The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’ • Hacker News Board

Re: The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’

#21

Post by roc » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 7:27 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #18

Periodic wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource? In some countries that is food, in many modern societies now it seems to be time. We know that the population can't grow exponentially forever, but other than a recent dip in fertility rates, we have seen a fairly steady exponential growth. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm

Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource? Who says so? Why would an observation that may (or may not) apply to bacteria or even to wolves apply to human beings?

It strikes me as more of a tautology.

If a population stops growing, then clearly it's because it has run out of some resource, particularly if you go so far as to include things such as 'time' as a resource.

Re: The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’

#22

Post by zacechola » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 7:28 PM UTC

biohacker42 wrote: post #17

zacechola wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misstate the arguments of some green farming techniques. For example, rejecting monoculture on a patch of land is low risk/high yield. 15 different crops (not 15 varieties of one crop) is much less susceptible to total failure due to a single catastrophic event than a monoculture. Secondly, is high yield even a good thing? Many crops produce more yield but do not produce more (or produce very little more) nutriti…

is high yield even a good thing? It is if you want to feed more people, More people may not be a good thing, but it often just is an inescapable reality and if you want to keep them from death by starvation you need higher yield. And I'm not sure rejecting monoculture on a patch of land is high yield. Not if you want to harvest and distribute it all and do it before it spoils and the "patch" is large enough. Then you…

Methods of harvesting and distribution depend greatly on how far one wishes to distribute the crop from the source. Which is entirely another prong in the argument for green ag. I don't necessarily agree with the local food movement on all accounts, but the question of feeding the world ultimately comes down to how much total food is necessary to feed a population, not how many diverse crops can feed a population. I know that sounds like an argument for monoculture, but hear me out.

High yield is important if you want to feed people outside your locale. It becomes less an issue of feeding the masses and more a vehicle for trade. Through modern techniques and distribution, oranges from Florida can be sold in North Dakota. However, I wonder if it's necessary that North Dakotan's need many cheap oranges. There are many examples. What is the actual value of Columbian asparagus in the fall vs. the residual costs of producing and distributing that asparagus? Et cetera.

The labor issue you bring up is an important one, however, and it is a trade-off that many proponents of green agriculture too easily overlook.

Re: The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’

#23

Post by Periodic » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 7:34 PM UTC

roc wrote: post #21

tokenadult wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource? Who says so? Why would an observation that may (or may not) apply to bacteria or even to wolves apply to human beings?

It strikes me as more of a tautology. If a population stops growing, then clearly it's because it has run out of some resource, particularly if you go so far as to include things such as 'time' as a resource.

I think it is used more to predict how a system will respond to a change in resources. If you reduce the amount of resources available to a population, that population will shrink approximately proportionally (until there is enough for the rest to survive), and if you increase the resources the population will grow to use those resources reasonably quickly.

It also points out that it is the scarcest resource that limits growth. Increasing food will not allow the population grow if there isn't enough water, sun, etc.

My point was mostly to point out that we may have some other scarcity that isn't food which is limiting the growth rate in industrialized countries, while increasing the food in starving countries will just cause the population to grow until it hits the limit of some other resource.

I suspect that it isn't any sort of time scarcity that is limiting current human growth, but more likely the impact of contraceptives messing with our normal biological mechanisms.

Re: The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’

#24

Post by zacechola » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 7:34 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #18

Periodic wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource? In some countries that is food, in many modern societies now it seems to be time. We know that the population can't grow exponentially forever, but other than a recent dip in fertility rates, we have seen a fairly steady exponential growth. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm

Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource? Who says so? Why would an observation that may (or may not) apply to bacteria or even to wolves apply to human beings?

Why would an observation that may (or may not) apply to bacteria or even to wolves apply to human beings?

Because it appears we're also DNA replicators.

But, let me play devil's advocate on your behalf, because I like your question. Let's assume that humans do realize their population problems and act to level growth, or reduce it. There's a strong argument that they would also act to reduce their resources, as well. Fewer people means less food necessary to feed the population; So why grow it?

Re: The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’

#25

Post by Periodic » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 7:38 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #18

Periodic wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource? In some countries that is food, in many modern societies now it seems to be time. We know that the population can't grow exponentially forever, but other than a recent dip in fertility rates, we have seen a fairly steady exponential growth. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm

Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource? Who says so? Why would an observation that may (or may not) apply to bacteria or even to wolves apply to human beings?

Last I checked we were still animals that are, as a population, driven by instinct.

We do have at least one significant difference from other species in our intelligence/self-awareness, but I challenge you to find any significantly large (compared to world population) group that acts even mostly out of rationality.

Re: The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’

#26

Post by electromagnetic » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 7:46 PM UTC

warfangle wrote: post #6

pyre wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? Numbers? I know that a few first-world countries like Japan have negative population growth, but is that the case everywhere? Are the countries that having negative population growth enough to offset those with positive?

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=world+population Population growth world-wide is 1.14% per year.

