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

141–150 of 152 posts

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#141

Post by pdonis »

lutusp wrote: post #119
pdonis wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

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.

Ok, yes, I agree with this.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#142

Post by glenra »

lutusp wrote: post #135
glenra wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..."

> Kidnapping is essentially nonexistent in the US today. Wow! I wasn't going to bother replying, but this is egregiously wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kidnappings#2000-2009 There are scores of kidnappings in this list, and it only covers ten years. > Nobody would say "ho-hum, it's just another celebrity kidnapping story..." But by wrongly thinking that "Kidnapping is essentially nonexistent in the US to…

I should have clarified, I meant kidnapping for money, like the Lindbergh situation. Taking a little kid and leaving a ransom note, hoping to get money from the parents. That almost never happens in the US today, in large part due to the Lindbergh kidnapping. The FBI mades that sort of kidnap an extremely high priority and got quite good at solving such cases, to the point that in the US - unlike many other countries - it is not in any way a sensible business opportunity.

(In Mexico, on the other hand, it is a major business opportunity.)

The vast majority of "missing kid" events you hear about are related to custody battles - the noncustodial parent runs off without permission of the court. There are also a few (though it's quite rare) events of the sort in that list - usually teenagers or adults abducted for sexual purposes.

> There are scores of kidnappings in this list, and it only covers ten years.

There are 26 kidnappings in that list, but nearly half weren't in the US - it includes events in Baghdad, Columbia, Spain, England, and various other places. The 15 events in the US in ten years establish that it happens at least 1.5 times a year in this country of 313 million people.

Meanwhile about 1,000 americans per year are struck by lightning and 100 of those are killed by it. So kidnapping even of all varieties is an exceedingly rare event that we are in all likelihood WAY too afraid of. (In the US, anyway)

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#143

Post by waps »

smoyer wrote: post #64
antris wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

CO2 levels are increasing ... that's science. The question of whether we can actually stop the trend, much less reverse it is both science and debate. The question of what each person, company and country should do is purely debate. Those of us in rich industrialize countries will not want to give up our way of life. Those burning the rain-forests are (from what I remember) doing it to subsist. I'm also a steam-locom…

This article does make a point about what to do. It gives a set of solutions for global warming that are more in line with what keeps humans alive. After all, if we do what the laws suggest : go below the carrying capacity of the earth for human population, the human population should drop to ~ 10 million to stop global warming, and the remainder should live without so much as heat from a campfire. Needless to say, striving for that is cruel, useless and completely insane. Just like the previous followers of Malthus were.

Instead the article argues we should use the tactics that humans have always used for survival to compensate global warming: * introduce a species that solves the problem for us. Right now the most efficient co2->o2 species are ~3% efficient. The difference need not be big, by the way. If we introduce a form of algae that's 3.2% efficient into the oceans, global warming will reverse in about a year. Note that some theories say that earlier in the planet's history, there were such more efficient species, which should mean they can easily come back without intervention and may suddenly solve out problem for us. The same goes for trees. It would not be a huge adaptation for trees to become more green, although it would take more time. * find another fuel to burn (e.g. a more complete switch to uranium, or solar panels. Although solar panels still necessitate competing with nature, which is bound to have ecological consequences if the usage goes up. Both pose the problem of moving the fuel around)

I would like to add that somehow the UN's policies and all the "green" policy efforts have moved the world away from nuclear power, and into coal power. Whatever the green movement is doing, it needs to learn that there are consequences to decisions. Moving away from nuclear means coal power plants. Why ? Look at the energy prices. Moving away from coal means nuclear power plants. Until this is understood widely, the green movement will continue to make things much worse by insane unconditional opposition to anything that doesn't completely satisfy their demands, including the demand that there can't be any impact on their lifestyle. I find it very weird that given such horrible results, the movement has any standing in society at all.

