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

[Guest]

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

Let me refute!

1- total processing power? It's not a hydroelectric dam. More geniuses will be born. But so will more mouths for them to feed, more murderers, more mentally and physically deformed, etc. Only if we increased the proportion of brainpower to humans might this be a positive. Or are we still going with the "the guy who invents a way to power cars with water hasn't been born yet" theory?
2- Actually past a point the converse is true. Too many people and it could cause extinction through resource exhaustion, warfare over resources, etc.
3- And more guys to compete for them!

Just as in nature, you can proactively limit population or you can wait for mother nature, etc to do it for you. Consider simply reducing birthrates a "controlled burn" rather than a conflagration in the forest.

I have no idea what an ideal population would be. Even if we've reached it. But in my own life I can say that I prefered the population level of about 25 years ago to that of today.

[Guest]

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

Poverty alone does not prevent population growth.



http://www.pedicabnews.com/?attachment_id=807

So much for the "but I need my SUV" theories. This seats more than a Suburban! : )

[Jim Nickerson]

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

In Mark Steyn's "America Alone" he went on a lot about how they're not having enough births to replace themselves. Of course bad economic times could have been the problem, and with improvement they'll "get back on the horse", so to speak.

As for ways to reduce population, a lot of folks here have implied it requires some draconian measures. I don't think that's the case. We could start simply by not endorsing and subsidizing it! We give tax breaks and credits for kids, when if you think about it one should be paying MORE taxes if you have children, since they consume more govn't services and you'll need to cover their share till age 18 or so. It's one thing if there was a people shortage to encourage it through subsidy, but last I checked the commute to work here was 1.5 hours. I'm guessing we're well stocked at the moment.

Through "public education" we force the childless to pay for much of the cost of the children of others' education. We provide a plethora of "free" healthcare and other services for children that we don't for adults. So simply not subsidizing it would probably have some effect on birthrates. I'm not arguing for/against any of these, just saying the cause/effect.

Then you could move onto some active tactics. In some cases merely offering 10 free lotto tickets in exchange for becoming sterilized would suffice. In others it might require a cash payment in exchange for limiting childbearing. So have 10 kids if you choose. Or have none and enjoy your new car your subsidy bought you. Decide to have a kid later? You owe us $25K plus interest.

It's funny how we call it "an illegal pyramid scheme" when someone relies on a continual exponetially expanding pool of people to fund some financial endeavor like water filters, but it's "growth...and growth is always good" when we rely on simply pumping more people into the world to support growth of the economy or a city or whatever. As if getting bigger is de-facto better. A population density either too low or too high, taken to extremes is obviously bad. 1 person per state would be kind of sad. But so would 500 million. So obviously there's a balance there somewhere.

Bruce,

I think your comments are quite insightful.

I also enjoyed your analysis from which the quote below is taken.

Part of the reason our economy is in the mess its in now is this misplaced sense of responsibility for the bad decision making of others. The implied idea seems to be that somehow we must all chip in to cover for fools who make bad choices so they can do whatever they choose. Knowing we stand ready as a safety net encourages improper financial planning and use of money over time, and is a big reason the dollar isn't worth what it was and our economic future is saddled with big problems concerning entitlements and obligations. The fact is, we're a wealthy nation, but we were never so wealthy that the burden can be carried by a small minority of the productive. It ignores human nature's tendency to seek the path of least resistance. In the end we'll all be taken down by it if we don't wise up.

As I read your quoted comment just above. It occurred to me that the essence of your thinking could be applicable in this thread if a few words were modified. The modification is in blue and your original wording in [ ]'s.

"Part of the reason people are starving, uneducated, unemployed [our economy is in the mess its in now] is this misplaced sense of responsibility for the bad decision making of others. The implied idea seems to be that somehow we must all chip in to cover for fools who make bad choices so they can do whatever they choose. Knowing we stand ready as a safety net encourages improper family planning [financial planning] and use of resources [money] over time, and is a big reason the resources are stretched [dollar isn't worth what it was] and our economic future is saddled with big problems concerning survival and quality of life for so many humans [entitlements and obligations]. The fact is, we're a wealthy world [nation], but we were never so wealthy that the burden can be carried by a small minority of the productive. It ignores human nature's tendency to seek the path of least resistance. In the end we'll all be taken down by it if we don't wise up."

That I made those changes does not imply that the meaning as now put forth by my changes would in any way represent your thinking about any aspect of population control.

