Conquer Club

I foolishly was reading through one of Gabons threads and came across this gem..

GabonX wrote:I don't hate children, in fact I think people should be having more of them than they are. I don't hate stupid people either, but it is wrong to impose things on people because other people are stupid.

Now I'm a firm believer in the fact that the world is unable to sustain the number of humans on it and I'm not alone.

Professor Albert Bartlett wrote:The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.

Professor Albert Bartlett
Exponential graph

I know that the Global Warming deniers are out there clinging to counter arguments funded by large energy companies, but one thing that any GW deniers can't deny is the the massive deforestation of the rain forests, the over fishing of the oceans and the reduced catches that fishermen now land.
These facts are visible and ponderable. They cannot be dismissed.

I just don't understand how people can still be thinking that this planet needs more humans. It needs less. A lot less.

I saw something along these lines the other day too. One of the largest impacts on the environment a person can have, is how many children they have.

While one child will impact the environment over his/her lifetime, far more than most of the other decisions to help curb/reverse global warming, you wont find many advocating it. It is without a doubt a paradox, but it is easy to see how its happened, since the environmental revolution really got started in the same decade as the free love decade.

That is hardly the only reason of course, the main reason, is it simply is an entirely different thing to ask someone to not burn as much gasoline, than it is to ask them not to have another child. The second is an argument in and of itself, so its easier to just have the first, and not get bogged down in the second. The only problem is, the net effect is a lesser impact.

There is another paradox here waiting to happen though. If all the people who care about the environment stop having children, than it will be those who dont that repopulate the earth, and will be more likely to do so, without the education about the environment being learned. Its the idiocracy movie, except about the green movement.

Humans really have created a bubble that defies nature, where the most educated, and even those with the most resources are actually the ones that do not reproduce as much as the ones with less resources and education. Now, the goal of course has to be to educate the world better, but clearly, the planet would be better off with a few less humans on it, or at least better off if they were living in areas that were set up to actually support them in realistically manageable ways.

In the end, it will take some serious changes to essentially hit the panic button in this area, before most jump on board with a "dont have as many kids campaign." Even then, people will fight pretty hard for their right to have children, and will fight pretty hard to prevent limits on having them. In many cases, it will probably be the same people that fight to protect the environment ironically and possibly, tragically enough.

On a somewhat related (and totally serious) issue - why have governments not continued to develop their respective space programs (specifically the United States)? I would think that a potential solution to overcrowding is the colonization of other planets (and/or the moon). While this may seem like something that's a long way off (and I suspect I will be subject to ridicule for posing this issue), I think it's a viable option to telling people that they can only have one child. I think governments may want to determine whether, and to what extent, natural resources can be cultivated on other plants or the moon, so that a "moon colony" would be a viable option.

Let the ridicule begin...

::ridicules::

In all serious, at least discussion of space colonization respects the issue of overpopulation. It's the bits about thinking we should have more kids that deserves the ridicule.

I believe it's not over population but waste that is the problem. The excess food, clothing and whatever else your average North American wastes could easily support many people.

I believe it's not over population but waste that is the problem. The excess food, clothing and whatever else your average North American wastes could easily support many people.

It's both. Americans use more energy per capita than the inhabitants of other countries (a LOT more), so indeed, having a child in America takes a much larger toll on the environment than having one in Mexico or India. But even if humans used energy equally, that still wouldn't address exponential population increase. For that matter, neither would venturing into space (although that should be explored too). While it's tempting to think that we could just reap the "limitless" cosmos for its "infinite" resources, that's just putting the problem off for a (much) later generation, when we could solve it now by switching to renewable energy sources and encouraging people to limit the number of children they have.

A couple questions:

1. How should we encourage people to limit the number of children they have? Tax parents for any children after the first one?
2. Why are people so reluctant to consider not having kids or even just having fewer? It seems like if you really love your kids, you'd want them to live in a properly-populated world.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story in which overpopulation was combated by forcing people to take drugs that numbed their genitals. He always was ahead of his time.

Also, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement has some good related arguments, though I don't know if "extinction" should be our goal.

Are you sure they are having too many or are all the imposed safety regulations making it so too many of them survive? Bicycle helmets, vaccinations etc. We're defeating natural selection.

People should be encouraged to tip the pop machine hoping to get a free one if they are that type of person.

Attila the Fun! wrote: when we could solve it now by switching to renewable energy sources and encouraging people to limit the number of children they have.

Would either of these things actually solve the problem? I understand from various sources that the problem of global warming is virtually unsolvable. I suspect this might be rhetoric by people who have a financial interest in solving global warming, but, well, I have heard a lot of this type of thing.

