World, Writing, Wealth discussion
Wealth & Economics
>
If there were just enough food for the entire humanity..
I forgot to add that sperm count reduction does not automatically lead to birth rate reduction. Lots of sperm in lots of males.I suspect reason is the pill in water processing in the west i.e. very small traces over long term
The true impact on birth rates is women's access to birth control (including abortion) which is also directly linked to women's rights and education. Likewise richer nations don't need kids as workhorses as mentioned elsewhere i.e. slave labour to take care of ageing family
Philip wrote: "I forgot to add that sperm count reduction does not automatically lead to birth rate reduction. Lots of sperm in lots of males.I suspect reason is the pill in water processing in the west i.e. ve..."
Noted. There is still plenty of sperm... (until there isn't).
The true tale is in the declining fertility rate.
Ian wrote: "That would be a move. Maybe Germany would walk in support of Poland, and the EU would have a financial crisis. There are many fanciful scenarios :-)"Poland could be the undoing of the EU.
Graeme, one question. Despite sperm problems, etc., and thinking as I always do about the earth's resources, by how many million people did the population grow from 2020 to 2021? Not the growth rate, but the actual increase in the number of people?
67 million this year according to https://www.worldometers.info/world-p...US population increased by 2 mil 2019-2020 despite start of COVID
Thanks Philip.Scout I have no dispute about world population numbers, yes they are increasing.
Let's accept for the sake of argument that this 2019 UN report is correct.
"The world’s population is expected to increase by 2 billion persons in the next 30 years, from 7.7 billion currently to 9.7 billion in 2050, according to a new United Nations report launched today.
The World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights, which is published by the Population Division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, provides a comprehensive overview of global demographic patterns and prospects. The study concluded that the world’s population could reach its peak around the end of the current century, at a level of nearly 11 billion.
The report also confirmed that the world’s population is growing older due to increasing life expectancy and falling fertility levels, and that the number of countries experiencing a reduction in population size is growing. The resulting changes in the size, composition and distribution of the world’s population have important consequences for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the globally agreed targets for improving economic prosperity and social well-being while protecting the environment."
REF: https://www.un.org/development/desa/e...
My basic contention on population is that the decline in fertility is the elephant in the room that is habitually (and culturally) ignored. I really think that most people just don't think about it, and don't realise just how powerful a factor it is.
Consider this
[1] Fertility rate is the strongest determinant of population levels and economic development drops the fertility rate.
"There are two important relationships that help explain how the level of development of a country affects its population growth rates:
Fertility rate is the parameter which matters most for population changes – it is the strongest determinant;
As a country gets richer (or ‘more developed’), fertility rates tend to fall.
Combining these two relationships, we would expect that as a country develops, population growth rates decline."
REF: https://ourworldindata.org/world-popu...
and this
[2] Rapid fertility drops occurring in recent history, and the fact that fertility drops now happen faster (e.g. Iran) than they did in the past (UK, USA, etc).
"The decline of the fertility rate is one of the most fundamental social changes that happened in human history. It is therefore especially surprising how very rapidly this transition can indeed happen.
This visualization shows the speed of the decline of fertility rates. It took Iran only 10 years for fertility to fall from more than 6 children per woman to fewer than 3 children per woman. China made this transition in 11 years – before the introduction of the one-child policy.
We also see from the chart that the speed with which countries can make the transition to low fertility rates has increased over time. In the 19th century it took the United Kingdom 95 years and the US 82 years to reduce fertility from more than 6 to less than 3.
This is a pattern that we see often in development: those countries that first experience social change take much longer for transitions than those who catch up later: Countries that were catching up increased life expectancy much faster, they reduced child mortality more quickly and were able to grow their incomes much more rapidly."
REF: https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-...
There are some key points here.
[1] Fertility is the prime determinant of total population.
[2] Economic development reduces fertility.
[3] Fertility drops are becoming more rapid (e.g. Iran) and hence fertility can drop very quickly, even in intensely patriarchal societies like Iran.
Now all that said... ref next comment.
(Correct me if I'm wrong.) My understanding of Philip and Scout's argument is that population per se is not the issue, it is the consumption of resources, creation of pollution, that those 'extra,' people will create and/or simply running out of existing resources that will create a number of coalescing catastrophes and that your position can be summarised as follows.Our current population/resource consumption/pollution production circumstance too high to continue, and that increasing population and economic development will only make this worse and cause the inevitable catastrophe of resource depletion and irretrievable pollution to overwhelm our world and society causing at least civilizational collapse and at worst ecocide.
