[OT] Saving the planet is quiet work.

[d20Dwarf]

You're right D20 Dwarf; I didn't mean that we could practically ship resources from places where they are abundant to places where they are scarce as a permanent measure. I was merely saying that greed, nationalism, and and economic barriers are the prime reasons for most of the problems attributed to overpopulation. I agree with almost every point you made; since the issue for you it seems is human nature.

Most issues for me are about human nature. I just hope that someday we'll be able to find a balance between capitalism (which I wholeheartedly support) and consumerism (which is the toxic runoff produced by the fusion of capitalism and media).

(And before anyone goes off, this isn't an American problem, it's a growth pain of a wise economic system being thrust upon an unwise population and exacerbated by technology. Just look at Japan. ).

The previously mentioned methods of water creation and reclaimation would solve the other problems of keeping everyone alive on a daily basis. Everything beyond this is gravy. Solve the starvation and disease problem and industrialization becomes that much easier.

This is correct, and it's what we need to be focused on. I think Bono and Sata...err, Kofi Annan, really trivialize the issue sometimes. It's a very complex issue. My gut feeling is that we've got to start with education, tell these people to stop having children and spreading disease! In many cases it is simple ignorance leading to these problems. Providing food and arms to dictators make these countries money pits instead of societies moving between the stages of industrialization. In some instances, they are moving backward.

I think the simple fact that we are *trying* to help them is often overlooked, and in the scorebook of humanity is another reason why we're the greatest nation to have ever been formed.

But who's to say that if there were only 1 billion people there would be "enough resources" for everyone? I think that there would still be people starving and dying from curable disease no matter how few or how many people we have. Unfortunately, history has never shown us differrently. We can't expect human nature to change overnight, but if more people worked towards this goal, we could move towards eradicating the inequality of resource allocation.

The world's population isn't the problem, and it's not going to be the problem. In the majority of industrialized countries population has become stagnant or even regressive, it's just that the countries that are growing are doing so exponentially, adding hundreds of millions per decade. Once we bring these countries into an industrialized state, they too will level off, experience growth, and then level off again, just like every other industrialized country has done. This process will take a long time, as well as a bit of luck. Societies need strong leaders in order to reshape themselves, and so far most of these nations have been burdened in that department.

 

[LostSoul]

In the majority of industrialized countries population has become stagnant or even regressive, it's just that the countries that are growing are doing so exponentially, adding hundreds of millions per decade. Once we bring these countries into an industrialized state, they too will level off, experience growth, and then level off again, just like every other industrialized country has done.

I've heard that women's rights go a long way in reducing population growth.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Kudos to you for retaining informed sources.

 

[Numion]

So...letting people starve to death is the best method of controlling population growth?

Y'know, if you believe that, there's a really easy way to start.

J
Oh. You meant other people.

Nah, thats not what I said, though I can see why you would want to intentionally misinterpret me. (So that you could so kewly tell me to starve myself to death.) (BTW, with population control I meant of course people who arent yet born.)

I wasn't trying to justify starving or killing people; I was just saying that increasing earths population by 1 billion also has negative consequences. This isn't an attack against the improved wheat or feeding the masses - it's just an observation. In these times it's apparently just enough to say "Well start with yourself if you support population control!" Really good foundation for discussion.

All the more power to the man who made it possible for us to sustain exponential growth for a few decades more. Sadly it doesn't mean that exponential growth could be sustained for ever, as many of us would wish. But let's not allow facts to get in the way of things, let's just fill this mofo up with people, it'll hold!

Now I'll have to go to follow your suggestions and go kill myself

 

[drnuncheon]

Nah, thats not what I said, though I can see why you would want to intentionally misinterpret me. (So that you could so kewly tell me to starve myself to death.) (BTW, with population control I meant of course people who arent yet born.)

Well, see, that's the problem. Without that grain people who were already living would have starved to death. So saying that the guy's not a hero for saving those lives is a little misleading, don't you think?

He fed people. That's only the solution to part of the problem, but it's a big part, and it's a big problem. There's no reason to denigrate him because he could only solve part of it - realistically, it's too big for any one man to handle.

J

 

[kenjib]

Well said Wil. Thanks for clarifying and apologies if my tone was less than polite.

For the record, I think that the Green Revolution was a marvelous and just-in-the-nick-of-time thing. I was just supporting the environmentalists who point out the issues that need to be addressed so that we see them before they cause many deaths. Human progress is fine, but you need to see the problems in order to do the work.

Furthermore, the problems caused by the overconsumption necessary for the industrialized lifestyle that is the supposed cure for overpopulation are also clearly not sustainable on a global scale at this time. These problem may be mostly solved through technology in time for the changes, but then again it may not. To simply move forward without taking proper precautions based on the assumption that technology will be there quick enough to prevent disaster is demonstrably an error in today's age where the results of such assumptions in the past are clear and numerous.

Overpopulation would be mostly countered through industrialization, but for this to be practical the very nature of industrialization needs to change -- and very soon.

 

[Umbran]

My gut feeling is that we've got to start with education, tell these people to stop having children and spreading disease! In many cases it is simple ignorance leading to these problems.

It's nowhere near that simple. Think about this for a second - In the US, everyone's been educated, told that smoking is bad for you in a variety of ways. Yet tobacco is still a billion dollar industry. If education alone were the key, nobody in the US would smoke. Just telling people it's bad is obviously insufficient to change their behavior, even when the benefits ot the individual are obvious.

There's ignorance, cultural mores, and a number of other practical matters all wrapped together. When the benefits ot the individual are not obvious, it becomes rather difficult to change everyone's mind. Put national prejudices on top of that, and the problem becomes nearly intractable.

 

[Numion]

Well, see, that's the problem. Without that grain people who were already living would have starved to death. So saying that the guy's not a hero for saving those lives is a little misleading, don't you think?

Yeah, you're right. I went to argue about a different thing and my brain didn't follow quickly enough. Uh, maybe I'll get it next time.

 

[Angcuru]

Given this guy did at that point prevent us from reverting to primordial soup, this is not anything unique.

If you think that situations like this were rare/few and far between during the cold war, YOU sir, (as posted earlier) have a lot of reading to do. Events like this were a regular occurrance.

 

[Eosin the Red]

Fun topic. If it was not doomed to closure soon I would love to weigh in. Just a few quickies:

RSKennan - your numbers sound a bit off to me but it has been awhile. Those are very easy numbers to monkey with and get exactly the results that support your position.

Lets face it - either Maltus was right or he was not. We have been living under his umbrella for some time and many still hold to his works. You can't really prove they are wrong - they continue in their hypothesis state: unproven with strong supporting evidence.

Not that high yeild food is not good - it is. The solutions to these kind of problems will require much more than what we are currently capable of (even thought the US dumps tons of milk and cheese down abandonded mine shafts as the rewards of farm subsidies). Wierd world.