[Jam]

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

Indeed, one could well argue that poverty is a catalyst for population growth.

[Jam]

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

Let me refute!

1- total processing power? It's not a hydroelectric dam. More geniuses will be born. But so will more mouths for them to feed, more murderers, more mentally and physically deformed, etc. Only if we increased the proportion of brainpower to humans might this be a positive. Or are we still going with the "the guy who invents a way to power cars with water hasn't been born yet" theory?

Very true, it is not like a dam. In fact it is way better as what happens is what is known as a network effect. A a brain does not operate in vacuum but rather feeds off of ideas of other. The result is that doubling the number of geniuses does not merely double the innovativeness, but nearly quadruples it.

Think of it in terms of the internet or a telephone network. If we have a single person with a phone, it is not much of use (who is (s)he going to talk to?). Adding one merely makes a 1-to-1 connection possible. If you go to four users, it is not merely two 1-to-1 connections, you end up with six such 1-to-1 connections, and if you allow conference calling, the number increases further. And so on.

Similar situation is with the innovators. Being able to communicate with others, just as smart or smarter than you are (or simply those who have a different background/perspective) accelerates the innovation process.

So, given that the number of 'mouths to feed' increases linearly with the population size, and the inventiveness follows at least a square law, the advantage points to larger population.

2- Actually past a point the converse is true. Too many people and it could cause extinction through resource exhaustion, warfare over resources, etc.

This point I actually agree with . The only difficulty is in defining resource exhaustion. Given that there are some 10^79 atoms in the observable universe, while a person requires less than 10^35 atoms to live comfortably (that includes a house, SUV, private beach, etc.), we seem to have a lot of head room there ;).

3- And more guys to compete for them!

That's assuming that you feel you really must have all those beautiful women ;).

Just as in nature, you can proactively limit population or you can wait for mother nature, etc to do it for you. Consider simply reducing birthrates a "controlled burn" rather than a conflagration in the forest.

As I pointed out before, the best contraceptive is the confidence that your child(ren) are going to survive. Affluence is the surest way to reduce and even reverse population growth.

I have no idea what an ideal population would be. Even if we've reached it. But in my own life I can say that I prefered the population level of about 25 years ago to that of today.

That's funny, my late dad would at times get worked up about the number of people in the world, and how a war or something would be useful to bring it down to a reasonable level. That was about 30 years ago.

Cheers,
J.

[Olduvai]

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

Worth reading ;
http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/2516
Ideal populationlevels are completely arbitrary when confronted with "the elephant in the room".

[Verrocchio]

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

I doubt that the human population can be sustained at the current level. Ocean fisheries are badly depleted, we've reached a crisis point with extraction and consumption of fossil fuels (with deleterious knock-on effects on most sectors of the economy, but most especially, agriculture), potable water is becoming scarce in many parts of the world; I think iTulip readers are familiar with this litany. Jim, the problem that you've posed is as serious as any.

Like you, Jim, the author of the article below sees "these supposedly separate crises [as] facets of one straightforward, if intractable, phenomenon [overpopulation]."

A reduction in human numbers is inevitable...billions will die. Get over it.

See the article here.

[Judas]

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

Let me refute!

1- total processing power? It's not a hydroelectric dam. More geniuses will be born. But so will more mouths for them to feed, more murderers, more mentally and physically deformed, etc. Only if we increased the proportion of brainpower to humans might this be a positive. Or are we still going with the "the guy who invents a way to power cars with water hasn't been born yet" theory?
2- Actually past a point the converse is true. Too many people and it could cause extinction through resource exhaustion, warfare over resources, etc.
3- And more guys to compete for them!

I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek you know. :p

I have no idea what an ideal population would be. Even if we've reached it. But in my own life I can say that I prefered the population level of about 25 years ago to that of today.

I would say more like 50 years ago myself. The problem is that getting there will be very, very painful for a lot of folks.

[algerwetmore]

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

I have a friend, who was a special education teacher, whose theory I will never forget. He always claimed the lower the IQ, the more propensity for children and lots of 'em!
So while many upscale yuppies were experiencing fertility problems, the what-me-worry crowd kept churning out newbies.

[Jam]

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

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.