Is that correct?
Is the real issues about resources and pollution, as opposed to population numbers?
Graeme wrote: "Is the real issues about resources and pollution, as opposed to population numbers?"In my opinion, yes. There are too many fish in the bowl for the available resources.
Of course, it's not about sheer quantity. One corporate giant - can possibly pollute more than the entire Africa. Carless people may leave a low carbon imprint and so on...One/few person/corporation can have a near monopolistic hold over certain resources...
Graeme wrote: "(Correct me if I'm wrong.) My understanding of Philip and Scout's argument is that population per se is not the issue, it is the consumption of resources, creation of pollution, that those 'extra,'..."Yes that is my main concern. I agree with the fertility analysis by the way; however, by the time the fertility elephant kicks in there will be another 2 billion (maybe more) on the planet and to achieve fertility reduction development will occur which means consumption.
e.g. take meat eating in China as an increase and already showing signs in India
The effects of <8 billion consumption is already well on the way to creating irreversible climate change. Nothing happening other that more hot air to actually reduce consumption and CO2 production now - all promises for the future some a long way into the future e.g. Saudi by 2060, China by 2050 Australia by 2050 is way to late for net zero carbon.
By then we'll be over 9 billion and still rising. Healthcare improvements will increase life expectancy so although fertility may be declining life expectancy in largest populations will also be increasing rapidly
Politicians seem to love making pledges for things where severe act5ioj is required 20 - 40 years out. They then do very little on the grounds they have plenty of time. On climate change, i seem to rev=call serious pledges being made to cut emissions in the 1990s, and all that has happened is they have increased just about everywhere. There has been a lot of trade in carbon credits, though so the odd oligarch has probably made a fistful of dollars.
Ian wrote: "Politicians seem to love making pledges for things where severe act5ioj is required 20 - 40 years out. They then do very little on the grounds they have plenty of time. On climate change, i seem to..."Today, the Prime Minister of Canuckistan pledged...
Translation:
"A politician made a promise..."
I am not worried about the resources. Mankind will figure it out. The biggest determination is education of girls. The more girls are educated, the less children they have. The population will top off before starting to decline within the next thirty years or so.
I see your point, Philip. I am worried about water. If population continues to grow, that resource in not renewable, as far as I know, and it's necessary for life. I've read that the amount of water on Earth is the same as it was when Earth cooled and became the planet we know. Maybe there's a way to make more water? And, again, I'll say that Earth can probably support more people, but won't quality of life suffer?
There is no shortage of water. The problem is, most of it is too salty, and the fresh water tends to be localised to certain spots. Rain is what you need, but in regular modest amounts, and we tend to get little most of the time then huge deluges that are useless for the problem.
Scout wrote: "I see your point, Philip. I am worried about water. If population continues to grow, that resource in not renewable, as far as I know, and it's necessary for life. I've read that the amount of wate..."Living in the desert like conditions, most of Israel's water comes from desalination: https://www.gov.il/en/departments/gen... , which should amount to 85-90% in the nearest future and which is also exported to neighboring countries...
Desalination is difficult if you live in Uzbekistan, so it is not a Universal solution,.
The raw material, i.e sea water 💦 is abundant, transportation to sealess, landlocked countries is solvable. Besides with sea level rising it might come a little closer 😫
It will take a lot of effort to move it to Uzbekistan, and what do you do with the salt?
Ian wrote: "It will take a lot of effort to move it to Uzbekistan, and what do you do with the salt?"Sell it on the open market. Where do you think table salt comes from?
Fleur de Sel and Maldon salt bring in a premium. I'm sure that the Israelis could come up with a DOP for their sea salt which doesn't interfere with the Dead Sea Salt market.
There are many stans - the market would be flooded. And, of course, you have some serious pipework to construct, liable to be blown up in some of these unstable parts of the world.Israel doesn't have a salt problem. desalination on the coast just returns highly salty water to the sea.
Ian wrote: "There are many stans - the market would be flooded. And, of course, you have some serious pipework to construct, liable to be blown up in some of these unstable parts of the world.Israel doesn't ..."
