Overpopulation Is Not the Problem • Hacker News Board

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#101

Post by lutusp » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 5:01 PM UTC

fedvasu wrote: post #65

cnorgate wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that the best way to control population expansion is by bringing good healthcare to a region. People in the third world have huge families for a number of reasons - a few of them include the reality that: 1) Many children will die young, so in order to have at least a few that survive they need to have a large number of them 2) They have no form of birth control available available to them, so even if…

No that is the problem right there. The advent of good(pretty good for a 3rd world country) health care in India ensured explosive growth of population. The only humane way to control population is extensive education of the masses,strongly backed by government(military can be engaged, if required) It means breaking away from religious factions and beliefs. It is impossible in India where minority politics is very im…

> The only humane way to control population is extensive education of the masses ...

Absolutely true, but for one thing. If we educate the masses, we will reduce the average fertility along with doing a lot of general good. Who could argue against that?

But natural selection does perverse things with our best-laid plans. If we educate the masses, natural selection will efficiently select those who weren't educated, or who weren't educated very well, and within 100 years, those people will represent the entire human population.

Those who doubt this scenario need only study the spread of MRSA, in spite of many well-educated people fighting the good fight:

http://mrsa-research-center.bsd.uchicago.edu/timeline.html

Quote 1: "1960-1967: nfrequent hospital outbreaks of MRSA in Western Europe and Australia - See more at: http://mrsa-research-center.bsd.uchicago.edu/timeline.html#s...

Quote 2: "2012: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology-published study showed MRSA infections doubled at academic medical centers in the U.S. between 2003 and 2008. Hospitalizations increased from about 21 out of every 1,000 patients hospitalized in 2003 to about 42 out of every 1,000 in 2008, or almost 1 in 20 patients."

We fought and lost that battle, in the midst of the most advanced society that has ever existed, with a full armament of scientific methods and knowledge. And we didn't have to honor the tastes and individual rights of the organisms we were fighting -- we could be ruthless and warlike. We lost anyway.

Now, because of MRSA, to visit a doctor exposes you to a greater risk than ... well, than most reasons to visit a doctor.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#102

Post by lutusp » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 5:12 PM UTC

seclorum wrote: post #27

lutusp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who think the problems caused by overpopulation are limited to the uneducated, is himself uneducated. It's a classic case of self-reference.

Its a projection of Malthusian ethics: "Humans are stupid". Actually the point of this article is: "Evidence suggests that despite what we think: Humans are smart".

> Actually the point of this article is: "Evidence suggests that despite what we think: Humans are smart".

Yes, and ironically enough, the article represents a glaring counterexample of its own thesis.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#103

Post by glenra » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 5:19 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #35

IsThisObvious wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The child's parents were, a fact you seem to be ignoring in your analysis; I expect we'd see international headlines at the kidnapping of Michael Jackson's child or the kidnapping of the new son of the Duke of Cambridge. Do you really contend that we wouldn't?

> The child's parents were, a fact you seem to be ignoring in your analysis ... Comparable modern stories don't get the same coverage, because they're now too common. That was my only point.

Um, can you give any example of these "too common" events? Kidnapping is essentially nonexistent in the US today. And I'm really struggling to think of anybody as famous as Lindberg, but if somebody ever kidnapped for ransom the child of Angelina Jolie or Steve Jobs or Michael Jackson I think we'd have heard about it in the newspaper. Nobody would say "ho-hum, it's just another celebrity kidnapping story..."

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#104

Post by lutusp » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 5:21 PM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #54

lutusp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Modern history is increasingly an account of population control by mass death. I get that this is your claim, but I don't understand your argument that it's increasing when compared to WW1 and WW2.

> I don't understand your argument that it's increasing when compared to WW1 and WW2.

That's not my argument, that's your argument, but it's perfectly valid as far as it goes.

Let me explain. When you perform a moving average, you can prove anything by choosing an unrealistically short averaging interval.

With respect to mass death, if the averaging interval is ten years, things seem to be getting better. If the interval is 100 years, things are much worse.

The same method is used by climate deniers -- a one-year averaging interval suggests that the climate is cooling. A ten-year interval shows that it's warming. They're both mathematically valid measures, but the future isn't a year long and it's not ten years long, so choosing short measurement intervals is intellectually dishonest.

