Money flows up, shit trickles down. Now we get to observe the effect of exponential population growth on that phenomenon. Robotic hearts for all CEO's, may greed never die!

>> ^hPOD:

>> ^criticalthud:
it's just so arrogant to think that "we" (scientists) are smarter than 4 billion years of evolution, and that we can make better plants. fuckballs. we know so little about this planet.
this seems to be a case of profit vs. common sense

I know what you mean...I think. Getting rid of polio, smallpox, and other such illnesses/diseases...damned stupid scientists. The world was a better place when children caught polio and died from it...right?
I know it's not directly linked to genetic manipulation of crops...but maybe these scientists aren't all "fuckballs", and some of the things they do, including certain genetic manipulations for food, help us more than then harm us.
After all...at the current population growth of the world, without genetic crops, even more of them would be starving to death...
I know...I know...people starving to death rules.


it's not that scientists are stupid (and fuckballs is just a term for "things are fucked", not directed at scientists or anyone in general), and quite clearly they've accomplished some amazing things, and the science behind gmo's is impressive as well. it's just that we're not as smart as we think we are, especially when we start messing around with genetics, and doing so with a profit motive in mind. We are barely getting to know this planet, meanwhile we're wiping out species of plant and animal life left and right.

As for starvation, the population growth of this planet is due to an industrial revolution fueled by oil, which is of limited quantity. Both rapid population expansion and fossil fuel consumption create a variety of negative consequences for the biosphere. You could accurately consider the human race to be an infestation of the planet. Yes GMO's can help feed such rapid population, but is this the correct course of action when you consider the biosphere as a whole? And are we really at that point where we think we are smarter than 4 billion years of evolution? We are upsetting the balance, and this will come back to bite us in the ass.

>> ^criticalthud:

it's just so arrogant to think that "we" (scientists) are smarter than 4 billion years of evolution, and that we can make better plants. fuckballs. we know so little about this planet.
this seems to be a case of profit vs. common sense


I know what you mean...I think. Getting rid of polio, smallpox, and other such illnesses/diseases...damned stupid scientists. The world was a better place when children caught polio and died from it...right?

I know it's not directly linked to genetic manipulation of crops...but maybe these scientists aren't all "fuckballs", and some of the things they do, including certain genetic manipulations for food, help us more than then harm us.

After all...at the current population growth of the world, without genetic crops, even more of them would be starving to death...

I know...I know...people starving to death rules.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^ghark:
There won't be a zombie apocalypse, I'm going to breed a super-zombie that eats regular zombies, so it will keep the zombie population growth rate below 2.1, which is critical for many reasons.
You are bound to get at least a few super zombies that shun their cannibalistic nature, what do you plan to do with these upstarts to zombietarianism?


All upstart non-cannibalistic super zombies will be rick-rolled immediately.

>> ^ghark:

There won't be a zombie apocalypse, I'm going to breed a super-zombie that eats regular zombies, so it will keep the zombie population growth rate below 2.1, which is critical for many reasons.

You are bound to get at least a few super zombies that shun their cannibalistic nature, what do you plan to do with these upstarts to zombietarianism?

There>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Doesn't this mean that human fertility isn't high enough to overcome the massive loss of numbers from the zombie Apocalypse?


won't be a zombie apocalypse, I'm going to breed a super-zombie that eats regular zombies, so it will keep the zombie population growth rate below 2.1, which is critical for many reasons.

@blankfist you have a unique talent for packing a huge number of factual errors and logical fallacies into so few words.

SS is solvent for 50 years according to every study done by organizations without a particular political axe to grind.

The commitment of SS is still on the books, and I fully intend to make sure that people like yourself don't try to force the government to break it.

People who put their money in 401k or IRA's and retired in the last few years lost their shirts, while their social security checks kept coming on time.