The sea has the salt problem which is also of concern generally even without desalination plants - appreciate they are a drop in the ocean...
As long as there is enough sea water and an available tech to turn it potable the problem is manageable..
I disagree. Increase the salinity of the ocean and you're messing with nature. Are we going to deplete the ocean of water while making it into the Dead Sea? How far can you go with this before it's destructive and comes back to bite us?
I strongly suspect that the ocean is not about to become too salty.Desalinisation -> Fresh water -> Used by people -> Goes back into the hydrological cycle -> ends up in the ocean.
What Graeme said, plus if polar caps melt they should further dilute the salt...
Evaporation increase salinity (Yes melting polar caps would reduce it but other issues with that)Therefore warmer climate means more evaporation and more water in atmosphere.
Salinity impact can be seen in coral reef damage or fish species. i.e. hoping melting polar ice caps may correct this imbalance seems a bit extreme.
Unfortunately long term salinity measurement does not go back very far and there are significant variants even with oceans and seas. Thus trends; however, other indications may show the change i.e. 01.% change may be enough to kill a coral species - we don't know just as we claim we don't know what % increase in carbon is doing to our bodies let alone the climate.
We do know Nitrus Oxide is pretty bad from car pollution.
Are our water treatment plants designed to reduce salinity? We know that too much salt in diet can be bad for humans - I am therefore thinking that an increase in salinity is not good for fish?
Ok, all....Going back to brass tacks. I contend that the 'overpopulation,' narrative is a 'scare campaign,' from the beginning.
EXHIBIT 1: An Essay on the Principle of Population: The Future Improvement of Society. Ok. Malthus postulated over 2 centuries ago that population would grow exponentially and food would grow arithmetically.
His name became the moniker of a movement: Malthusian.
His central thesis is false on both points.
[1] Population is following an 'S,' curve, first peaking then declining.
[2] Food production exceeds the needs of the population (we produce food for 10B people where there are < 8B people. People go hungry due to poverty - not overpopulation.)
He's been wrong for a long time...
How much longer does he have to be wrong before we admit he was wrong?
I.e. What event would have to happen (beyond the last 220+ years) to prove Malthus wrong?
Graeme wrote: "... How much longer does he have to be wrong before we admit he was wrong?I.e. What event would have to happen (beyond the last 220+ years) to prove Malthus wrong?..."
Any theory is validated if it predicts accurate results regarding a specific practical field it attempts to explain, thus if the population doesn't double every 25 years - it's at least inaccurate, and inoperable in building forecast models..
Funny how the guys who are most vocal about the problems of over population (Gates, Schwab, etc.) are the keenest to save lives through vaccines. Are they lacking joined-up thinking or should we be in conspiracy theory territory?
Beau wrote: "Funny how the guys who are most vocal about the problems of over population (Gates, Schwab, etc.) are the keenest to save lives through vaccines. Are they lacking joined-up thinking or should we be..."I guess worrying about overpopulation shouldn't necessarily be accompanied by indifference or encouragement of the loss of human life or worse yet - active diluting of population. See nothing wrong with the principle of sanctity of human life..
And btw, some conspiracists claim vaccines are designed to curtail fertility :)
Nik wrote: "I guess worrying about overpopulation shouldn't necessarily be accompanied by indifference or encouragement of the loss of human life or worse yet - active diluting of population. See nothing wrong with the principle of sanctity of human life..
And btw, some conspiracists claim vaccines are designed to curtail fertility :)"
Yes, I’ve heard that too. Don’t believe it but I’ve heard it. They need to tell us what they want – a population that is living longer or less people. Which is it? Can’t be both. Well, I suppose it could be if the conspiracy theory was right.
And btw, some conspiracists claim vaccines are designed to curtail fertility :)"
Yes, I’ve heard that too. Don’t believe it but I’ve heard it. They need to tell us what they want – a population that is living longer or less people. Which is it? Can’t be both. Well, I suppose it could be if the conspiracy theory was right.
Whatever they think they should apply it to themselves
Graeme wrote: "I strongly suspect that the ocean is not about to become too salty.Desalinisation -> Fresh water -> Used by people -> Goes back into the hydrological cycle -> ends up in the ocean."
I agree with that statement. You lose more water per hour to evaporation than is desalinated everyday.
