Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#111

Post by lutusp »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #87
lutusp wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rate of both mass killings and individual killings is WAY down from what it's been historically. You're making a common statistical error, one that climate change deniers use daily -- if you perform a moving average using a long averaging interval, the climate is warming up. If you perform a moving average using a short averaging interval, the climate is cooling off. The second measurement is an error because i…

> You're making a common statistical error You are the one that said things are worse compared to 1932. You don't get to have your cake and eat it.

> You are the one that said things are worse compared to 1932.

And they are -- much worse. More incidents in an absolute sense, and more incidents per capita.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#112

Post by lutusp »

seclorum wrote: post #97
lutusp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

Actually, its a view supported by evidence, whereas your view is supported by .. superstition, scientifically described but nevertheless: still superstition.

It's too bad that you can't locate any evidence for your opinions. I posted scientific evidence, you replied with opinion.

> ... scientifically described but nevertheless: still superstition.

This isn't a creative writing class.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#113

Post by glenra »

lutusp wrote: post #109
glenra wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of murder, the murder rate today is no higher than it was a century ago and much less than it was 30 years ago. So how big an interval do YOU think is appropriate to look at for the murder rate? Go back too far and you get into measurement problems. Merely counting incidents (as the wikipedia page does) is nonsense for several reasons (1) a vastly better news network is going to make more incidents easy t…

> In the case of murder, the murder rate today is no higher than it was a century ago and much less than it was 30 years ago. To make that claim, you need to define "rate". Does "rate" mean the absolute number of murders per day or year, or the number of murders per day or year divided by the population? The absolute rate is obviously higher -- the burden must be is yours to offer evidence that it's unchanged since 1…

> To make that claim, you need to define "rate".

"rate" means per capita per year. By "a century ago" I meant around 1913; 1800 would be TWO centuries ago. The murder rate in the US has been in the general ballpark of 5-10 per 100,000 annually since 1910. Currently we're near the low point of the last century. Um, here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_late...

Quote: "Today's murder rate is essentially at a low point of the past century. The murder rate in 2011 was lower than it was in 1911. And the trend is downward. Whatever we've been doing over the last 20-30 years seems to be working, more or less. The murder rate has been cut by more than half since 1980: from 10.7 to 4.7."

> But the rate per population might be unchanged (not likely), but if so, that supports the idea that increased population is a factor, which circles back to my original point.

You now appear to be stark raving bonkers. No, silly, if the rate is unchanged it does NOT support your point. Yes, as there are more people, there are likely to be more murders as an absolute number. There are also likely to be more hugs, more kisses, more birthday parties, and more people making silly arguments over the internet. NONE of those constitute a population-limiting crisis.

Well, except maybe that last one. :-)

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#114

Post by seclorum »

lutusp wrote: post #112
seclorum wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, its a view supported by evidence, whereas your view is supported by .. superstition, scientifically described but nevertheless: still superstition.

It's too bad that you can't locate any evidence for your opinions. I posted scientific evidence, you replied with opinion. > ... scientifically described but nevertheless: still superstition. This isn't a creative writing class.

You didn't post any evidence, but lots of theory, whereas there is plenty of evidence that the human species does indeed manage to survive .. in spite of ones best efforts.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#115

Post by lutusp »

seclorum wrote: post #114
lutusp wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's too bad that you can't locate any evidence for your opinions. I posted scientific evidence, you replied with opinion. > ... scientifically described but nevertheless: still superstition. This isn't a creative writing class.

You didn't post any evidence, but lots of theory, whereas there is plenty of evidence that the human species does indeed manage to survive .. in spite of ones best efforts.

> You didn't post any evidence ...

I posted any number of links to scientific evidence, evidence heavy on observation and measurement, light on controversy.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#116

Post by pdonis »

lutusp wrote: post #76
pdonis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying there's a solution to this problem -- there isn't It seems to me that you actually agree with the article's claim that the primary problem is social. You just don't agree with the article's claim that the problem can be solved; basically you don't think humans will be able to come to grips with the social changes that would be required to manage ourselves as a species responsibly. Is that a fair statem…

> You just don't agree with the article's claim that the problem can be solved ... That's correct. The article relies on a common logical error, to wit: catastrophe hasn't overtaken us yet, and that stands as evidence that it cannot ever happen, i.e. the past predicts the future. It's one thing to accept that we can't solve population problems by pointing fingers at other people. But it's quite another to try to clai…

In a mixed population of people who can grasp the nature of biological limits, and others who cannot, those who cannot eventually become the entire future population -- people congenitally indisposed to act intelligently. It's the inevitable outcome of natural selection.

