How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[kimmielittle]

Originally Posted by kimmielittle

An ad hominem attack on the source, doesn't distill the claim made.

Correction should read: An ad hominem attack on the source, doesn't dilute the claim made.

[Monte RCMS]

Originally Posted by Warrior1979

As we all well know, the farmer doesn't plant seeds by hand, pick crops by hand, and pick off bugs hand. The work nowadays is done by machines, which are run by...guess what...fossil fuels or their derivatives. The same with pesticides. Many are petro based, and even if they are not, they are distributed by machines that use fossil fuels. Then we get to the whole distribution chain (transport, refrigeration, etc.) which is also fossil-fuel dependent.

This is exactly why food prices are very sensitive to changes in energy prices. Many of these businesses are low margin. A professional peer was discussing the problems with poultry farmers because of the recent increase prices.



Fossil fuels is the one of concern because modern civilization is dependent upon it. These fuels were created over millions of years, and we are using them at a rate that vastly exceeds there rate of creation. There is nothing to replace them, barring the discovery of other easily obtainable fossil fuel resources. The "renewables" that many talk about cannot replace them for reason that anyone with a minimal understanding of thermodynamic principles would understand.

If the energy to run the system aren't available, the system that depends on them also collapses.



Interesting that you picked a time period where (nonrenewable) fossil fuels took the place of human labor.

According to the R-U theory, also known as abiogenic or abiotic, petroleum is created down in the reactor known as the earth's core and is forced up through cracks ... some petroleum has been analyzed for the date of its origination and found to predate the "dinosaurs" ... meaning that it's not fossil fuel. If that proves correct, then we would have an almost infinite supply of petroleum and natural gas.

[Monte RCMS]

Originally Posted by Big Dummy

Short Answer: just over 25 Trillion people could fit in the US standing in a 2 foot by 2 foot square. Leaving rest of the world for resources and jobs.

Here is the math:

Start with the number of people times four square feet(standing area).
Look at chart for area of each US state in square feet to see where they fit.

or

Start with a total area like the US divided by four square feet to see how many people can stand in that area.

Using current projections of world population,

By the year 2050 it is projectect that there will be 9.2 billion people on earth.

If each person stood in a 2 foot by 2 foot square, they all will fit in any US State.

Leaving 49 other states to grow food and dispose of waste.

In fact, they would only take up about a fourth of our smallest state of R.I.

Answer: 9200000000 ft² = 330.004 mi² OR 330 mi² and 128000.0 ft²

http://geography.about.com/od/obtain...population.htm

http://www.metric-conversions.org/ar...uare-miles.htm

Rank State Name Area (Sq Miles)
43 Vermont 9,615
44 New Hampshire 9,283
45 Massachusetts 8,262
46 New Jersey 7,790
47 Hawaii 6,459
48 Connecticut 5,006
49 Delaware 2,026
50 Rhode Island 1,213

http://www.theus50.com/area.php

Also, if a person really is concerned about being a bother to the earth they could simply end their life.


Start with total square miles for US,

United States total area: 3,794,083 square miles (including water) -- (9,826,630 sq km)

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/area.shtml

Find a number of square miles that will fit in the US using round numbers.

Answer: 100000000000000 ft² = 3587006.427 mi²

divide by four square feet to find out how many people can fit into that area of the US.

100,000,000,000,000 / 4 = 2.5 × 1013

just over 25 Trillion people could fit in the US standing in a 2 foot by 2 foot square.

Leaving rest of the World to grow foot and get rid of waste, and have places to work.

This also assumes they don't live in really high-rise condos.

Once you start stacking people up, there is really no limit.

[wynnejj]

Originally Posted by Sailor Kenshin

For the love of God, please stop calling abortion 'choice.'

Is that what our Savior would call it?

Actually, yes. It is a choice with consequences. In a way, God is Pro-Choice. That is, God has given us the right to choose to be or not to be born again into life eternal. My advice - Choose Life.