I'm not saying that about you, only that the interval you chose isn't appropriate to the issue under discussion.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#105

Post by lutusp » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 5:26 PM UTC

bayesianhorse wrote: post #100

lutusp wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Agricultural technology is still progressing and we could probably feed any population growth beyond any current prediction of human population. We already can't feed our present numbers, or haven't you been paying attention? http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20f... Quote: "The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that nearly 870 million people of the 7.1 billion people…

The article actually says we produce enough to feed the whole world. Massive death tolls from famines always come down to political stupidity. (Refusing food aid for example)

> The article actually says we produce enough to feed the whole world.

The issue is not whether we could feed the whole world, the issue is whether we do. If we don't, then the hypothesis that we could is small comfort to those who are starving.

> Massive death tolls from famines always come down to political stupidity.

Political stupidity is much harder to sustain with small populations, people who can vote with their feet.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#106

Post by lutusp » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 5:30 PM UTC

IsThisObvious wrote: post #72

pyre wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on what you mean by "thrive." Many of them will "thrive" in conditions that it would be illegal to put a human into. I'm not sure if I call that "thriving."

Many humans "thrive" in conditions that are illegal to put humans in to. I don't really see your point, since it doesn't even remotely talk about the relative rates of the two populations or compare what would happen with humans to what would happen without for any of the species. It seems to be contentless objection to what I said, despite the fact that humans are known to greatly increase the prevalence of all of t…

> ... the fact that humans are known to greatly increase the prevalence of all of those species ...

Not only is that not a fact, but the opposite is the truth. Humans are wiping out other species at an incredible rate.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/abt.2011.73.2.5

Quote: "There have been five past great mass extinctions during the history of Earth. There is an ever-growing consensus within the scientific community that we have entered a sixth mass extinction. Human activities are associated directly or indirectly with nearly every aspect of this extinction."

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#107

Post by lutusp » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 5:34 PM UTC

jezebel6 wrote: post #89

lutusp wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty sure if the baby of a famous couple was kidnapped today, it would make headlines ... The modern equivalent would be the kidnapping of a celebrity's child, by a stranger, for money. Such things happen every day now, but they don't become the focus of the world's attention. The Lindbergh kidnapping tells us something about the nature of the world before modern times. > And random violent acts do often lead to…

>The modern equivalent would be the kidnapping of a celebrity's child, by a stranger, for money. Such things happen every day now... Really? Give one example.

>> The modern equivalent would be the kidnapping of a celebrity's child, by a stranger, for money. Such things happen every day now.

> Really? Give one example.

How about scores, even if we limit ourselves to a short interval of time (2000-2009):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kidnappings#2000-2009

And remember, even though the cases number in the scores on this list, these are only the high-profile cases that saw news coverage for more than a few hours. Many more didn't make the list because the circumstances were't remarkable enough.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#108

Post by seclorum » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 5:39 PM UTC

hannibal5 wrote: post #93

seclorum wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. okay, fine: then you go and see how we've managed our resources in .. oh, lets just take - The Whole of Europe - and compare. Just because some humans 'are stupid' doesn't mean all humans are. There is a lot of evidence that we, who choose to manage, will outlive those who choose to be stupid. 200,000 years of it, in fact. (Stupidity might be contagious; the point is though: so is intelligence.)

Population growth in Europe (whole continent) has stopped and is currently in decline.

A good sign that its being managed.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#109

Post by lutusp » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 5:44 PM UTC

glenra wrote: post #92

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…

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 1800. 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.

Also, when you perform a moving average, you can "prove" anything by choosing the right interval. But, because the future is expected to be long, so should our averaging interval. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

For example, climate change deniers use short averaging intervals to "prove" that the climate is actually cooling, where the same measure using a longer averaging interval shows this is false.

Oh, I see you do just that. Too bad -- choosing an inappropriate averaging interval is not science, it's politics.

> ... population growth means we expect more incidents even if the base rate were flat or declining.

Well ... now that you're arguing my points for me, I guess we're done.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#110

Post by gd1 » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 5:45 PM UTC

phillnom wrote: post #82

gd1 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what possible way can freeing fossilized carbon back (where it came from) into the carbon cycle "reduce long term habitability of the planet"?. It may make it awkward for some low lying cities in the short term, but long term it guarantees a warmer, moister, more bountiful planet if anything.

In what way does it guarantee a more "bountiful planet" other than more extreme weather?

Basic biology? Are you seriously asking or just being obtuse? Do you know what the world looked like the last time we had 1000+ ppm CO2? Teeming with plant life. C3 plants were facing extinction if CO2 levels dropped any further than they had, we've done the biosphere a huge favour by digging it up and putting it back in the air where it came from. Maybe we haven't done humans a favour, but that's a different conversation.