Btw: I hate sl. Too many type errors and I didn't know how it can be interrupted until a few months ago. It takes quite a while to pass on the screen on a 30" monitor.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#144

Post by foobarbazqux »

lutusp wrote: post #104
foobarbazqux wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 inte…

If we choose a 100 year interval, as long as there are no world wars by 2045, then things will have improved relative to 1845-1945.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#145

Post by glenra »

lutusp wrote: post #140
glenra wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But one thing doesn't change -- the shocking number of people who are starving at any given time. But that one thing DOES change! It improves! In what sense is the vast improvement since the 1990s not change ? > we aren't feeding the hungry. We ARE. Hunger is becoming less prevalent, worldwide. Again, here's a gapminder chart (are you looking at these?). This one shows calories consumed per person, all countries, p…

>> But one thing doesn't change -- the shocking number of people who are starving at any given time. > But that one thing DOES change! It improves! Learn statistics -- learn how to avoid cherry-picking intervals to prove anything you care to. That is all.

What interval would YOU suggest to establish your claim that the number of people starving "doesn't change"? And can you provide a supporting link?

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#146

Post by gms »

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".

Your nickname cracks me up.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#147

Post by pdonis »

fedvasu wrote: post #126
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…

I do not want to be mean, but can you not just read existing material on Human population growth, pollution and global warming.For a start you can try high school environmental science book.Then may be you can come up with some counter-evidence with hard facts (like shaking up the environmental sciences pile of data of over 50 years).

I've read lots of existing material, including all of the IPCC reports that have been produced to date. If you think those reports, for example, consist of "hard facts", or a "pile of data" that requires detailed refutation if I don't want to buy into somebody's hysterical declarations of a planetary emergency, then there's not much point in further discussion.

As for a high school environmental science book, surely you jest. A politically correct textbook produced for politically correct state-run schools?

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#148

Post by glenra »

lutusp wrote: post #134
glenra wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly. I say population is increasing. No. What you said was that population was increasing without constraint . It's that last bit I was responding to. The fact that the rate of growth is declining does suggest the presence of one or more constraints , even if the overall growth rate hasn't quite reversed just yet. The primary form of the constraint appears to be that as childhood survival rates and living stan…

> What you said was that population was increasing without constraint. And that's correct -- any population increase above zero is without constraint. All one need do is calculate the doubling time: http://arachnoid.com/lutusp/populati.html > The fact that the rate of growth is declining does suggest the presence of one or more constraints ... Yes, or more likely, it's a random fluctuation indicative of nothing in pa…

>Yes, or more likely, it's a random fluctuation indicative of nothing in particular. The latter assumption, which may seem overly skeptical, is how a scientist is expected to look at an unexplained change in the rate, based on a precept called the null hypothesis

It's NOT UNEXPLAINED and it's NOT RANDOM.

Does your browser support Flash? If I point you at a chart composed using gapminder.org could you please please LOOK AT IT? (Or if you can't, could you let me know what the constraints are on what your browser can see, so I can find another way to get you the information?) The link will follow this paragraph. Press the "play" button below this chart to see an animated plot of fertility versus child mortality. Several specific countries are hilighted - you see a trail of their progress over time - but the ENTIRE MASS of countries follows much the same pattern - it moves down and to the left. Here's the link:

http://www.bit.ly/18hUMjA

It truly boggles my mind that you could think even for a second that the slowdown in population growth is "likely a random fluctuation indicative of nothing in particular". It is a TREND. The phenomenon is quite consistent. Across the ENTIRE PLANET, countries are increasing their GDP, decreasing child mortality and decreasing the rate at which they have kids, with all those changes roughly in tandem. And it's not a random walk where one needs to cherry-pick any specific interval to see these trends - if you just look at the entirety of ALL the data we have available and plot it, you can see a consistent movement.

Please look at the animation. Play around with it - use the checkbox list on the right to highlight other specific countries. Get a sense of what the data is actually DOING before you claim it's a random fluctuation.

A random walk WOULD be susceptible to cherry-picking - the trend would only show up if you pick certain time ranges or certain sets of countries.

This is not that.

(Given current trends, the world population would not double again - it would stop growing short of that.)

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#149

Post by seclorum »

fedvasu wrote: post #129
seclorum wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

please post enough evidence, which conclusively says we are not even scratching the surface of earth's resources and it is cool to increase population to 15 billion by mid 21st century and pollution is not due to humans and global warming is a sham created by Neo-hippies.

Read the article. The Archeological record is there for your interest.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#150

Post by bayesianhorse »

lutusp wrote: post #105
bayesianhorse wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Your basic view is that there can't be progress until noone on the whole world is hungry? And no amount of declining starvations over the past decades and centuries is worth anything at all?
Post reply on HN