What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

;) Solvency of retirement plans, if by more you mean continuing generations coming up. (If you mean "slaughter all the old", I guess it wouldn't apply).


Anyway, what you are really asking is about opportunity costs. Like the broken window, what would those human resources went towards if the window (half of humanity) weren't broken? Tough to answer without a time/dimension travel device of some kind.

1) How about brains? If you clip half of humanity, maybe the real question is which people? The guy who cures cancer? The one who makes a breakthrough in physics which send us off to colonize the stars? People are brains with a meatshell to get them around (and to enjoy carnal pleasures, but you know what I mean). The more brains there are, the more total processing power we have as a species.

2) Resistance to extinction. The more individuals there are, the more likely that during the next major extinction event there will be enough of the ones with the right resistance/mutation/etc. to keep the ball rolling.

3) More beautiful women. There can never, ever be "too many" beautiful women. Ever.

Judas, who would believe anything you would write?

The only thought I have had that could be considered positive with regard to unchecked population is in the US where those receiving social security and medicare benefits (which I do with both) apparently depend upon the current workforce to put the money in the kitty. So the more people receiving those benefits, the more "worker-bees" that are needed. But in reality the way the US benefits system works is ultimately unworkable, and at some point something will force it to change into something realistic.

I touched on your point 2) above. Despite the possibilities that the brain of the next baby to pop out in Africa, China, Venezuela or any where might be the one with the greatest potential yet to arrive on the planet, if not given a chance to develop, odds are it won't.

I'm not sure but the planet might not be a better place for all forms of life if man were not a part of it. If it comes to the possibilities of extinction from some force other than our own doings, I imagine those who might survive will do so because of luck. I don't see unchecked population growth as being justified on the basis of looming extinction and the more that are here the odds are better a few will survive. Might be true, but certainly is not a reason to abandon sanity when it comes to considering how many people the planet can support at some level of reasonable quality of life.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

Simplistic thinking indeed . Let's pause and think a bit. Reduce the population by half... Well, which half? Since the issue is natural resources, let's start with those who consume most of them. So, we take out Americans, Europeans, and, for a good measure, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. That's about half, give or take a few hundred million. Is the rest of the world better off? I'd think not, although some would argue that the world would be better off without Americans ;). So, this does not seem to work.

I'll stick with my suggestion that the simplest answer to most of the problems facing mankind is reduction of the population. I did not mean to infer that I think it is appropriate to start killing half of the present day population, but were natural calamity to effect such an immediate reduction tomorrow, it would to my thinking not be a bad thing for the planet or for those left standing. I do think it is appropriate right now that if I wish to end my life because of choice not to endure incurable illness, that I should not have to asphyxiate myself or blow my brains out with my pistol, i.e. I deserve the same humanity I will allow for my dog: euthanasia.

What if we dispose of all women?--That's about half. No? How about all men? Doesn't seem to work either (though, again, some would argue). Maybe all the poor people. Now we are getting somewhere. So, 50% of the population. It means that those who make less than a median must go. Imagine, for example, the U.S. where all who make less than a median salary suddenly disappeared. Per capita income would jump overnight! Yeah! Well, who would wait at your table in a restaurant, or fix your car, or sell you groceries, or deliver your mail, or fight your war? Those people are an indispensible part of the economy. The society, as far as I can tell (at least at present), cannot function without these low-paid jobs.

The key statement is in the second to last sentence above. The only people, it seems, the world can do without are those who are not part of the world economy. Thing is, if they are not part of the economy, they are not depleting the resources for the rest of us. So, 'disappearing' them won't help. Unless, of course, the goal is to go out there and steal their land--wouldn't be the first time.

I can tell you, Jam, there are societies that exist now, at a low level of quality of life as you and I might judge them, without barmaids and waitresses because there are no restaurants and there are no cars, no grocery stores, no mail service, and no indoor plumbing because there is nothing known as a municipal water supply, and no water at the hovel.

Difficult and complex problems often have a very simple, and WRONG, solution. It is rather convenient to "identify" a single silver bullet and demand from others to prove to you that it does not work, especially if it requires no further effort on your part. Nonetheless, I will attempt an answer to your question.

Let me start with a statement, which may not seem obvious to some, but is true nonetheless:

1. The only way to improve the overall quality of life of a society is by innovation.

-> I am not going to prove this statement here--it probably requires a separate thread if not a dissertation.

2. The more significant the innovation (in terms of improving quality of life) the more rare it is.

-> This statement should be rather self-evident.

