[troll-free] Parenting

[clambake]

Kate wrote

ahem.

Those are empty.

A fair cop. (Apologies if my Brit speak isn't entirely correctly used )

And back on "topic", the population is too high because we're not eating enough babies!

[Kate]

This thread is not just about population problems. That was only the first bullet point in my list of subjects.

I think the over-population is quite evident. One clue is poverty, which is, dare I say it, ominous. Pretty much the whole of Africa is in deep misery, as is much of India and large parts of Asia and South America. Of course this isn't ONLY because of population problems, but if there were fewer people around, it'd be easier to feed the poor ones, am I correct? I am "measuring" this by applying a middle-class standard to every person on earth. With 6.6 billion people, is this plausible? If everyone above middle-class would give away their money and evenly portion them around the world, would everyone have enough to lead a middle-class life? I haven't looked into this, obviously, but I doubt it.

Am I making any sense?

[Choobus]

No. why is poverty ominous? I mean, I know it isn't good, but it's not exactly new...

[ProveIt]

Lily wrote

We are also helped by Hispanic (chiefly) immigration.

If you mean helped like hindered then yes, you are completely correct.

[Philboid Studge]

SteveG wrote

Am I wrong in saying that static resource analysis is terribly over simplified? or am i wrong in suggesting that technologies in the future very likely will change the landscape?

Not completely wrong. First, these calculations do tend to assume some changes -- like technological ones -- that can affect resource availability. One of the best predictors of the lifespan of non-renewable resources was M. King Hubbard. (See 'Hubbard's Peak' at wiki or elsewhere). He made his predictions on oil extraction in the 1950s, and it's been fairly accurate to this day, if imperfect.

The first question I have for you is whether you believe there is such a thing as carrying capacity and its corollary: is there a limit to population growth? If you think that there is not, then no text or course in environmental science will advance the discussion much.

If you acknowledge that there is a limit, then what do you think it is, for say, the human population on Earth?

Another (perhaps more useful) question is how do we know we're approaching that limit? It's true that technological advances make these kinds of predictions difficult (and was part of the reason Ehrlich was spectacularly wrong about some of his more specific prognosticating). Malthus' general idea -- that populations will grow exponentially as long as resources are steady -- has been observed in many species, including ours (and was figured in with Darwin's theory). I think we're getting clues that we've either exceeded the carrying capacity or are approaching it. One clue is that the world food production has been pretty static since about 2000, but more countries are requiring aid for food because the overall population has continued to increase, even as food production has not.

Your two questions above are related in another way: If one presumes that technological advances do extend the availability of resources and increase our carrying capacity, remember the knife cuts both ways. The Green Revolution -- which greatly increased agricultural output between post-WWI and the 1990s -- was powered by a whole suite of technological advances that increased food production many fold, thereby supporting bigger populations, thereby putting further stresses on ecosystems. The legacy of the Green Revolution (which, as I understand it, is over) is not only the prevention of mass starvation, it also gave the world persistent organic pollutants that have fouled the food chain, decreased biodiversity, more cancers, etc.

While I did often refer folks to works of theologians and the like for a deeper reading, I more often than not went to great lengths to at least attempt to explain things in general terms.

I know you did. (Not least of all directly to me.) I'm just using bitchy shorthand in this thread because some people don't have time for extensive discussion and debate and that embitters me, as I have too much time on my hands.

I started to say something about peak oil but got sidetracked.

[ghoulslime]

Philboid Studge wrote

Not completely wrong. First, these calculations do tend to assume some changes -- like technological ones -- that can affect resource availability. One of the best predictors of the lifespan of non-renewable resources was M. King Hubbard. (See 'Hubbard's Peak' at wiki or elsewhere). He made his predictions on oil extraction in the 1950s, and it's been fairly accurate to this day, if imperfect.

The first question I have for you is whether you believe there is such a thing as carrying capacity and its corollary: is there a limit to population growth? If you think that there is not, then no text or course in environmental science will advance the discussion much.

If you acknowledge that there is a limit, then what do you think it is, for say, the human population on Earth?

Another (perhaps more useful) question is how do we know we're approaching that limit? It's true that technological advances make these kinds of predictions difficult (and was part of the reason Ehrlich was spectacularly wrong about some of his more specific prognosticating). Malthus' general idea -- that populations will grow exponentially as long as resources are steady -- has been observed in many species, including ours (and was figured in with Darwin's theory). I think we're getting clues that we've either exceeded the carrying capacity or are approaching it. One clue is that the world food production has been pretty static since about 2000, but more countries are requiring aid for food because the overall population has continued to increase, even as food production has not.

Your two questions above are related in another way: If one presumes that technological advances do extend the availability of resources and increase our carrying capacity, remember the knife cuts both ways. The Green Revolution -- which greatly increased agricultural output between post-WWI and the 1990s -- was powered by a whole suite of technological advances that increased food production many fold, thereby supporting bigger populations, thereby putting further stresses on ecosystems. The legacy of the Green Revolution (which, as I understand it, is over) is not only the prevention of mass starvation, it also gave the world persistent organic pollutants that have fouled the food chain, decreased biodiversity, more cancers, etc.