As for a Ponzi scheme, that's when you offer an investment that gives an impossibly high return (15% or something higher), and you pay the dividends with the money from new people coming into the system. It's completely unsustainable, because you've committed to a permanent, compounding return, and there's always going to be a finite number of new customers you can attract.

In social security, you're giving a fixed benefit to people until they die, while every new entrant to the workforce is automatically going to pay into the system. It does need some tweaking of the benefit/tax balance from time to time if you have population growth spikes (or crashes), but you have 65 years to deal with the problem before it becomes a crisis.

You'd only need major changes if something drastic happened, like someone inventing a longevity treatment that suddenly raised life expectancy from 75 to 375, or if a virus rendered 75% of the population infertile. Even so, the system could be rebalanced to deal even with extreme scenarios like those.

The only real threat to its stability is a political movement that seeks to break the system, either directly by phasing it out, or indirectly by refusing any attempt to raise taxes to maintain the commitment.

Ya,I heard something to that effect that you need 200-300k jobs created a month to keep up with population growth. So even at 100k jobs created a month, you still are at a loss for the month with the rate of unemployment.

According to statistics from the FBI and Arizona police agencies, crime in Arizona border towns has been “essentially flat for the past decade.” For example, “In 2000, there were 23 rapes, robberies and murders in Nogales, Ariz. Last year, despite nearly a decade of population growth, there were 19 such crimes.” The Pima County sheriff reported that “the border has never been more secure.”

FBI statistics show violent crime rates in all of the border states are lower than they were a decade ago — yet Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reports that the violence is “the worst I have ever seen.” President Obama justifiably asserted last week that “the southern border is more secure today than any time in the past 20 years,” yet Rush Limbaugh judged the president to be “fit for the psycho ward” on the basis of that remark.

Next, there’s Brewer’s claim that “the majority” of people immigrating illegally “are coming here and they’re bringing drugs, and they’re doing drop houses and they’re extorting people and they’re terrorizing the families. That is the truth.”

No, it isn’t. The Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector has apprehended more than 170,000 undocumented immigrants since Oct. 1, but only about 1,100 drug prosecutions have been filed in Arizona in that time.

The claim that illegal immigrants are behind most killings of law-enforcement personnel is also bunk. Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen claimed that “in the last few years 80 percent of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.” A Phoenix police spokesman told the Arizona Republic’s E.J. Montini that the real figure for killings is less than 25 percent, and that there are no statistics on wounded officers.

So what is this “terrible border security crisis” that Brewer says has only “gotten worse”? She complained recently to Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren about the Obama administration’s handling of the border: “They haven’t did [sic] their job.”

[via Dana Millbank @ WaPo]

@Sniper007

Eating locally won't help you when you have a local disaster. You missed the point. If everyone is using the maximum available land, nobody has extra food to help when someone else has a shortage.

As to deforestation, and climate change, the whole planet's system is self balancing. More CO2, means faster and stronger the vegetation growth which in turn produces more O2 at a faster rate. More CO2 for humans means shorter life spans, which means less population growth. There is no ability for human intervention to change this global balancing act.


CO2 has more than one effect on the planet. Even if you assume that plants grow faster and stronger with more CO2 (which is bullshit since they need nutrient food in the soil as well...CO2 is just one part of photosynthesis), CO2 is still a greenhouse gas. Furthermore, when the atmosphere is heavy in CO2, it also causes the ocean to become more acidic, which affects all sorts of ocean life, and therefore the food chains which we rely on. You're right to say that the world is self-balancing, but wrong to assume that human survival is automatic no matter what we do.

Maybe the world's limit is 30 billion if people are, as you say, crammed into cities, and the rest of the world is farmed. MAYBE, just MAYBE, that's NOT the most efficient way of living! Maybe people have minds of their own, that they can put to good use to produce their own food on their own land with their own hands as they desire.