3. (Corollary from 2) Most sigificant innovations are introduced by a vanishingly small fraction (percentage) of population. For simplicity, I will call those highly innovative individuals the geniuses.

Now, if we assume that geniuses constitute a constant fraction of a society (which, incidentally, appears to be true--don't have a source though), then a larger population holds a larger absolute number of geniuses, and therefore is more innovative than a smaller population, which leads to faster improvement its quality of life. QED.

I realize that this is a rather 'simplistic' proof (e.g. it imiplicitly assumes that the innovators are not squashed or killed off by a political or economic system), but, hey, for simplistic thinking here is a simplistic proof ;).

Cheers,
J.

So how many potential "geniuses" are there out there, but who will never be given exposure to even a sixth-grade education?

Innovate me some water that I can drink, and innovate me some more with which to irrigate my arid farmland so that I shall never be hungry. Innovate me some cure for malaria. Innovate me a job that will allow me to survive from my works. Innovate me something besides a tin and cardboard hovel on the side of a hill in Caracas or Mexico City, and no doubt many other places of which I have no serious knowledge.

Don't feel badly, Jam, for putting forth simplistic arguments, we all are ignorant, and we all are simple at least about somethings.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

The simplest answer to me is to look around and see where you can step on the field and make a difference. Get on the court and out of the stands and the answer is at hand. Start by having your neighbors over for a good glass of wine and dinner. Why get Malthusian? It won't get you anywhere except busted expectations. Just commit to what you feel is important. Zyklon-B sprang from heavy feet.

The sweet avatar is courtesy of the FRED's and I am grateful.

Oh, Jay, such rationalizations. No answers are at hand for the world's unchecked population. Why not get Malthusian, if that is what is required? I have no expectations, and nothing this society will do in my remaining life will disappoint me. Very few of the problems facing those of your children's age will ever likely impact me, and fortunately as I've said I have no children about which to fret for their futures.

I am committed here to what is important as I see it, and that is to prompt perhaps in some a need to think seriously about the problem of population.

Who or what the hell is Zyklon-B?

[Olduvai]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

Oh, Jay, such rationalizations. No answers are at hand for the world's unchecked population. Why not get Malthusian, if that is what is required? I have no expectations, and nothing this society will do in my remaining life will disappoint me. Very few of the problems facing those of your children's age will ever likely impact me, and fortunately as I've said I have no children about which to fret for their futures.

I am committed here to what is important as I see it, and that is to prompt perhaps in some a need to think seriously about the problem of population.

Who or what the hell is Zyklon-B?

Zyklon-B is the gas the nazis used to kill with in the concentrationcamps during WW2. Kept under pressure in a tin in krystalline form it would be poured into a hole in the roof into the rooms beneath where it would start to evaporate slowly killing through aphistication. horrible death.

In our current predicament caused by depletion of fossil energy populationlevels can not be sustained even with all our present knowlegde of alternative energies put to a maximum use.
Just as in nature populationlevels of a certain species will adapt to the sustainability of it's surroundings (by war or starvation).

The only way i can think of to minimize population without using violence of any kind is by education of women and by having national minimum pensions.
Childwish is far more prominent by women than by men. If women have the same educational and occupational levels as men birthlevels start to decline as currently the case in western europe. Adding the removal of children nescessity to provide food/care at old age brings down fertility levels in a dramatic way.
Europe keeps it's populationlevels constant nowadays only through emigration and the high fertility rates of these emigrants.

As throughout the world culture (women's rights), wealth, state sophistication are far worse than in europe this will not be feasible for the majority of world population i'm afraid.

jeroen

[GRG55]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

Zyklon-B is the gas the nazis used to kill with in the concentrationcamps during WW2. Kept under pressure in a tin in krystalline form it would be poured into a hole in the roof into the rooms beneath where it would start to evaporate slowly killing through aphistication. horrible death.

In our current predicament caused by depletion of fossil energy populationlevels can not be sustained even with all our present knowlegde of alternative energies put to a maximum use.
Just as in nature populationlevels of a certain species will adapt to the sustainability of it's surroundings (by war or starvation).

The only way i can think of to minimize population without using violence of any kind is by education of women and by having national minimum pensions.
Childwish is far more prominent by women than by men. If women have the same educational and occupational levels as men birthlevels start to decline as currently the case in western europe. Adding the removal of children nescessity to provide food/care at old age brings down fertility levels in a dramatic way.
Europe keeps it's populationlevels constant nowadays only through emigration and the high fertility rates of these emigrants.