I know you did. (Not least of all directly to me.) I'm just using bitchy shorthand in this thread because some people don't have time for extensive discussion and debate and that embitters me, as I have too much time on my hands.

I started to say something about peak oil but got sidetracked.

I find it highly disturbing that we even need to explain to any semi-literate person the pending results of the population train that is heading chugga chugga to the end of the tracks.

The oil is burning away. Arable land is dwindling. Did Jesus have a plan for raising the water level in major aquifers the world over?

Not to fear! Global warming is just an invention by liberals to scare the conservative constituents. And the Lord will come before the population gets out of hand, and feed us all with magical fishes and bread.

Way to stick it to them, Phil!

Choobus wrote

No. why is poverty ominous? I mean, I know it isn't good, but it's not exactly new...

Fucking hell. I meant ubiquitous. I rarely use any of those words so I get them mixed up all the time. Is the post making sense now that I have corrected myself?

[SteveG]

I am leery of coming on to strong here seeing as this topic in general is something that is really in your wheelhouse, so I’ll attempt to tread lightly.

For now though, I stand by the position that the type of analysis you are offering radically oversimplifies the situation. Indeed, it’s my own understanding that there are even many experts in the fields that study these issues that find the entire issue of carrying capacity not much worth discussing for the basic reasons I've been presenting.

Those being the complexity of the various systems involved, and the inability to realistically account for changes in technology. They argue that this situation makes determining human carrying capacity something that we can not ascertain with any level of confidence.

Technological advances don’t make carrying capacity something difficult to quantify, they make it damn near impossible. This is primarily why Ehrlich was so spectacularly wrong as you note, and it’s why the current calculations are likely just as wrong.

I don’t think it unreasonable to suppose that when it comes to resource acquisition and the technologies related to it, it’s far more likely that we are barely scratching the surface than that we are approaching some kind of limit.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the real carrying capacity of the earth (when accounting for future advances) is something like 100 billion people with per person consumption at the average of the typical modern American. If that were the case, would 8 billion people represent over population?

PS wrote

The first question I have for you is whether you believe there is such a thing as carrying capacity and its corollary: is there a limit to population growth?

Assuming we are confined to this planet, it stands to reason there is some carrying capacity. I don’t think we have the foggiest idea what it is in actuality.

[Philboid Studge]

SteveG wrote

For now though, I stand by the position that the type of analysis you are offering radically oversimplifies the situation.

So far, it is you who mentioned "static analysis" that ignored potential technological advances (among other variables). I wonder why now you are saying that I am offering it.

Technological advances don’t make carrying capacity something difficult to quantify, they make it damn near impossible. This is primarily why Ehrlich was so spectacularly wrong as you note, and it’s why the current calculations are likely just as wrong.

Doomsayers like Ehrlich are wrong because they tend to use the most extreme scenarios to support their positions. It's dumb but unfortunately it sells books. It should not, however, suggest that all attempts to calculate carrying capacity are wrong and when you cite "current calculations" I'd like to know which ones you mean.

I don’t think it unreasonable to suppose that when it comes to resource acquisition and the technologies related to it, it’s far more likely that we are barely scratching the surface than that we are approaching some kind of limit.

If this isn't an unreasonable assumption, perhaps you can give at least one reason for assuming it. You talk about the damn near impossibility of quantifying carrying capacity, and yet here you blithely declare we've barely scratched the surface. You could be right, but I'd need more than your say-so.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the real carrying capacity of the earth (when accounting for future advances) is something like 100 billion people with per person consumption at the average of the typical modern American. If that were the case, would 8 billion people represent over population?

It is widely accepted that the average American requires 12 acres of land to support his existence. Now do the math. It's true, in theory, that some magical technology beyond our imagination will render this moot. Which would be more prudent: to assume unknown technology in the future will solve our problems, or to tread lightly ? (If nothing else, treading lightly buys us a little time while we await the silver bullet from the future.)

I am leery of coming on to strong here seeing as this topic in general is something that is really in your wheelhouse, so I’ll attempt to tread lightly.

To tell you the truth, I don't really like environmental threads. Climate change discussions depress the hell out of me. Also I consider the forums a respite from the professional life, and I prefer to keep 'em separated.

My real wheelhouse is saying unkind things about Christ punchers, such as "Catholics are in denial about overpopulation only because their faith demands that they breed like possums." (But I'd never say a thing like that.)

I have to admit, a fair number of Christians have stepped up on environmental issues, which is to their credit, since dominion over the land was for a long time the prevailing ethic. (Genesis 1:28 has a lot to answer for.)

Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences

Web of Creation

Au Sable Institute of Environmental Studies

Earth Ministry

Evangelical Environmental Network

A Rocha

Target Earth

Catholic Conservation Center

Christian Environmental Studies Center

Friends Energy Project

[SteveG]

PS wrote

So far, it is you who mentioned "static analysis" that ignored potential technological advances (among other variables). I wonder why now you are saying that I am offering it.

I was referring to the analysis you offered a few posts back. You’ve since clarified that it’s not static (that it attempts to account for advances), but it still seems to me to be very obviously overly simplistic, and impossible to apply on a global scale with anything approaching accuracy.