Actually on a long enough scale population growth is exponential and has been increasing at a phenomenal rate (by such time scales). However the good news is that the time it takes for the world population to double is estimated to increase. (Ed, note that any growth on any scale can be read as exponential. On a geological scale the human population growth is akin to the big-bang, but on a daily scale it's equivalent to a lethargic snail.)

This is due to the fact that if current trends continue, it will have taken 12.3 years for the world population to go up by a billion (however it should be noted, earlier estimates -1990 IIRC- suggested it should have hit 10 billion ~2012), which is a mild increase over the last billion of 12.25 years. I believe the next billions are expected to take 13, 15 and then IIRC 18 years.

There's many relevant factors effecting population growth. Many of the diseases that plagued our ancestors are almost completely cured in the west (I've never heard of someone dying from a broken arm, however 200 years ago it was a prominent risk).

We also have food preservation techniques that no one had before. Everywhere from penicillium being used in meats to prevent bacterial growth to refrigeration, vacuum sealing, freeze drying and even vacuum freezing (where the moisture is literally sucked out of food, meaning it can last unrefrigerated for up to 10 years). There's also irradiation techniques that, given proper storage, can enable food to last indefinitely.

There are also vast misconceptions about over population that plague these discussions. For example, China is less densely populated than the UK and Japan, yet has food struggles because they don't have the economy to import food on mass. Many African countries plague by starvation are desolate compared to most countries, yet neighbouring countries have populations almost one hundred times as populated (note that this even applies in the landlocked countries interior and isn't a comparison between a country with a large ocean border and one with no border).

Re: The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’

#27

Post by jules » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 8:01 PM UTC

zacechola wrote: post #15

biohacker42 wrote: post #12

The man achieved great things, specifically the way in which he solved the problem is phenomenal. It reveals not a just a great mind, but a great character. Not to be glib, but you'd look for something like that in a founder. Except the he didn't create yet another web 2.0 site, he saved billions of lives. Having said that, lets keep in mind that the green revolution is not as often described a low risk/high yield de…

You misstate the arguments of some green farming techniques. For example, rejecting monoculture on a patch of land is low risk/high yield. 15 different crops (not 15 varieties of one crop) is much less susceptible to total failure due to a single catastrophic event than a monoculture. Secondly, is high yield even a good thing? Many crops produce more yield but do not produce more (or produce very little more) nutriti…

I find food from my garden consistently much tastier than food from the supermarket. Especially tomatoes, haricots verts, peas & lettuce. Tomatoes from the supermarket taste as if they injected 80% water. Haricots verts from the supermarket taste as if they're a month old. You wouldn't even recognize peas if you're used to frozen peas.

I don't know if the difference is because of different species of plants or different light conditions or different soil. Whether it's better for your health I couldn't say.

Re: The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’

#28

Post by philwelch » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 8:29 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #4

shrughes wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earth's population isn't growing exponentially or even linearly, though.

Source? Numbers? I know that a few first-world countries like Japan have negative population growth, but is that the case everywhere? Are the countries that having negative population growth enough to offset those with positive?

Most first-world countries have zero or negative population growth when you don't account for immigration. This seems to be a result of economic development. Most countries are also economically developing over time so you can expect the population growth rate to peak and decline as this happens. It has happened, in fact.

Of course, this development is dependent upon the presence of natural resources which may interfere with the food supply (i.e. biodiesel or ethanol fuels).

Re: The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’

#29

Post by kingkongrevenge » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 8:43 PM UTC

Periodic wrote: post #13

tomjen2 wrote: post #7

He saved an estimated ONE BILLION people. That really puts things in perspective.

I'd like to know the methods for estimating this number. Malnutrition deaths, children that were able to be born because their parents felt secure enough to have another child, food-shortage violence deaths, there are many indirect factors when you're talking about affecting scarcity for a population.

The estimate is nonsense. Africa's population has trebled (or whatever) yet the green revolution never happened in Africa. The continent is overwhelmingly fed on pre-green revolution crops grown in pre-green revolution ways with low fossil fuel inputs. The old ways scaled up. (Though arguably at great cost to natural habitat.)

Certainly there would be many more farmers (less efficient) without this gent's green revolution advancements and the food would be more expensive, but it's baseless to assert everyone would have starved otherwise.

Re: The Man Who Defused the ‘Population Bomb’

#30

Post by mynameishere » Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 8:49 PM UTC

gte910h wrote: post #14

m_eiman wrote: post #2

He didn't defuse it, he just added a few more feet to the fuse. As long as Earth's population grows exponentially (or even linearly), we'll hit a wall sooner or later. Malthus is still right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

Omce birth control becomes free or affordable, and societites move out of agrarian only production, that is untrue. Reliable birth control pretty much leads to voluntary replacement only reproduction

For a few generations. Eventually, the survival of the fittest kicks in, and those people who avoided birth control (from a stronger paternal feeling, etc) will restock the population.