As throughout the world culture (women's rights), wealth, state sophistication are far worse than in europe this will not be feasible for the majority of world population i'm afraid.

jeroen

Interesting debate you've started here Jim. My "uneducated" reaction:

• already pointed out, but our pay-as-you-go entitlement programs (public pensions, etc) are dependent on working age population growth, as is much of the rest of our consumption oriented service sector economic model.
• It's not at all clear [to me] that birth rates fall in developed countries because women have achieved similar education and occupation levels as men. I realize this statement is heresy for many. But frankly I wonder if the cause and effect here may be getting reversed. Could it be that our idiotic constantly inflationary economic policies have created a long-term income compression situation where a) it's now necessary for most developed-nation families to have two incomes just to pay the bills, and b) the cost of raising children has now been inflated, like everything else, to the point where people just cannot afford it...so naturally we do less of it. Now if, because of these influences, women have to work, of course they are going to strive to earn more by improving their education levels and competing across the entire job spectrum..they aren't as dumb as some of us men might think ;)
• If our highly mechanized, "green revolution" petroleum-based food production systems are not sustainable due to future limits on hydrocarbons (whether supply triggered or due to climate change carbon policies), then it would seem global agriculture will become more manual-labour intensive, and maybe such a shift back to a more agrarian society will need more young workers too. Sort of a different productivity equilibrium in that sector than we have had for the past 40-50 years? Just a thought...

[Guest]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

I'm pretty sure there's a distinction between eliminating people already here and merely reducing the birthrate, especially in populations where the replacment birthrate is already being exceeded. Europe, for example, is already on the way down in population, at least the home-grown portion of it. I hear Russians in particular will be positively scarce in a few hundred years if the trend continues.

Creating people is instinct. That is why some can't bear the thought of any inhibition on it, or become enraged at those who choose not to have children. Rise above your core brain functions and think about it first. When you create a human being you can't care for properly, who will likely suffer in life, you're hardly doing anyone on earth a service, especially that person you made.

Crowding causes conflict over space, resources, etc. Fact of life. I think a STABLE population might be a step in the right direction. How about this rule? When you can keep the flies off your kid and keep them above 60% of their ideal body weight without resorting to charity, then you can have another? Is that ok?

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

Interesting debate you've started here Jim.

It wasn't my purpose to instigate a debate on the issue because I expect it would fall in the category of debating either religion or politics, and in my experience such "debates" generally waste a lot of words and nothing is changed.

My thinking is rather settled on the issue of the reasonableness of reduction of the population in order to hopefully improve the average quality of life for all humans on the planet, which also might improve the quality of life or sustenance of life for most other living things.

I'm pretty sure there's a distinction between eliminating people already here and merely reducing the birthrate, especially in populations where the replacment birthrate is already being exceeded. Europe, for example, is already on the way down in population, at least the home-grown portion of it. I hear Russians in particular will be positively scarce in a few hundred years if the trend continues.

Creating people is instinct. That is why some can't bear the thought of any inhibition on it, or become enraged at those who choose not to have children. Rise above your core brain functions and think about it first. When you create a human being you can't care for properly, who will likely suffer in life, you're hardly doing anyone on earth a service, especially that person you made.


Crowding causes conflict over space, resources, etc. Fact of life. I think a STABLE population might be a step in the right direction. How about this rule? When you can keep the flies off your kid and keep them above 60% of their ideal body weight without resorting to charity, then you can have another? Is that ok?

Bruce, nice thoughtful comments.

I assume it is correct that there is an evolutionary urge to screwing in order to "insure" the continuation of the species, but I would bet there is a lot of it done just for the sake of hedonism. What seems to be an instinct in many of us is the inability to serious consider the consequences of what we do, and I judge myself first.

So far, no one has put forth or defined a benefit from ongoing unchecked population growth, which makes me think there may not be any, but only about 300 people have even looked at this thread, so a lot that might be thought has not made it into print.

It will be a long and difficult journey for society to eventually choose to limit its expansion, and I am not sure that enough people will ever reduce reproducing volitionally, and if they won't then at some point it will become a law thus affecting another freedom. But that is the consequence of ever greater and more complex societies as I see it.

Edit: to lighten up a bit, here's a joke. Guy asks girl he's putting the make on at a bar, "Do you smoke after having sex?" She replies, "I don't know, I never look to see."

[*T*]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

How you going to do it?
They tried forced sterilisation in India, it was an abject failure and wasn't very popular.