[Warrior1979]

Originally Posted by Monte RCMS

According to the R-U theory, also known as abiogenic or abiotic, petroleum is created down in the reactor known as the earth's core and is forced up through cracks ... some petroleum has been analyzed for the date of its origination and found to predate the "dinosaurs" ... meaning that it's not fossil fuel. If that proves correct, then we would have an almost infinite supply of petroleum and natural gas.

The problem with the theory is that it is simply a theory. There is no credible evidence, at least what I've seen, to suggest that it is true.

I don't think that it is outside the realm of possibility that hydrocarbons are being created in the earth's core, but at this point we know nothing about it form or if we could use it....purely hypothetical. I don't think it's wise to base one's existence on conjecture.

[Warrior1979]

Originally Posted by Monte RCMS

This also assumes they don't live in really high-rise condos.

Once you start stacking people up, there is really no limit.

The analysis only discusses one side of the equation. The second part of it involves the resources necessary to support the population, everything from housing to food distribution to waste management. Then one has to consider the amount of arable land in the rest of the world along with the intense use of energy resources necessary to produce and distribute the food.

[paedagogo]

Originally Posted by kildare

We can deal with the world's resources in three ways:

1. Chastity.
2. Charity
3. Temperance

As far as I can see, the world is totally opposed to the above, as it is christian inspired and so is coming up with its own malthusian alternatives which now adays promote the murdering of the unborn.

I would call on all catholics here to reflect on the fact that as stewards of nature we have behaved awfully, sacrificing wild-life for more spacious abodes, for more food, and for more material toys.

What would St. Francis do ? What would Jesus do?

The Christian solution will lead to a world of peace and harmony. The materialist path is going to lead to wars, famines and ultimately enforced genocide.

Andrew Bacevich makes the point that the first US President to point this out was Jimmy Carter, in his famous "malaise speech". The response to his message that perhaps temperance and conservation was in order, and that the profligate consumption of the past would lead to problems, was the election of Ronald Reagan who delivered entirely the opposite message of Carter.

It is an interesting read. Bacevich is even handed in his presentation, presenting his case in a sequential manner by starting at specific historic watershed points which have changed the direction of our government or society, and then tracing how that change evolved with each successive administration.

[TheRealJuliane]

http://http://www.wordonfire.org/WoF...Time-Bomb.aspx

Just ran across this and thought it might be helpful here.

[paedagogo]

An important point to remember, is that technology has made our explosive growth possible. It is not a "natural" development.

[kimmielittle]

Originally Posted by paedagogo

An important point to remember, is that technology has made our explosive growth possible. It is not a "natural" development.

That theory presented by Thomas Malthus was argued very well, by Economic historian Ester Boserup. "Necessity is the mother of invention" .

Stating... our population preceded technologies growth.
Ester Boserup, The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. London, G. Allen and Unwin, 1965; Chicago: Aldine, 1965. 124 pp.


Case Study/Example

The Green Revolution

In the 1960s, a package of agricultural improvements known as the Green Revolution was seen as the answer to the food problem in much of the developing world. LEDCs commonly have high birth rates and rapidly growing populations, therefore food scarcity was a large concern. In order to address this problem, modified crops were invented. HVP (high-yielding variety seed programme) commenced in 1966-7.
India was one of the first countries to greatly benefit from HVP and to spark the Green Revolution. In 1967 India was still suffering from the aftermath of the Bengal famine, which occured in 1943 and in which an estimated 4 million people died of hunger. India implemented agricultural methods to increase food output, such as : continued expansion of farming areas, double cropping existing farmland, and using seeds with improved genetics. These methods were very successful as yield per unit of farmland improved by more than 30% and India became one of the world's biggest agricultural producers.
This example of the Green Revolution demonstrates Boserup's theory that technological advances will be made to increase food supply in order to avoid food scarcity in face of a growing population.

http://cac-ib-geography.wikispaces.com/Boserup

It seems arguable, that population growth precedes technology in historic evidence.

