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?

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.




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 ;).



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, whoever you are, you apparently have it figured out. I hope you are right for the sake of mankind. As I've written before, solving the problem will not end up on my "to do" list.

I found the article put forth by Olduvai informative with regard to what Earth may face with regard to population control over the next 25-150 years--which isn't spit with regard to time. Perhaps the dude who wrote it, Paul Chefurka, doesn't know his nose from his elbow, but who knows? I don't.

[Jim Nickerson]

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, your questions, which I take as your asking in 100% seriousness, are asinine.

Because of ever decreasing time on Earth, as we all have, some exercises are totally wasteful of that time. Such exercises would be those dealing with how anyone would respond to an unreal scenario. You know, like you whiling away your remaining minutes seriously thinking of what you would do if you won a 100B bonar jackpot when you don't even play the lotto. It will not be I who determines who lives and dies because of what might turn out to be "systems failure" of the planet.

Several years back, I spent a few minutes looking on the web for information about population control, and as I recall there is a lot of information out there--way more than I need to know. But were I of childbearing age and thought being a father would be a nice thing for me and wife, then I would at this time in history, even as an American, ask the question of just how good an idea would it be for the child? And in my opinion boning up on the considerations of overpopulation of the planet should be worth any prospective parent's time.