Nonetheless I think your idea has merit; let's start with the worst offenders, Citizens of the US and Canada:


(pic courtesy Sudden Debt)

[c1ue]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

I suspect Russia negative growth is reversing; nothing like a decade long (or longer) growth spurt to encourage families to start having more kids.

[Jam]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

So far, no one has put forth or defined a benefit from ongoing unchecked population growth, which makes me think there may not be any, but only about 300 people have even looked at this thread, so a lot that might be thought has not made it into print.

It will be a long and difficult journey for society to eventually choose to limit its expansion, and I am not sure that enough people will ever reduce reproducing volitionally, and if they won't then at some point it will become a law thus affecting another freedom. But that is the consequence of ever greater and more complex societies as I see it.

Jim,
It is NOT true that "no one has put forth or defined a benefit from ongoing unchecked population growth." I count at least three (BiscayneSunrise, Judas, and myself). Unfortunately, your response to them appear to be largely dismissive, focusing on the negative.

So, here are the statements again

So to answer your last question,the thing that is improved by having more humans around is more innovation and more trade. Human capital is the most precious resource we have. It is the one thing we want more of, not less.

1) [...] People are brains with a meatshell to get them around (and to enjoy carnal pleasures, but you know what I mean). The more brains there are, the more total processing power we have as a species.

2) Resistance to extinction. The more individuals there are, the more likely that during the next major extinction event there will be enough of the ones with the right resistance/mutation/etc. to keep the ball rolling.

3) More beautiful women. There can never, ever be "too many" beautiful women. Ever.

[...] larger population holds a larger absolute number of geniuses, and therefore is more innovative than a smaller population, which leads to faster improvement its quality of life.

to which you responded, more or less, what about the poor genius SOB who has no chance to develop his/her potential and create the innovation. Yes, there always will be squandered potential. Nonetheless, the more people, the more potential to be drawn from. The question is how to reduce the squandered potential? You, it seems, would have it by population control, following the logic that the less people, the less of the potential is lost since there is less to begin with. I would prefer finding ways to harness the potential that is currently squandered. Find ways to provide the opportunities for the geniuses to thrive--this, it seems, is the constructive approach to the problem. In other words, wouldn't the world be better off if more people had the opportunity to develop their potential? But how can you develop your potential if all you can think of is when will you have your next meal?

Regarding the population and its control, I have heard a very insightful statement, source of which I don't remember: There is no better contraceptive than the confidence that your child(ren) will survive. In wealthy societies, people have that confidence, hence low birth rate.

Another issue is how children are viewed. In poor societies, children are assets: they are the people who will take care of you when you grow old or get sick. In affluent societies, they are a liability: it cost (money, time, resources) to raise them. So, get people rich, and the growth rate will decline, even without draconian rules or laws. This is actually happening in China now. My Chinese friends tell me that while it used to be that the law discouraged people from having large families, nowadays it is the decision of parents to delay and/or limit the number of children they want to have, and this is beginning to worry the government.

So, you see, the root cause is not the population size itself, or limited resources, but rather the limited access to opportunities.
J.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

I suspect Russia negative growth is reversing; nothing like a decade long (or longer) growth spurt to encourage families to start having more kids.

It is possible that the reverse of what you surmise is also correct. Nothing like a decade long recession, depression to discourage families from having more children.

Warren Brussee suggested such in a book predicting a second depression starting 2007 ending 2020. Of course that doesn't mean it would occur.

When I think about the bleakness of bringing children into the world in Africa, and I have nothing against Africa--it's just been continuously in the news for 50 years about starvation as I recall--such bleakness must minimally affect considerations for reproduction. Perhaps ignorance is so great, some people really don't know what causes babies, but I doubt it if one watches dogs, cats, birds, cattle, etc.

[GRG55]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

How you going to do it?
They tried forced sterilisation in India, it was an abject failure and wasn't very popular.

Nonetheless I think your idea has merit; let's start with the worst offenders, Citizens of the US and Canada:


(pic courtesy Sudden Debt)

If we dam all our rivers for climate friendly hydro-power, and get our energy situation to match Norway, will we be spared? :rolleyes:

[c1ue]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

It is possible that the reverse of what you surmise is also correct. Nothing like a decade long recession, depression to discourage families from having more children.

I assume you mean the United States, not Russia.

I have pointed out that if the economic situation gets ugly here, it is likely that 30M recent immigrants will leave to go back home - illegal and legal both.

Combine that with less money = negative replacement rate, we might see the underside of 300M again.

Crime levels - at least in the Bay Area - are all accelerating just as expected.

No doubt alcoholism and what not will also start going back up, DUIs no longer mattering when you can't afford to drive anyway!

