, as the linked article does, that we can force the earth to provide sustenance regardless of our numbers. That's a fantasy.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#47

Post by legutierr » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:44 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #42

foobarbazqux wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By contrast, when the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped in March 1932, it made national headlines for years -- years -- until the perpetrator was apprehended, tried, and executed in 1936. It's the story of one family, one child, one murder. Today that story wouldn't be able to compete with the latest mass murder account. "Oh, Bashar Assad has killed 1,500 people in a nerve gas attack. Oh, well, they're not anyone I know…

> it doesn't mean that there needs to be some Malthusian die-off localized in space and time ... Yes, that's true, but that isn't an argument that it won't happen, only that it's needn't happen. Modern history is increasingly an account of population control by mass death. > nor does it need to involve people going crazy. Certainly not, and as time passes, more and more crazy behavior is rationalized as a creative ad…

Have you ever actually heard someone use the expression "boys will be boys" when talking about Sandy Hook or Columbine? That's just not credible.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#48

Post by fedvasu » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:44 PM UTC

bayesianhorse wrote: post #3

Good to hear that I'm not the only one with this opinion. While I'm all for keeping resource-consumption in check and keeping sustainability in mind, I don't like what people say about overpopulatiion. Sometimes I would hear people hoping that population numbers would decrease by natural catastrophies or diseases. Or they caution the expansion of health services in Africa "because it would make the problems worse".

I curse you to live in a country like India or Bangladesh for rest of your life. I hope you survive that environment and die a natural death.These are the places where population increase is severely under-checked due to various political,religious and plain-old(which are not any of the former) dumb reasons. I am not going to predict anything but I believe these two countries will be the example of hazards of overpopulation in the 21st century.(If Humanity survives ,we might see some awesome horror movies(or something of that sort) based on early-mid to 21st century Indian sub-continent in 22nd century)

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#49

Post by pdonis » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:45 PM UTC

cnorgate wrote: post #39

The problem with this thinking is a failure to realize that we are already taxing the Earth far beyond its carrying capacity. To continue supporting even our current population will force us to devastate our planet to the point that we won't recognize it in 50-100 years. What's the point of supporting more people if we bring them into a miserable world? Certainly we COULD continue developing innovations that harness…

we are already taxing the Earth far beyond its carrying capacity

And your evidence for this is?

To continue supporting even our current population will force us to devastate our planet

And your evidence for this is?

What about raising the standard of living of all those who are already on the planet

As the article clearly states, the obstacles to doing this are social and political, not environmental or technological. People are starving or living at bare subsistence level, to put it bluntly, because our social systems suck at empowering people to make a better life. We allow predatory individuals, whether they are tinpot dictators or investment bankers, to siphon off resources they don't need and will squander anyway at the expense of others. That is what we need to fix.

Should we live in a world void of natural beauty?

No, and we don't.

before we poisoned the seas, melted the ice caps and drained the soil of its nutrients.

And your evidence that this is happening is? More precisely, your evidence that all these things are worse than they were, say, 1000 years ago, is?

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#50

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:46 PM UTC

antris wrote: post #41

smoyer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been several articles posted here recently on the health of the oceans, specifically how the oxygen levels are decreasing leading to a decrease in sea-life (with the exception of species like jellyfish that thrive in that environment). While I'm sure the human race could survive as vegetarians, I think it's also important to protect the systems that convert CO2 back into oxygen ... we're still going to nee…

Of course, there's the whole global warming debate It's not a debate, it's science.

The question of what to do is not science. And it seems silly to assume that we're starting at an optimal temperature considering the wild swings the planet has had in the past.