No, look. Of course people have minds of their own. I don't see anyone saying anything to the contrary. You talked about it taking 1/5 of an acre earlier to support a family with a vegetarian diet. It's more like 1/2 acre per PERSON. Some land is not suitable for farming, but is suitable for livestock pastures.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm

So, say we supplement our vegetarian diet with some dairy and a little meat to efficiently use all the available land to feed more people. Check out the math:

http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm

It doesn't work out. There isn't enough land to support a trillion people...not even close. Not even 1/10th of a trillion. Even your revised number is laughable with current practices. So, say we throw in some urban farming...vertical farming in the form of skyscrapers that produce food. Cool...we've got a shitload of people now. Who even says that's a worthy goal? How can you morally argue that more people is always better? You've said a bunch of stuff indicating that's what you believe, but you haven't provided any reasons other than something to the effect of "human brains are amazing and can figure stuff out".

I don't think the speaker in the video is advocating global planning...at least not in the form of a world government. I don't think he's assuming that he's smart enough to know how to plan everyone's lives, nor do I think I am.

What he's pointing out is that populations naturally slow their growth as education and health increase. When you're pretty sure your children will survive, you don't feel the need to have 6-8 in order to have 2 that survive. When conditions are good enough to allow the survival of 80-90% of children born, parents also feel like they can provide a better life for their kids if they're dividing their resources between 1-2 instead of 6-8.

So, you don't need a global government to reduce population growth, you simply need to assist people in improving their health and education levels. Charities and individual countries can do this on their own. So what if they organize their efforts? It doesn't have to be central planning on a global level.

Personally, I think it's better to live within our means. Even if we could grow to the trillions on our little planet, why not do it slowly and carefully? Why do we need a giant population? Why do we all need to be "blessed" with giant families? Why can't we enjoy other peoples' families? As a country, we don't even need large populations for wars anymore. Nuclear weapons and conventional weapon technology ensure that future wars will be fought with very small numbers of people compared to the masses needed in the past.



If you didn't read all that, just answer this: What's the overall purpose of a huge world population? How does it benefit me or anyone else to be born into a crowded world?

As to hundreds of trillions, yes, my mistake. I meant hundreds of billions, or, nearly a trillion. A family of four is below the replacement rate. Not all land is suitable for farming NOW. I'm farming my 10' x 5' cement patio, and an empty parking lot nearby is being farmed by someone else; so it's hard for me to believe it can't (or won't) be done if the demand is great enough. It is tremendously inefficient to ship food for thousands of miles, and yes, if errors occur in that process temporary starvation may result. Eat local if you're concerned.

Natural disasters occur now, and kill hundreds, even thousands of people. Thousands of years ago, long before the planet reached a billion people, natural disasters occurred, and killed hundreds and thousands of people. Famine and starvation are as old as history itself. It will continue to occur into the future. Certainly, we ought to avoid the effects. But are we to going to tell someone not to have a child in fear that the child may someday die as a result of a drought or a hurricane or an 'unnecessary death'? That is folly. I say, be born. Live. Die. It is better to live for an hour and die than to never live at all.

I agree that "everyone living their lives as best they know how while ignoring everyone else" is a horrible thing. But the supposition that having children IS 'ignoring everyone else' is disingenuous. In my personal experience, everyone who has been exposed to families with children have been blessed by the presence of the children. When they are no longer children, they become men and women who engage with humanity for mutual profit. If there are cases to the contrary, it is not because of the existence of the child (or the man or the woman), but it is because of the errant behavior of the same. The errant behavior is corrected through thoughtful communication concerning belief systems and purposes.

As to deforestation, and climate change, the whole planet's system is self balancing. More CO2, means faster and stronger the vegetation growth which in turn produces more O2 at a faster rate. More CO2 for humans means shorter life spans, which means less population growth. There is no ability for human intervention to change this global balancing act.