Read also Henry George's chapters on poverty and subsistence in Progress and Poverty stand as the definitive marshalling of the abundant logical ammunition against Malthusian .

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp6.htm

And Amartya Sen's Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford 1981), which dismantled another tenet of Malthusian theory -- i.e. that famines were always (or mainly) caused by absolute deficiency of food.

[paedagogo]

Originally Posted by kimmielittle

That theory presented by Thomas Malthus was argued very well, by Economic historian Ester Boserup. "Necessity is the mother of invention" .

Stating... our population preceded technologies growth.
Ester Boserup, The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. London, G. Allen and Unwin, 1965; Chicago: Aldine, 1965. 124 pp.


Case Study/Example


http://cac-ib-geography.wikispaces.com/Boserup

It seems arguable, that population growth precedes technology in historic evidence.

Read also Henry George's chapters on poverty and subsistence in Progress and Poverty stand as the definitive marshalling of the abundant logical ammunition against Malthusian .

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp6.htm

And Amartya Sen's Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford 1981), which dismantled another tenet of Malthusian theory -- i.e. that famines were always (or mainly) caused by absolute deficiency of food.

I just saw a graph of human population plotted against technological achievements. I don't know enough about the topic to be an expert. Of course I know Malthus, etc... but the speaker in the presentation was making a cogent argument supporting the correlation.

I just thought I would throw that into the mix.

On the face of it, the cost of food, mortality rates, longevity... these things which technology directly affects, would seem to be important.

A biologist will tell you that our bodies are designed to live until about 50 years, based on the mutation rate of our cellular reproduction. That is approximately what we are programmed for.

Much of the population is older, and the trend continues. I don't have the numbers at hand, but the ratio of people alive today to the total who have ever lived keeps growing at a rate which some say is not merely accountable by natural reproduction and mortality. A case can be made that these technologies make a difference.

[kimmielittle]

Originally Posted by paedagogo

I just saw a graph of human population plotted against technological achievements. I don't know enough about the topic to be an expert. Of course I know Malthus, etc... but the speaker in the presentation was making a cogent argument supporting the correlation.

I have found many sites that do the same i.e. make cogent arguments.

The problem, that I see, glaring at us...is what's not said

I don't think anyone can find fault in my statement made a few posts ago, about mismanagement of resources. Yet, the mismanagement of resources doesn't come into the debate of those who argue the Malthusian theory.

Overpopulation becomes the scape-goat. Why? Well...we know why PP backs it.

Historic evidence, alone, proved the Malthusian theory wrong. It remains an interesting theory to explore, but has been proven, by history, as wrong / flawed.

I just thought I would throw that into the mix.

On the face of it, the cost of food, mortality rates, longevity... these things which technology directly affects, would seem to be important.

Absolutely!!!

A biologist will tell you that our bodies are designed to live until about 50 years, based on the mutation rate of our cellular reproduction. That is approximately what we are programmed for.

Much of the population is older, and the trend continues. I don't have the numbers at hand, but the ratio of people alive today to the total who have ever lived keeps growing at a rate which some say is not merely accountable by natural reproduction and mortality. A case can be made that these technologies make a difference.

Of course, a case can be made - that is why Overpopulation sells. BUT what about all the evidence?



They point to such as the population is / lives older - true....but are they producing more babies?

The UN say no.. ...And without the second part, experiential growth, as theorized, is unattainable. The UN says we might reach a peak of 9-11 billion humans [ and they keep adjusting that figure downwards ] and then a rapid decline.

Technology also brings us some 400,000 abortions a year in the USA. So, we are not only living longer - we are living shorter.


Allow me to give you an example I come across often, with bias of studies / reports.

"33,000 people died last summer because of Global Warming" - On the face of it... a very cogent argument - However, They fail to report 177, 000 people didn't die, that year, in the USA, because temperatures were a bit warmer over that winter.