Again, if you know of any good books that can give a more detailed explanation of how this can possibly be useful on anything but a very local scale, I’d definitely be interested.

PS wrote

It should not, however, suggest that all attempts to calculate carrying capacity are wrong and when you cite "current calculations" I'd like to know which ones you mean.

Again, I was referring to the calculations you provided. Same comments as above apply.

PS wrote

If this isn't an unreasonable assumption, perhaps you can give at least one reason for assuming it. You talk about the damn near impossibility of quantifying carrying capacity, and yet here you blithely declare we've barely scratched the surface. You could be right, but I'd need more than your say-so.

I don’t think I declared that, but rather said that I think that’s the more reasonable position to take. As for examples, I am not sure what you are looking for specifically.

Are you looking for specific potential advancements on the horizon that would greatly change the landscape? In relation to food production, in relation to fuel?

One example that comes to mind is the current efforts on a lot of different fronts to use biomass* (primarily waste products) to create fuel. Just a few weeks ago there was an article about researchers in California having genetically engineered bacteria so that when they consume agricultural waste, they basically crap crude oil.

*I want to be clear here that 1) I think biofuels based on using food products are absolutely insane, immoral, and the encouragement of this is one of many failings of this utterly incompetent administration. I also want to be clear that I understand that biomass (even waste) is not THE answer. It would have to be in conjunction with a host of other advances. I am not trying to be simplistic and Pollyanna here, just trying to respond to your comment with some possibilities.

Likewise the military has several research groups working on converting military human waste into fuel as well. I realize stuff like this is in very early stages, and that they have their own challenges to overcome if they are ever to be any kind of widespread answer.

But is it impossible to think that one day we might have the capacity to turn our landfills, sewage and other human waste (which are a problem themselves) into fuel?

I think this type of research might point to something along those lines.

Interestingly, something like this at least in trials has shown to be a carbon negative process (for others unaware of what the means-the process itself takes more carbon dioxide out of the environment than is emitted when the fuel is burned). So you have the potential of improvement on multiple fronts of concern.

What about possible revolutions in solar energy, or desalinzation.

Again, not trying to suggest each thing I’ve mentioned doesn’t have it’s own challenges and criticisms, but rather suggesting that we really don’t have much clue what the landscape will look like in 50 or 100 years.

I will say that I agree in general that for many reasons, we need to move away from burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible. It’s another of the failures of the administration that in 8 years, we’ve made so little progress on that front. It’s particularly horrendous because it was an easy win after 9/11.

People where looking for what they could do to contribute to the country's efforts to protect ourselves from terrorism, the ‘right’ mostly would have supported such a move on the basis of weaning us off of middle eastern oil, and the ‘left’ would have obviously supported such a move. With just --><-- much leadership, maybe we’d be far ahead of where we are now….sorry…I digress.

PS wrote

It is widely accepted that the average American requires 12 acres of land to support his existence. Now do the math.

Again, this seems too static to me. When I talk about advances in technology, I am talking about advances on multiple fronts. I would include a reduction in acreage needed.

Beyond that, this was intended to be an extreme example. I have no problem with recognizing that part of the solution might be reduction in consumption. My point was that to most people, 8 billion people just ‘seems’ like a lot (and they’ve not done much thinking beyond that), but that the number is only ‘large’ depending on a slew of variables (some of which we are discussing) that are generally not discussed.

PS wrote

It's true, in theory, that some magical technology beyond our imagination will render this moot.

Our history has shown that in recent centuries there really isn’t a lot beyond our imagination, and that technology we take for granted today would have been scoffed at as magical technology beyond our imagination just a few decades ago.

The evidence of the past 30 years gives no hint that we are slowing up on that front. Do I actually have to provide examples of such things?

PS wrote

Which would be more prudent: to assume unknown technology in the future will solve our problems, or to tread lightly? (If nothing else, treading lightly buys us a little time while we await the silver bullet from the future.)

I never suggested that we shouldn’t tread lightly. I am all for moral stewardship and have no allegiance to the current economic model based on a consumption driven society. I think that type of society is in fact very unhealthy on many levels. I am a Catholic, not a consumerist/capitalist.

But…I also want to be skeptical and tread lightly in the other direction. Go back and read Skribb’s OP. Based in large part on the claim that we are overpopulated, he’s suggested some rather….um….draconian measures.

That post was primarily why I injected myself into this thread. I think it’s far from being conclusively shown that we are overpopulated.

I don’t think taking the approach I have is waiting for the silver bullet, but rather being cautious in both directions.

[Professor Chaos]

[SteveG]

Professor Chaos wrote

EXACTLY!! Thank you for proving my point! ;-P

[Riddler]

SteveG wrote

...there really isn’t a lot beyond our imagination...

How do you imagine we would know if that were true or not?

[SteveG]

Riddler wrote

How do you imagine we would know if that were true or not?

Admittedly bad phrasing there. Hopefully my point was not lost. That we seem to have a pretty big capacity to imagine, and an increasingly impressive track record on making what we imagine come to fruition.