Jim,
I am not exactly sure what point are you trying to make here. Yes, of course, most inventions do not benefit everybody on the planet. The invention of an artificial hip joint does not improve my quality of life a bit, and neither does the invention of a rollable plastic water drum that alleviates the effort of bringing water from a local well in some African regions where hitherto it was carried in large ceramic vessels on heads of women. Indeed, most inventions do not benefit anybody (most of the 6M+ patents in the US never made it to market and did not make a dime for their inventors). Nonetheless, I don't think you can (successfully) argue that inventions, in general, do not improve the quality of (human) life on this planet, in general. (I should point out, perhaps, that not only technical inventions matter; innovation in organization, business models, political process, etc. is no less important).

It is all a numbers game. So, the question is, whether the innovations had a net positive effect on human life? The answer is a resounding yes. Think in a time scale of 100 years. The innovations made a few fabulously better off than a century ago. A lot of people are considerably better off. For some it made little difference. And, arguably, they added to the plight of some, such as the nomadic people who were forced to settle as a result of the development of political regimes controlling their land. However, percentage-wise, I believe a larger fraction of population live a more comfortable or more bearable life than a hundred years ago. If you want it in absolute numbers, here it is: at present time more people are not starving than at any time in history.

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.

You don't really need infinity (at least for now ). Here is a copy of the relevant part from my other post:
Given that there are some 10^79 atoms in the observable universe, while a person requires less than 10^35 atoms to live comfortably (that includes a house, SUV, private beach, etc.), we seem to have a lot of head room there ;).

Can you imagine a situation of steadily increasing population which does not go hand in hand with some limit to opportunities?

Yes, I can. In fact, I have been witnessing the increase in opportunities while the population grew over as long as I have lived. History teaches us the same.

J.

[Jam]

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

I have a friend, who was a special education teacher, whose theory I will never forget. He always claimed the lower the IQ, the more propensity for children and lots of 'em!
So while many upscale yuppies were experiencing fertility problems, the what-me-worry crowd kept churning out newbies.

To see where it leads, see the movie Idiocracy .

[Jam]

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

Jim,
As usual the devil is in the details. Perhaps I initially made my point too subtle, so let me restate it as clear as I can. Which half of the population would you see go? Please be as precise as you can, though I don't expect names or social security numbers . So, please answer these two questions:
1. Disappearing of which 50% of the population would benefit the remaining 50%.
2. Exactly how the remaining 50% would benefit from the disposition of their brethren.

Thanks,
J.

[Jam]

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

Jim,
As usual the devil is in the details. Perhaps I initially made my point too subtle, so let me restate it as clear as I can. Which half of the population would you see go? Please be as precise as you can, though I don't expect names or social security numbers . So, please answer these two questions:
1. Disappearing of which 50% of the population would benefit the remaining 50%.
2. Exactly how the remaining 50% would benefit from the disposition of their brethren.

Thanks,
J.

[mcgurme]

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

Jim,

I think you are falling into the trap of thinking there are limited options for humans and assuming we are always constrained by our environment. That sort of thinking was what gave the world eugenics. Seductive to the shallow thinker but a siren song that leads to destruction.

Yes, at first glance, we could list a whole litany of problems that we think could be solved by population reduction. Or would they? For instance, in the short term, the Chinese one child rule worked great, in the longer term it is becoming problematic.

What problems do we have today that weren't around in some form over the millennia? Hunger? War? Limited resources? Urban congestion? Is the world a better place now than it was 20 years ago? 200 years ago?, 2,000 years ago? I think by any metric the answer has to be yes.

But let's say, we agree with your premise. What number, then, should we use as the ideal carrying population? 4 Billion, 1 Billion? Less? More? At what population number was the world ever an ideal place.

We don't know what the ideal carrying capacity is because the carrying capacity of the earth changes with technological improvement. Remember, we (homo sapiens) are the smart ones. We've been figuring our way out of crisis after crisis for 40,000 plus years. Why would things change now?

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.

The population is growing exponentially. Do you really claim that technology can exponentially improve food output, in a time when we have reached peak oil? That's insane.

[Jim Nickerson]

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

Worth reading ;
http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/2516
Ideal populationlevels are completely arbitrary when confronted with "the elephant in the room".

I read that article, Olduvai, and in my opinion your recommendation should be followed by anyone who expects to be alive 75 years from now, or who expects that perhaps their children or grandchildren will be.

Based on that guy's prognostications, my off the cuff suggestion that at least a 50% reduction in population might be a good start, I was off by 2.3 Billion humans, meaning were his model in anyone's wildest dreams to come to fruition, that we need 5.6 billion less humans than the estimated 6.6 billion current humans.

I am sure experts could argue with the guy's perceptions and projections, but to argue with them would be a waste of most people's time because of their lack of expertise.