Attila the Fun! wrote:1. How should we encourage people to limit the number of children they have? Tax parents for any children after the first one?

I'm not sure how we would do this, and it's easier for me to criticize your idea so I will. I think if the US tries to tax parents for having children after the first, you'd get into a rich/poor debate, which no one really wants.

I had no idea Malthusian hysteria was making a comeback.

thegreekdog wrote:

Attila the Fun! wrote: when we could solve it now by switching to renewable energy sources and encouraging people to limit the number of children they have.

Would either of these things actually solve the problem? I understand from various sources that the problem of global warming is virtually unsolvable.

Well if the problem is "climate change," then no, not entirely. Some effects of global warming are now, sadly, unavoidable, and some experts say that we should focus on how to best relocate the millions of people who will be displaced by rising tides and such.

But if the problem is "What next?" then yes, renewable energy and population control will be essential. Mankind will always need energy, and if massive flooding occurs, drilling, mining and transporting oil/coal will be less feasible then ever. And even if the flooding is only mild, that's still not a sterling endorsement for continued use of fossil fuels.

thegreekdog wrote:I think if the US tries to tax parents for having children after the first, you'd get into a rich/poor debate, which no one really wants.

Agreed, but if the worst effect of climate change is an uncomfortable debate about class, wealth, and reproductive rights, we'll be lucky.

AnarchoJesse wrote:I had no idea Malthusian hysteria was making a comeback.

That's foresight for ya. The crux of Malthus's argument - that humans reproduce exponentially in a world of finite resources - has never been disputed (except by that crazy oil guy on the Daily Show). As a species we still haven't addressed that issue; we've only learned to do (and feed) more with the finite resources we have. But there's still a limit.

Q: What is the first thing that you do when you meet a hot chick?
A: You get her pregnant so that she will always be in your life.

^That is one thing that I learned while in county jail. Educated people wait to have kids, and they only have a few that they can take care of. F*cktards in the west and human trash all have 6 kids with different partners all before 30. Education is a real problem there.

Anyone here have the opinion that this is the human race's planet by right of evolution (or from a religious standpoint) and therefor it ours to do with as we please?
If tigers will go extinct then let them. They are not useful to man. Animals have caused each other to go extinct all through history.


BUT! I personally believe that the real-REAL problem with overpopulation has seemingly yet to be addressed at all in this fora. What do we do when the zombie apocalypse comes? All of the survivors will be outnumbered a billion to one. We seriously do need to take some action here. Thank God that I live in the US of A and will have access to billion dollar slaughter machines.

thegreekdog wrote:why have governments not continued to develop their respective space programs (specifically the United States)?

Congress voted to drop funding despite contrary public opinion. It has only gotten worst during the recession. However NASA does have new long-term plans space exploration plans... like going to the moon or mars, and a new Hubble... but due to budget constraints they are talking about joining together with Europe's space program and actually letting the very-recently-completed-billion-dollar-International-Space-Station crash into the Ocean. In order to change direction, they have to scrap basically everything that they are currently responsible for.

I think there does need to be some cooperation between governments to do anything useful in space. That being said, the US has the most loot, so we should be ahead of the game here.

I think an awful lot of bad economics are making themselves present in this thread. For one, you're all making the classic mistake of assuming that outputs will always be static; there is absolutely no empirical data or rational reason to even consider this an idea of merit, and it is precisely why the good Doctor Malthus had his idea tossed to the trash bin.

Moreover, I think that you're all attributing what is in fact a political problem to some vague economic problem. Most people who are starving aren't starving because there is a lack of adequate techniques to produce food, lack of production, etc., but rather a lack of accessibility to land and the State apparatus creating artificial conditions which restricts their access. Franz Oppenheimer called this the "political expropriation of land", essentially giving land lords and land barons special privileged access to land at the expense of the laboring classes.

AnarchoJesse wrote:I think an awful lot of bad economics are making themselves present in this thread. For one, you're all making the classic mistake of assuming that outputs will always be static; there is absolutely no empirical data or rational reason to even consider this an idea of merit, and it is precisely why the good Doctor Malthus had his idea tossed to the trash bin.

Moreover, I think that you're all attributing what is in fact a political problem to some vague economic problem. Most people who are starving aren't starving because there is a lack of adequate techniques to produce food, lack of production, etc., but rather a lack of accessibility to land and the State apparatus creating artificial conditions which restricts their access. Franz Oppenheimer called this the "political expropriation of land", essentially giving land lords and land barons special privileged access to land at the expense of the laboring classes.