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

Jim,
It is NOT true that "no one has put forth or defined a benefit from ongoing unchecked population growth." I count at least three (BiscayneSunrise, Judas, and myself). Unfortunately, your response to them appear to be largely dismissive, focusing on the negative.

So, here are the statements again


to which you responded, more or less, what about the poor genius SOB who has no chance to develop his/her potential and create the innovation. Yes, there always will be squandered potential. Nonetheless, the more people, the more potential to be drawn from. The question is how to reduce the squandered potential? You, it seems, would have it by population control, following the logic that the less people, the less of the potential is lost since there is less to begin with. I would prefer finding ways to harness the potential that is currently squandered. Find ways to provide the opportunities for the geniuses to thrive--this, it seems, is the constructive approach to the problem. In other words, wouldn't the world be better off if more people had the opportunity to develop their potential? But how can you develop your potential if all you can think of is when will you have your next meal?

Regarding the population and its control, I have heard a very insightful statement, source of which I don't remember: There is no better contraceptive than the confidence that your child(ren) will survive. In wealthy societies, people have that confidence, hence low birth rate.

Another issue is how children are viewed. In poor societies, children are assets: they are the people who will take care of you when you grow old or get sick. In affluent societies, they are a liability: it cost (money, time, resources) to raise them. So, get people rich, and the growth rate will decline, even without draconian rules or laws. This is actually happening in China now. My Chinese friends tell me that while it used to be that the law discouraged people from having large families, nowadays it is the decision of parents to delay and/or limit the number of children they want to have, and this is beginning to worry the government.

So, you see, the root cause is not the population size itself, or limited resources, but rather the limited access to opportunities.
J.

Nice work, Jam, I take your point that I have been dismissive because of my bias, I apologize.

Let's see how does this innovation process work? One has ideas but then one has to fund them, and they seem only to receive funding if someone(s) think they can make a lot of money from the innovation. Look at Apple perhaps as an example of innovative success.

Will drug makers search for new drugs unless they see a profit from doing so? How troublesome has it been to get the drugs for AIDS suppression that exist so far into application in Africa and other 3rd world countries?

So no doubt there can be innovation, heavens only knows what lies ahead, but innovations costs money to those who are capable of utilizing them. In my almost 67 years, I can remember calling my parents at work when the way it was done was to pick up the receiver on the phone and to hear, "Number, please?" to where now I could push one key and dial Groningen or anywhere for that matter. Wow! And the internet. Double WOW!!

High def. TV, I guess that is an innovation that has made a lot of money when incorporated into flat TV's and situated in one's home theater with programmable remotes. My SUV is safer than I could ever have imagined any vehicle could become from when I was 16. Many of my clocks keep correct time automatically, and this computer I'm using is still amazing to me as to what it can do--most of which I don't or can't even use for lack of need. Don't forget microwave ovens, and my programmable coffee pot and thermostat for HVAC. Satellite TV that I can carry with me when I can afford to go trailering.

500 to 1K gigabite disks for sale this weekend for less than ~$250, who would have guessed? GPS systems that allow trees to be saved by decreasing the need for paper maps. Wifi networks out in the communities and at the home of really cheap coffee--StarBucks. Scientists talking about the possibility of extending lives to 120-150 years.

And yet today there are still people dying of starvation, from the poor choice of building cities on fault lines, from living in inadequate structures by the seas because of necessity, and where is the "trickle-down" innovations that change the way people live--that is: all people.

I think on these fora, iTulip has posted graphs showing the discrepancies between rich and poor and how that gap is increasing. Innovation is great fun for the rich and idle, but it seems to me that the thrust of innovation in mainly to produce things that will generate profits and be appealing enough in some utilititarian manner or entertainment manner to be sought after my those with money.

Perhaps GMO seeds will lessen some of the problems with crop production, but it will take a lot of innovation to grow a grain of corn without water, and GMO seeds mainly exist because the profit motive supported the development of them is my surmise.

Your last point, Jam, that resources are not limited. Simple logic tell me there has to be a limit, unless somethings that are finite get innovated into infinite.

Can you imagine a situation of steadily increasing population which does not go hand in hand with some limit to opportunities? So far that seems to be the way we are headed, more people with greater difficulties for those at the the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder having much in the way of opportunities to drink, eat, be educated, enjoy reasonable health even from public health measures, or to find employment.

[Judas]

Re: What problems facing the world today would not be aided by population reduction?

Jim, you have still failed to debunk my "more beautiful women are a good thing" point!