Just read in Guardian on line that Arabian Gulf has a 20% increase in salinity which is destroying marine life - cause is desalination plants - can't see a scientific reference report. Article is about climate change pledges by Arabian Gulf nationshttps://www.theguardian.com/environme...
Philip wrote: "Just read in Guardian on line that Arabian Gulf has a 20% increase in salinity which is destroying marine life - cause is desalination plants - can't see a scientific reference report. Article is a..."Found this MIT study directly pertinent to the salinity in the area: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/...
As far as I see their conclusion is that brine discharge has little influence on the basin's salinity as a whole 0.3g/kg, but does have significant regional impact thus near Bahrain, increasing by 4.5g/kg... But I'd taken only a superficial look into conclusions.
And some more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
Surely, an issue to consider...
Maybe brine can be used to open pickle plants instead? :)
Oh, my. I'll have to do some research on desalination. I can't imagine that it's good for the ocean's creatures, but I'll find out. As population grows, are we going to depend solely on the ocean to provide potable water? At some point this won't be viable. Then what? Dehydrating people when they die to harvest their H2O? Who wants to live in that world? Or we could just do something to reduce population, which grew this past year by about 81 million. The projection is that in 2050 there will be 2 billion more people on the planet taking up resources and producing trash.https://www.worldometers.info/world-p...
Looking only at the growth rate doesn't give a clear picture of what's happening with population. What's your take on this?
Scout wrote: "Oh, my. I'll have to do some research on desalination. I can't imagine that it's good for the ocean's creatures, but I'll find out. As population grows, are we going to depend solely on the ocean t..."My concern all along 0 although taking Graeme's points on long term fertility. I think by then it will be too late. Seven billion are busy overheating and destroying the environment - 9 billion will do more of the same - if there is anything left.
Heard Maldives interviewed at COP26. Beautiful islands - they will all be gone with a 1m rise in sea level. Their sea wildlife will be gone with salinity increase or bleaching of reefs
Scout wrote: "Or we could just do something to reduce population.."We are talking, Chinese are doing: what with unleashing the virus and encouraging 1 kid families in the past :)
Nik wrote: "Scout wrote: "Or we could just do something to reduce population.."We are talking, Chinese are doing: what with unleashing the virus and encouraging 1 kid families in the past :)"
So that was the point of COVID :-/ pretty big fail.
Philip wrote: "So that was the point of COVID :-/ pretty big fail...."The scary thought would be that it was just a drill and the real thing awaits its hour ...
Nik wrote: "Philip wrote: "So that was the point of COVID :-/ pretty big fail...."The scary thought would be that it was just a drill and the real thing awaits its hour ..."
Beau - add that to the conspiracy list
There are 81 million more people this year than last. That's 81 million more who drink water, use natural resources to build shelter and encroach on forested land, who produce trash and waste every day that has to be dealt with. More forests have to be cut down for farm land to produce food. Not to mention those who drive cars, use computers and cell phones that also require resources to produce and operate. Millions more on the grid. And in this throw-away world, many of those people will buy new appliances, clothes, furniture, etc., all of which don't appear magically, and the old stuff will go into dumps. Take, take, consume, without replenishing what they take. And next year, millions more people doing the same. If you're not worried about this, I'd like to know why.
Scout wrote: "There are 81 million more people this year than last. That's 81 million more who drink water, use natural resources to build shelter and encroach on forested land, who produce trash and waste every..."I am...
Scout wrote: "There are 81 million more people this year than last. That's 81 million more who drink water, use natural resources to build shelter and encroach on forested land, who produce trash and waste every..."I am not nearly as worried as the rest of the world. To give you an idea, if you take the entire world and stick it into Texas, it would have the density of New Jersey. New Jersey is still more than half farmland. That is not to say there are not problems and concerns, but they tend to be ironed out over the next 50 years as both technology changes to cleaner avenues and the population starts to decline. Believe it or not, countries are taking cleaning up seriously.
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
An Essay on the Principle of Population: The Future Improvement of Society (other topics)The Children of Men (other topics)
Make Room! Make Room! (other topics)
The Population Bomb (other topics)
An Essay on the Principle of Population (other topics)
More...
Is it a little something in the water? Or the processed foods? Or is Western civilisation simply doomed to die out?
Overpopulation is a fear in the process of becoming a myth."
Not unless all the world's statisticians are lying and I don't think they are because there doesn't seem to be any decline outside the West.