In terms of the output issue, you are correct that outputs will not be static, but dynamic output does not necessarily equate more (think any retraction phase) nor does it mean output will mesh with consumption in a way that would avoid the issue.

Also politics and economics have an ugly habit of mixing at times. Certainly as these issues may possibly be more extrastrate (technical term i might have invented) as time goes on the lack of identification with the hungry as a result of a slower social change than political or economic change makes it likely this issue, combined with some failures in the other things you list, will cause output to be lower than required.

Having said that Id range malthusian stuff somewhere between "worth keeping an eye on" and "worth having someone else who is more interested in keeping an eye on it, keep an eye on it"

AnarchoJesse wrote:I think an awful lot of bad economics are making themselves present in this thread. For one, you're all making the classic mistake of assuming that outputs will always be static; there is absolutely no empirical data or rational reason to even consider this an idea of merit, and it is precisely why the good Doctor Malthus had his idea tossed to the trash bin.

Moreover, I think that you're all attributing what is in fact a political problem to some vague economic problem. Most people who are starving aren't starving because there is a lack of adequate techniques to produce food, lack of production, etc., but rather a lack of accessibility to land and the State apparatus creating artificial conditions which restricts their access. Franz Oppenheimer called this the "political expropriation of land", essentially giving land lords and land barons special privileged access to land at the expense of the laboring classes.

I like this guy. I hope he sticks around.

AnarchoJesse wrote:you're all making the classic mistake of assuming that outputs will always be static

Attila the Fun! wrote: The crux of Malthus's argument - that humans reproduce exponentially in a world of finite resources - has never been disputed (except by that crazy oil guy on the Daily Show). As a species we still haven't addressed that issue; we've only learned to do (and feed) more with the finite resources we have. But there's still a limit.

Or, put another way:

How does increased output solve the problem of finite resources? Even if resources are used more efficiently, won't we eventually hit a wall? Even if we switched to renewable sources like solar energy, there's still a limit to how much we could harness. Wouldn't increased output without balanced (perhaps population-controlled) consumption merely delay the problem without solving it?

It'll be fine, most humans will be wiped out by some sharp new virus or another, loads more will destroy each other in some variation on the "your ancestor looked at my ancestor in a funny way" theme (and/or ancestors goat/land/plot of lunar real estate) and the survivors will begin the whole heady cycle again, ad nauseum, until either we're having the "unsustainable number of humans in the solar system colonies" thread or... our descendants all get psuedo-sterilised at puberty and only a chosen few get the antidote. Or China'll taken over by then in which case we can only have 1 kid and the tigers definitely f*cked!

greekdog's earlier comment on space R&D makes sense. Funding for the space program is a must, and should be given higher consideration, and I'm not sure about how this sector works, but I'd love to see more government subsidies given to the private space sector. However, before we can dump massive amounts of cash into this program of achieving the technology and means capable to ship large populations to other places as well as other important things, people and the government have too many immediate and upcoming problems (~now and within the next 100 years). A large number of people and governments are either unaware or do not care about the numerous and hazardous consequences of "development," resource usage and other resource-related issues, population increase which they all encourage. This current government however is flexible or can have its policies altered by the will of the people, but since there's such a large number of complacent and indifferent Americans, not much will be changed and it's time to pay severely. Oops, too late.

People won't severely change their lives until it's too late or until the cost of reversing/repairing (to some small degree, or if at all) the effects of global warming become immense. Many people do NOT want to change and people do NOT want to adjust their lifestyle, no matter how minor or major these changes can be, like recycling, or consuming less, adopting or producing kids--producing, haha!, like tin cans--, or anything that would somehow affect their precious "standard of living." Killing oursevles at our own expense seems to be a sad but justifiable end to our civilization--or perhaps a new beginning (*dramatic music please). Do people in general want this? Of course not, but it's too long-term (or short-term considering global warming, but not short- enough) for many to justify a drastic change in their lives. We're typically greedy, selfish, unaware, and uncaring. Hah, there's a lot we have to go up against.

Having a proportional tax on the amount you use and throw away may help a bit. A bit... Taxing or at least not giving away more money with each kid would be very beneficial, yet greekdog already mentioned the forces against that reasonable solution.

But then again, maybe there's a self-imposed balance? Can we reach a population limit that would correct itself through immense famines and food shortages? Maybe, who knows. Many things can happen.

thegreekdog wrote:I think there does need to be some cooperation between governments to do anything useful in space. That being said, the US has the most loot, so we should be ahead of the game here.