Maybe the world's limit is 30 billion if people are, as you say, crammed into cities, and the rest of the world is farmed. MAYBE, just MAYBE, that's NOT the most efficient way of living! Maybe people have minds of their own, that they can put to good use to produce their own food on their own land with their own hands as they desire. Maybe, just maybe, global governance is grossly inefficient as is global planning. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe the human mind is this planets greatest natural resource, and maybe THAT is what is being grossly underutilized.

That seems to be the heart of the problem. Humanity is not merely inert dirt that is to be rearranged and placed at the whim of the theoretical global planner. Each human has the same mental capabilities as the global planner, and may have different designs for his or her future. There are gross inefficiencies that exist which will lead to famine, starvation, deprivation, death, misery, and more. These inefficiencies are found in the contents of the mind, not the mind itself.

@Sniper007

1/5 of an acre to feed an entire family of what size? Not all land is suitable for farming. Hundreds of trillions? What about water usage and waste processing? That number is literally laughable. What about deforestation's effects on climate? Most estimates I've seen that assume farming every inch of suitable land and cramming everyone into cities built on the rest are around 30 billion, only 5 times our current population. Farming all possible land also doesn't take into account natural disasters, local shortages in resources, or man-made errors in the ability to transport said resources. How would you argue that it's a good idea to use every resource available for farming when that is inherently unbelievably risky? Every natural increase or decrease in crop production would cause hunger...there would be no buffer.

Clearly, if we arrive at some number for the extreme-thought-experiment population for Earth, the maximum sustainable population must be lower than that number to avoid unnecessary deaths.

Even if you (naively, IMO) ignore empirical data for the sake of argument, How can you philosophically argue the justice in cramming everyone into cities and the loss of all nature except what can't be farmed? Ignoring empirical data is not a good idea, especially when philosophy must let us cover such topics as economics, climate, population growth, etc. Subjects that are awash with numbers and data.

It is sufficient to recognize that large families are NOT a good use of resources or land in all situations. Everyone living their lives as best they know how while ignoring everyone else around them is a recipe for hideous situations. Ignoring empirical data in relation to theories of justice sucks all the practical use out of them. Ignoring data in favor of thought experiments is a great way to discuss things, but bringing numbers in usually destroys one argument or the other with sheer moral and practical force.

>> ^mgittle:

>> ^Sniper007:

A widely held but incorrect view. Limited global population MUST be the desired outcome or humans will exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth. Relying on the promise of new technologies is a naive recipe for possible disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
If you want to talk assumption, you're assuming that maximum relative wealth is the desired outcome. Pretty selfish, eh?
Baby boomers leaving the workforce is really only a problem because of Social Security and health care costs and an unbalanced worker to retiree ratio. That ratio will change over time and we'll probably have a period of austerity as it changes back to something resembling equilibrium. The baby boom being correlated with economic growth/decline is really not proof that increased population causes increased wealth. There are many other factors involved which have nothing to do with population.
Wealth is obviously not directly tied to population, or the United States wouldn't have vastly higher wealth with such a relatively low population density compared to the rest of the world. If you mean overall world wealth, perhaps that's true, since more people = more work = more promises to pay back debts, but when you're talking about a closed loop system, it's all relative. So, if you take the view that more world population means more poor people for rich countries to exploit, that would be true, but then you also have to assume infinite resources and an undamageable environment.


If there is a carrying capacity for the earth, humanity has not even come close to it. I'd say the limit is somewhere in the hundreds of trillions, based on the fact that it only takes 1/5 of a acre to feed an entire family a vegetarian diet. This is not a theoretical figure, it is currently being done. I'd say the earth is grossly underpopulated based on the obscene amount of lawn space (and golf courses) in existence.

Just drive somewhere (anywhere) for 10 miles, and tell me how much un-utilized, or under-utilized SPACE you see in your immediate vicinity. I'm not talking tilled, fertilized farmland. I'm talking empty parking lots, front lawns, abandoned buildings, etc. All those places need some human who is willing to engage in the proper behavior and responsibly utilize that space. The world is not overpopulated with bodies. It's 'over populated' with the wrong mindset and work ethic.