Yes, I see you make this argument on your page on evolution that you linked to. The only possible flaw that I can see is that you say it is

impossible to do anything about without abandoning all civilized standards of behavior

I'm not saying I have a solution that doesn't require that; but I'm not sure that our only option is giving up on trying to find one. I.e., instead of "impossible" in the quote above I would put "extremely difficult". But I admit that's purely a matter of opinion on my part.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#117

Post by lutusp »

glenra wrote: post #113
lutusp wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the case of murder, the murder rate today is no higher than it was a century ago and much less than it was 30 years ago. To make that claim, you need to define "rate". Does "rate" mean the absolute number of murders per day or year, or the number of murders per day or year divided by the population? The absolute rate is obviously higher -- the burden must be is yours to offer evidence that it's unchanged since 1…

> To make that claim, you need to define "rate". "rate" means per capita per year. By "a century ago" I meant around 1913; 1800 would be TWO centuries ago. The murder rate in the US has been in the general ballpark of 5-10 per 100,000 annually since 1910. Currently we're near the low point of the last century. Um, here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_late... Quote: "Today's murder rate is ess…

> "rate" means per capita per year.

That's by no means the only meaning of "rate". The meaning of a rate depends on the two values involved -- the dividend and divisor. The identity of both defines a specific use of the term "rate".

"Murders divided by years" is one example of a rate.

"Murders divided by (years times population)" is another.

And "(mb-ma) divided by ((yb-ya) times (pb-pa))" starts us toward a moving average.

Rate doesn't have only one meaning -- to accept your definition would severely constrain mathematics.

> No, silly, if the rate is unchanged it does NOT support your point.

Of course it does -- given a rapidly increasing population and the same rate, it means the absolute number of incidents has increased. That was my point.

> There are also likely to be more hugs, more kisses, more birthday parties, and more people making silly arguments over the internet. NONE of those constitute a population-limiting crisis.

But in truth, all of them do. It's a classic case of an increasing population held within a finite land mass -- eventually the system collapses.

If the population is increasing without constraint, it doesn't matter what those people are doing apart from increasing their numbers -- the fact that they're increasing their numbers eventually becomes the only issue worth addressing.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#118

Post by pdonis »

cnorgate wrote: post #70
pdonis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can form your own opinions about global warming, rising ocean levels, the acidification of the seas, the destruction of our rain forests or the unsustainable nature of our carbon based economy (see peak oil). I don't have time to reference the multitude of articles on the subject, but they're abundantly available... there's this great site called Google.com which can help you with that. Regarding the issue of 'na…

At the end of the day with so much 'pseudo science' thrown around from fringe scientists, all anyone has is an 'opinion'.

That was kind of my point, except that you and I would probably have different opinions on which particular arguments about these issues come under the heading of "pseudo science".

Also, you are basically saying that we don't know enough about these issues to make useful predictions about the future. At least, if that's what you were saying, I agree with you. But your post was full of predictions about the future; saying that they're "opinions" doesn't give them any more weight. If you don't know what's going to happen, the correct thing to say is that you don't know--and to base your actions on understanding your lack of knowledge, not opinions that have no useful value.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#119

Post by lutusp »

pdonis wrote: post #116
lutusp wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You just don't agree with the article's claim that the problem can be solved ... That's correct. The article relies on a common logical error, to wit: catastrophe hasn't overtaken us yet, and that stands as evidence that it cannot ever happen, i.e. the past predicts the future. It's one thing to accept that we can't solve population problems by pointing fingers at other people. But it's quite another to try to clai…

In a mixed population of people who can grasp the nature of biological limits, and others who cannot, those who cannot eventually become the entire future population -- people congenitally indisposed to act intelligently. It's the inevitable outcome of natural selection. Yes, I see you make this argument on your page on evolution that you linked to. The only possible flaw that I can see is that you say it is impossib…

> I'm not sure that our only option is giving up on trying to find one.

No one is suggesting "giving up". In any case, it's not in the nature of science to give up on searching for solutions. But as things stand, there's no obvious solution.

> instead of "impossible" in the quote above I would put "extremely difficult".

My use of "impossible" was only with respect to measures that modify the behavior of individuals by force. That's impossible without abandoning civilized standards. I don't normally use the word "impossible" without good reason.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#120

Post by glenra »

lutusp wrote: post #111
foobarbazqux wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're making a common statistical error You are the one that said things are worse compared to 1932. You don't get to have your cake and eat it.

> You are the one that said things are worse compared to 1932. And they are -- much worse. More incidents in an absolute sense, and more incidents per capita.

>> You are the one that said things are worse compared to 1932.

> And they are -- much worse. More incidents in an absolute sense, and more incidents per capita

Except that there are almost certainly fewer incidents per capita compared to 1932. 1932 was near a local maximum in terms of violence rates in the US; currently we are near a local minimum. (The current homicide rate is less than half what it was in 1932.)

Post reply on HN