I fully agree, but I don't see at any time in the near future (about 50 years, maybe less hopefully) the United States constructively engaging in any activity that would in any way limit it's hegemony or power. Which means, we're screwed. Unless more and more Americans demand an immediate change--not likely. We'll ride and whip this poor planet until we and the planet collectively kill us off. Hey, maybe next time after the Big Civilization Restart, since there'll be less resources, we'd be forced to adjust to a more appropriate way of living? Sounds grand.

I wouldn't place bets on humanity getting outta this trouble without huge sacrficies and immense loss of life. But who knows? And given that Big Business likes to put down or buy up ideas/inventions that can greatly reverse our problems we don't stand much of chance. Once again, greed and selfishness (maybe there's an car engine that runs on water and releases water vapor--isn't, or wasn't there?) Doesn't matter, won't make it unfortunately.

The best bet right now is to change things (especially the United States) from within. Drop plans for mobilizing the people since it's extremely difficult given the overwhelming amount of complacency and indifference on their part. Sorry, gotta save that stockpile of AKs and molotov cocktails for something else (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE, the NSA probably does). Gotta influence the big shots, but how? So many businesses and industries stand much to lose by limited their consumption and production. It starts with the people, who in turn, don't really give a shit for the time being. Hopefully, and God or unGod-willing, we'll experience that point in time where the majority of people realize become aware enough and actually do something. But, this sounds like a dream; I've got very little hope for us at this moment. People mostly care nearly always when they're immediately affected by something (like anti-war sentiment for the Vietnam War), but that'll probably come too late.

I'd love for someone to say I'm wrong on this. To tell me that somehow we can pull something outta of our asses that'll magically fix everything. Jokes are the best way for now


haha-my signature should say, "Sorry for the long post."

Space ... might delay the problem, but won't solve it any more than opening up the "new world" did.

"Plagues and pestilance" will be returning, because antibiotics are quickly losing effectiveness as those old germs evolve into resistant forms.

Global warming might do a measure.

If not, then crowded rats tend to kill each other. Same for humans supposedly.

In short, we have time to work on things, but if we don't .... it will still be taken care of.

(even setting aside any Christian apocalypse scenario).

thegreekdog wrote:On a somewhat related (and totally serious) issue - why have governments not continued to develop their respective space programs (specifically the United States)? I would think that a potential solution to overcrowding is the colonization of other planets (and/or the moon). While this may seem like something that's a long way off (and I suspect I will be subject to ridicule for posing this issue), I think it's a viable option to telling people that they can only have one child. I think governments may want to determine whether, and to what extent, natural resources can be cultivated on other plants or the moon, so that a "moon colony" would be a viable option.

Let the ridicule begin...

"Not only is it physically impossible for a little planet to absorb the population increase of a big planet, as Seymour pointed out, but there is another good reason why we'll neer get aany such flood of people as a hundred thousand people a day - a psychological reason. There are never as many people willing to emigrate (even if you didn't pick them over) as tehre are new people born. Most people simply will not leave home." - Heinlein

Note this does not mean that Heinlein was against colonising space, just that the motive should not be population control.

Surely the best population control is education. Its well documented that nationally and internationally the poorest tend to on average have more children then the middle and upper classes. Most of the global population growth comes from developing nations (SE Asia, India, sub-Saharan Africa), so increases in investment here into the economies and schools and civil rights will do much more then any "population control" attempted within the poorer communities at home.

As for the resoruces problem, this is much more complex. On the energy issue there is a very simple solution, renewable energy. Solar, nuclear (for now), hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, tidal etc... They should all be heavily invested in and used as much as possible. Add into that electric cars, energy efficient planes/ships, stop the burning of the rainforest, carbon capture for any other outlets and we solve the energy crisis and global warming. Of course this means bringing change, higher prices (in the short to medium term), certain large interest groups losing potential income, etc.. so it'll never be easy.

As for food, this is much harder. It is true that there is enough agricultural land in the world to feed to population, but farming subsidies, underdeveloped 3rd world techniques, and the over reliance on artificial fertilisers as well as politics and money mean many millions go hungry. Also to remember on this is that even without population growth the human consumption is going to increase. As developing countries grow, especially India and China, the appetites of their populations will also grow and they will want more food and more variety. There are several small scale projects atm which show that we can get more food from areas of land then at the present time (for example, 4 greenhouses in S.England now provide 15% of all fruit and veg eaten in the UK) and I'm thinking that stuff like this will need to go to the big time to prevent mass starvation especially if the effects of climate change being predicted come out to be true.