*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, July 10th, 2010 4:57am PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

@Fletch please add Sweden or Swedish to the tags as Hans Rosling is Swedish.
Also this is a great sift! I hope it gets into the top 15 or even to nr. 1!
It deserves it.

Thanks to Gwiz as well as I am not at a sufficient rank to do what he did. Which is a great deed.

He is a good pedagogue as always. He demonstrates, in a very simple but effective way, the importance of improving the conditions for the poorest people of the world.

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).

>> ^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).


Wealth is not created by humanity's growth. Much of the financial "wealth" of the last century was created by banks and bankers. Money is a very misunderstood concept. http://videosift.com/video/What-is-money

In relation to population growth and the environment Rosling's concern is that the trend of rising economies is that they tend to adopt the behavior of the economic state they rise towards, i.e. trading in bicycles for volvos. He states point blank that technologies should be developed so that these people can choose to use electric volvos rather than diesel ones, and thus curb behavior to have a reduced environmental impact.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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

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.

Waste is an enormous problem, as is water supply. and those two don't intermingle well.
Consider that we are at peak oil now (in all likelihood) or we are past that...unless someone can come up with an adequate energy replacement in the next few hundred years, resource-wise, we are at or near peak capacity.
Not to mention the destructive forces on the ecosystem that come about when one species completely dominates the planet. Humans cannot dominate the planet without changing the ecosystem around them, likely for the very worst. In ecosystem terms, the stasis...or equilibrium of the ecosystem is already upset by the present dominance of one species. Pushing this imbalance much further seems like a really really dumb idea.
and farmland must be fallow at times in order to produce.

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.

>>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.



@mgittle "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."

The rich exploting the poor is like a wolf eating a chicken... Natural, human and even necessary. There would be no rich if all were on equal terms. We would not have science, medicine, machinary or such on the same scale. Sure, happenstance would bring about these things eventually, but that is the same as a wolf getting through the chicken coop eventually too.

At least that is MO.

Those two billion would gladly exploit the rich and become what they detest or envy so much.

@Lawdeedaw

The difference is, humans have the ability to reason. We have the ability to construct notions of morality...of right and wrong. A wolf is never observed deciding not to eat a chicken because it feels bad for the chicken. In contrast, humans sometimes starve themselves to death or set themselves on fire to prove a point.

Humans and other primates have mirror neurons which allow us to copy and learn from each other. These structures in our brains allow us to put ourselves in others' shoes, both logically and emotionally. They are the source of our empathy. Our sophisticated brains are part of nature just like the wolf's hunger.

Also, a wolf is born a wolf, with certain properties that allow it to easily consume a chicken for survival. A human born rich is still a human. The accident of being born into a rich society or family does not change that. The advantages an individual human may have in intellectual faculties, speed, strength, etc, are inherently different than the difference between separate species. To argue that a rich human deserves to exploit a poor one because of their birth is basically racism.

Luck is a factor, and luck is not a moral justification for the dominance of one group over another.

@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?

To summarize the cannibalistic viewpoint on this conversation thread for those of you without the time: "Sniper007" says we shouldn't plan for humanity's future, instead relying on the world to balance it out and "Lawdeedaw" says we should continue to exploit the poor because it's necessary and natural for human survival. (We are Wolves and the poor are chickens... someone has to be eaten, it's as simple as that!)

I think those arguments can stand on their own "merit" without warranting much further discussion. You guys have anything further to add to that or can we be done with that line of obstructionism?