[Warrior1979]

Originally Posted by paedagogo

A biologist will tell you that our bodies are designed to live until about 50 years, based on the mutation rate of our cellular reproduction. That is approximately what we are programmed for.

Much of the population is older, and the trend continues. I don't have the numbers at hand, but the ratio of people alive today to the total who have ever lived keeps growing at a rate which some say is not merely accountable by natural reproduction and mortality. A case can be made that these technologies make a difference.

One of the most interesting books I've read over the past decade dealt was written by a scientist who consulted on the X Files. Basically, the writers behind the show would come up with an idea, and the science consultant would come up with some type of theory that would make the idea sound plausible.

The book has some sound and interesting information. The issue of potential human age came up. The maximum age was around 120 years. This was based on cellular reproduction, with consideration given to the fact of cellular mutation (damage) that occurs during the reproduction process. Eventually the cells become damaged to the point where the organism dies, calculated to be 120 years.

Another interesting point made along the same lines dealt with clones. Using adult cells for cloning means using cells that have mutations due to cellular division. This seems to explain why many clones have appear to have shorter lifespans than than animals the cells came from.

With regard to the issue at hand, there are always certain assumptions that are made. Advances in technology are made, but once again, that technology doesn't occur in a vacuum. The technology requires huge energy inputs, which is effectively replacing human labor. Physics dictates that always comes at a cost.

[Warrior1979]

Originally Posted by kimmielittle

Historic evidence, alone, proved Malthusian theory wrong. It remains an interesting theory to explore, but has been proven, by history, as wrong.

To be honest, I didn't know who this person was, so I had to look him up. In my own case, simply put all the data together and draw conclusions.

He has not yet been proven wrong. He did not, nor did anyone else at the time, know that cheap energy sources would be found. The reason that world population increased as it did is solely for that reason. The labor of man was greater magnified as a result. A new energy source, of similar density and cost, must be discovered for the current situation to continue.

There are plenty of example in history as to what happens when we run out of resources. The difference between then and now is that we are running out of places to find new resources.

[paedagogo]

Originally Posted by Warrior1979

One of the most interesting books I've read over the past decade dealt was written by a scientist who consulted on the X Files. Basically, the writers behind the show would come up with an idea, and the science consultant would come up with some type of theory that would make the idea sound plausible.

The book has some sound and interesting information. The issue of potential human age came up. The maximum age was around 120 years. This was based on cellular reproduction, with consideration given to the fact of cellular mutation (damage) that occurs during the reproduction process. Eventually the cells become damaged to the point where the organism dies, calculated to be 120 years.

Another interesting point made along the same lines dealt with clones. Using adult cells for cloning means using cells that have mutations due to cellular division. This seems to explain why many clones have appear to have shorter lifespans than than animals the cells came from.

With regard to the issue at hand, there are always certain assumptions that are made. Advances in technology are made, but once again, that technology doesn't occur in a vacuum. The technology requires huge energy inputs, which is effectively replacing human labor. Physics dictates that always comes at a cost.

The latest that I have heard on aging, is that it is a balance between cellular mutation, and the prevention of cancer.

Your cells start mutating at rates which increase exponentially right around the age of 50. This is why cancer is extremely rare before that age, and grows increasingly common after that age.

Balanced against that is your bodies natural defense against cancer. It employs several means to destroy mutated cells as soon as they are detected. This destruction of mutated cells is the physical degeneration which we observer with aging.

It is possible to interfere with both of these processes now. It is known which part of the the "genes" to tamper with in order to slow down the mutation rate, and even how to do it. However the trade off is that you also get a suppression of the defense against cancer. So, theoretically you could age more slowly, as long as you don't mind having cancer, with today's technology.

At least that is how it was explained to me within the past couple of months, in somewhat more technical terms by two well known professors of medicine who specialize in the field.

But this is straying way off the topic of this thread.