Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Population Down or Shut UP!

by ormondotvos Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 06:22:07 PM EST

<rant> I'm getting pretty tired of reality-deficient brain food around here.

You can't talk about economics and ignore "growth as cancer."

You can't talk about pollution and ignore population as driver.

When you do, even the most dense and unsublime reader will just turn you off.

We have plenty of people. Too many. And however you recoil in horror, something will be done, advertently by us, or inadvertently by allowing the algorithm to run its natural course, by population collapse through starvation, war, disease, etc.

But no one wants to talk about it. I welcome some sane views on population reduction that include religion, education of women, wealth redistribution, diet change, and other scientific (science include sociology) means.</rant>

That's a provocative post ormondotvos, but not really a Diary I think...

Maybe I'm being picky: it's late, my time....

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 06:44:18 PM EST
A sterling example of nitpicking.

I'll shut up and go back to PFF.

Ivory tower academicians, jeebus...

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 07:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is an issue worth being discussed and it would make a very interesting diary if at least you presented your sane (or insane) views on the possible solutions or ways to tackle the problem.

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Sat Dec 15th, 2007 at 05:06:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It most certainly does get discussed here. We haven't had too many "doomer reality" threads here for the past few months. But there is no shortage of such discussion.

And I agree, this isn't diary material. It should go in the open thread.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 07:31:49 PM EST
and chemical-war open-air field-testing?  

(If so see link here.)

The powers behind the US government certainly have a plan, but quite obviously they do NOT intend to talk about their developing an option to take global population reduction into their own hands.

(Yes, mass-murder, a.k.a. genocide.  What ELSE would such a plan be?)  

But the rest of us?  

If you were serious about population reduction you would put the decision-making about population, specifically about decisions about childbearing and childrearing and about matters impinging on childbearing and childrearing into the hands of women.  Collectively and individually.

When women make these decisions, overpopulation does not happen.  Equally obviously, women do not make these decisions in any of the world's major societies.  

And if you wish to reduce population through die-off, it is better let nature make the choices, and not try to manipulate the outcome to your own benefit.  That latter is a zero-sum game that results in MORE population.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Fri Dec 14th, 2007 at 08:52:09 PM EST
Please complete Colman's exercise and get back to us with the results.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Dec 15th, 2007 at 08:13:56 AM EST
I welcome some sane views on population reduction that include religion, education of women, wealth redistribution, diet change,

diet change to reduce population?

that's a new one...

i view (and vouch for) diet change as the prime potential factor that could help us sustain burgeoning populations.

You can't talk about economics and ignore "growth as cancer."

no, you can't, and we most emphatically don't.

in fact, that's why i come blog here, ET is mercifully free of such dangerous delusion, a glowing little island in a foggy sea.


'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Dec 16th, 2007 at 04:47:23 AM EST
This is worth a diary and you properly identified it as a rant, although it seems to antagonise.

At some point I have stated that governments should not encourage, nor subsidize having children, as Spain has just done, offering a €2500 check per new baby.  Apparently Germany is also embarking on the procreation craze and France has been for a long time.  This current vogue seems to be based on economic studies that say social security pensions must be shored up.  Not very farsighted, or creative.

Reproduction exists naturally regardless of policy and governments should be creating awareness campaigns about misuse of resources and climate change.  

How about adding your views in a diary update?

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Sun Dec 16th, 2007 at 12:11:41 PM EST
The best modeling of population dynamics as of July 2002 show world population will peak at 10 billion in 2026 and then begin to decline very slowly afterwards.

I have not seen anything that contradicts this, except for earlier, more rudimentary and therefore less accurate models.

Now, the essential fact you are missing is that, theoretically, we have unlimited resources. The constraint on resources is technology. We are completely dependent on the sun's energy - petroleum is nothing more than very, very old biomass that used the sun's energy to grow, then died, and was converted over a few million years into a goop we find ourselves addicted to today.  The sun's output is unlimited. There are only two real constraints. The first is atmospheric attenuation and diffusion. The second is our technology for capturing and using sun light. The problem is we don't capture very much of it. We need to be doing a much, much better job of research and development of finding better ways of capturing and using the sun's energy, to move us off of a fossil-fuel economy. It would be interesting for some trained economist to sit down and figure out what the lost opportunity cost has been of having some of the best minds in physics, mathematics, and computer science, devoted these past 20 or 30 years to modeling and gaming the financial markets, rather then working on the fossil fuel problem.

The other big limitation, as Stirling Newberry has pointed out a number of times, is that we have reached the limit of using the atmosphere as a carbon sink. However, if you go back to the first link above, you will find that we stand a good chance of overcoming this by an aggressive program of energy conservation. Thus, the problem is political, not a physical "limits to growth."

I am certain that you are in extreme disagreement with what I write here. Please calm down. You sound much too much like some 18th century colonial lord sipping swill on his plantation verandah and worrying about there being too many darkies.

The real problems are political - forcing the financial system to support real research and development, rather than speculation, arbitrage, and usury; and getting enough buying power into the hands of all classes, including the poor, so that more energy-efficient technology can be more widely deployed.

by NBBooks on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 08:52:29 PM EST

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]