I didn't mean to imply that maximum relative wealth is a desired outcome. It is not.

I do agree, population growth is certainly NOT the only ingredient needed for an increase in sheer economic wealth. Though, for the families who engage in it, it can be the very definition and 'object' of their wealth and their increase in quality of life (though it may lead temporarily to a decrease in economic abundance). But the question of how to increase monetary wealth for most of the world is an entirely vain one that ought not to be entertained as it is relying on to many insidious assumptions.

It is sufficient to recognize that large families are NOT a plague, and go on living your own life as best as you know how. As to that discussion, ethical standards cannot be philosophically advanced by empirical data. Philosophy is inherently and necessarily theoretical.

>> ^Sniper007:

He's assuming limited global population is the desired outcome. It just so happens that limiting your population growth is what will take the blue box to below the 'sandal people'. The tremendous economic growth has risen and fallen in the US following exactly in line with the demographic phenomenon called the baby boom. Now that the baby boomers are leaving the work force, the entire US financial house of cards is falling.
This guy has NO CLUE what he's talking about. Wealth is CREATED by humanity. If you limit humanity's growth, you limit wealth's growth.
If he's worried about 'climate change', then he should realize that it's not the number of people, but their behavior which (potentially) affects that. In FACT, there are humans which by living their lives (ironically, in a lifestyle manner not unlike the 'sandal people') have a POSITIVE effect on their local climates, and thus the global climate (sic).


A widely held but incorrect view. Limited global population MUST be the desired outcome or humans will exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth. Relying on the promise of new technologies is a naive recipe for possible disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

If you want to talk assumption, you're assuming that maximum relative wealth is the desired outcome. Pretty selfish, eh?

Baby boomers leaving the workforce is really only a problem because of Social Security and health care costs and an unbalanced worker to retiree ratio. That ratio will change over time and we'll probably have a period of austerity as it changes back to something resembling equilibrium. The baby boom being correlated with economic growth/decline is really not proof that increased population causes increased wealth. There are many other factors involved which have nothing to do with population.

Wealth is obviously not directly tied to population, or the United States wouldn't have vastly higher wealth with such a relatively low population density compared to the rest of the world. If you mean overall world wealth, perhaps that's true, since more people = more work = more promises to pay back debts, but when you're talking about a closed loop system, it's all relative. So, if you take the view that more world population means more poor people for rich countries to exploit, that would be true, but then you also have to assume infinite resources and an undamageable environment.

>> ^Sniper007:

He's assuming limited global population is the desired outcome. It just so happens that limiting your population growth is what will take the blue box to below the 'sandal people'. The tremendous economic growth has risen and fallen in the US following exactly in line with the demographic phenomenon called the baby boom. Now that the baby boomers are leaving the work force, the entire US financial house of cards is falling.
This guy has NO CLUE what he's talking about. Wealth is CREATED by humanity. If you limit humanity's growth, you limit wealth's growth.
If he's worried about 'climate change', then he should realize that it's not the number of people, but their behavior which (potentially) affects that. In FACT, there are humans which by living their lives (ironically, in a lifestyle manner not unlike the 'sandal people') have a POSITIVE effect on their local climates, and thus the global climate (sic).


Ironic that you say Hans Rosling doesn`t know what he`s talking about. How can 2 billion of the poorest people turning into 4 billion help economic growth? In fact, its one of the factors that perpetuate the cycle of poverty, as limited land is passed down to successive generations. When your small plot of land is divided amongst your 6 children, and they each divide their land amongst each of their 6 children, it does not help your condition one bit.

Also, sure an individual from a developed nation choosing to live frugally (like the 'sandal people') may result in a net positive effect on their local climate by reducing their individual carbon footprint. However, an additional 2 billion 'sandal people' will significantly increase our environmental impact through increased demand and things like deforestation.