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

Welcome to a comet

esa.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–87 of 87 posts

Re: Welcome to a comet

#81

Post by ajuc »

evincarofautumn wrote: post #52
badname wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it is so (and we can talk for hours on the validity of this or that data) how do you find the fact that there are enough damned means of production to feed everyone and it's been so for decades now? Also how do you like the fact that there are now about 50-60 MILLION people in US that get food stamps. Or the fact that the wages for most of the western world are falling for 30 years now? ... Whatever.

Unfortunately, it is a basic ecological principle that an increase in food results in an increase in population, and humans are not exempt from that. Yes, we have enough food to feed everybody. We have (usually) had enough, not just for decades, but for ten thousand years—ever since agriculture took off, and even more so since the industrial revolution and the Haber process. However, food production is not enough to…

1. Food production IS more than enough. Logistics and storage is not there.

2. Growth of population declines as countries get more developed, while the food availibility increases. That was true in Europe, USA, Japan, China.

I don't see a reason why this shouldn't work the same for remaining undeveloped countries.

So I don't think your ecological principle works on human.

Re: Welcome to a comet

#82

Post by evincarofautumn »

ajuc wrote: post #81
evincarofautumn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, it is a basic ecological principle that an increase in food results in an increase in population, and humans are not exempt from that. Yes, we have enough food to feed everybody. We have (usually) had enough, not just for decades, but for ten thousand years—ever since agriculture took off, and even more so since the industrial revolution and the Haber process. However, food production is not enough to…

1. Food production IS more than enough. Logistics and storage is not there. 2. Growth of population declines as countries get more developed, while the food availibility increases. That was true in Europe, USA, Japan, China. I don't see a reason why this shouldn't work the same for remaining undeveloped countries. So I don't think your ecological principle works on human.

When I said “food production is not enough to eliminate starvation” I did not mean “we don’t produce enough food to eliminate starvation”, I meant “producing more food is not enough to eliminate starvation”. So yes, I agree and already stated that the problems are economic.

Suppose this principle did not hold. Then how would the human population of Earth continue to grow? In other words, what would all the new people be made of?

Re: Welcome to a comet

#84

Post by ajuc »

evincarofautumn wrote: post #82
ajuc wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Food production IS more than enough. Logistics and storage is not there. 2. Growth of population declines as countries get more developed, while the food availibility increases. That was true in Europe, USA, Japan, China. I don't see a reason why this shouldn't work the same for remaining undeveloped countries. So I don't think your ecological principle works on human.

When I said “food production is not enough to eliminate starvation” I did not mean “we don’t produce enough food to eliminate starvation”, I meant “producing more food is not enough to eliminate starvation”. So yes, I agree and already stated that the problems are economic. Suppose this principle did not hold. Then how would the human population of Earth continue to grow? In other words, what would all the new people…

Population won't grow forever, not because of lack of food, but because (most) people would have better things to do than care for 6 kids, and 6 kids won't have positive effect on their wealth (it's already the case in the developed world - check out natural growth in Europe or Japan).

So more food = more people is not true.

Re: Welcome to a comet

#85

Post by userulluipeste »

ajuc wrote: post #84
evincarofautumn wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I said “food production is not enough to eliminate starvation” I did not mean “we don’t produce enough food to eliminate starvation”, I meant “producing more food is not enough to eliminate starvation”. So yes, I agree and already stated that the problems are economic. Suppose this principle did not hold. Then how would the human population of Earth continue to grow? In other words, what would all the new people…

Population won't grow forever, not because of lack of food, but because (most) people would have better things to do than care for 6 kids, and 6 kids won't have positive effect on their wealth (it's already the case in the developed world - check out natural growth in Europe or Japan). So more food = more people is not true.

People may indeed limit themselves to having only two, one, or even no children at all, but that will only lead to extinction of such self-limiting groups. Besides these, there also are people that see nothing more important (but not necessarily better) than leaving behind their own kind as offspring. Unless some effect kicks in, like a social drive that instill in the masses the idea of breeding less as it's in western culture, or a government-enforced program to artificially control the demographic dynamic as in China, these kind of people will prevail in the long run. And that's a good thing, I think.

Re: Welcome to a comet

#87

Post by ajuc »

userulluipeste wrote: post #85
ajuc wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Population won't grow forever, not because of lack of food, but because (most) people would have better things to do than care for 6 kids, and 6 kids won't have positive effect on their wealth (it's already the case in the developed world - check out natural growth in Europe or Japan). So more food = more people is not true.

People may indeed limit themselves to having only two, one, or even no children at all, but that will only lead to extinction of such self-limiting groups. Besides these, there also are people that see nothing more important (but not necessarily better) than leaving behind their own kind as offspring. Unless some effect kicks in, like a social drive that instill in the masses the idea of breeding less as it's in west…

> People may indeed limit themselves to having only two, one, or even no children at all, but that will only lead to extinction of such self-limiting groups.

This is not "if" this is "when".

But it will take centuries, a lot things can change in the meantime, so we don't know what will happen in the end, but assuming constant growth when the growth in devleoped countries is over already is weird.

Prognoses for world population already show the growth stopping in next few decades.

Post reply on HN