A Far Scarier Set Of facts

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When a trend continues for quite some time, assuming the trend will continue is far from dubious. Of course trends change but a good bet is that the trend will continue.

This is not a reasonable argument, because it ignores a very powerful factor -- feedback. In this particular discussion, on population growth, any given population is likely to reach a level where the very numbers in that population cause behavioural changes within it, and those behavioural changes can radically impact the direction of the trend.

 

[Bird123]

.

As compared to THIS.

I suggest you enlarge.

.​

Interesting. It seems the population started to really increase around the industrial revolution. As mankind's ability to supply food increased so did the population.

People worry so much about the population, however I think that is not necessary. As intelligence grows, it advances at a much greater rate. This will lead to solutions and more capabilities. I do not think Mother Earth is even close to how many people she can support.

 

[Revoltingest]

Isaac Asimov provided this gem of a thought experiment...

Imagine that humans could travel faster than light speed, and had the technology to transform anything into nutrients.

At our current rate of population growth it would take us 3000 years to eat the entire universe.

I wonder if it tastes more like bacon or more like tofu?

 

[Howard Is]

I wonder if it tastes more like bacon or more like tofu?

If it tastes like bacon we’re doomed.

 

[Heyo]

I wonder if it tastes more like bacon or more like tofu?

It tastes like raspberry and smells of rum:
Galaxy's centre tastes of raspberries and smells of rum

 

[Jollybear]

Why don’t you lead by example and not be a ****head.
That was a fatuous stupid remark.

No it wasnt stupid. These climate alarmists wanna complain so much about man caused climate change and yet THEY dont want to take anitiative.

So, kiss my ***.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Uh, I just don't see why that would be true, even hypothetically.

Well, for starters, birth rates are decreasing. Also, the statistics show that it is the wealthiest proportion of the global population who produce the largest carbon footprint.

 

[Mock Turtle]

We don't need what you suggested, ie, getting over the love affair with capitalism.
If the problems are over-consumption, waste, over-population,
environmental degradation, pollution, GW, etc, then each of
those can be addressed without attacking capitalism itself.

Attacking or modifying? Richer getting richer, and our environment getting poorer suggests to me that capitalism as it stands isn't working that great for all our benefit, and as we have seen (Trump et al) many aren't that interested in solutions that might hit them locally. And is capitalism really the winner when many others seem to exist in socialist-like systems well enough.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Odd -- there was a very good debate on the Monk Debates just yesterday that argued that very question, and the pro-capitalism side won (by a very, very narrow margin, but still).

And let us be very clear -- it has been capitalism that has quite literally lifted billions of humans out of poverty and privation. So I don't think we need to get rid of capitalism -- we just need to recognize that it, like all human constructs, is imperfect and has problems. And those problems can be dealt with, but without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Which is what I meant - not about ridding ourselves, but modifying it such as to make it more stable and which produced better results for the majority. Globalisation has made the problem worse in many ways - rich getting richer, and works going to the lowest bidder - when we need better control of it.

PS We are moving at least, since a few decades ago, apart from the few countries often having or being enslaved to communism, most would see capitalism (as is) as the only viable economic system.

 

[Stevicus]

Again, he isn't "minimizing the effects" of overpopulation. He simply explains that the causes of overpopulation aren't what people think, the projected fears relating to escalating population numbers may be misguided, and that there are things in place which can and are minimizing the negative effects of overpopulation.

He is not saying "overpopulation isn't a problem". He is saying "here are the actual causes of overpopulation, here is a solution which can and does minimize the negative impacts of overpopulation, and here are the steps we can and are taking to prevent overpopulation".

Seriously, why are people so keen to dismiss this lecture before even viewing it? Are people so dead set on a global cull?

Well, maybe it's the Malthusian influence. The causes of overpopulation aren't really that much of a mystery. I mean, we all know where babies come from.

Except, as is explained in the lecture, the countries that are having more children are not contributing as much to global carbon emissions as children in developed nations that still have lower birth rates. Global carbon emissions aren't intrinsically linked simply with the total NUMBER of humans, because not all humans leave the same carbon footprint. A family of 10 in Somalia contribute significantly less CO2 than a family of 3 in America.

Climate change is addressed in the video at 51:52.

To claim that the cause of climate change is due to population growth is an oversimplification, and in either case the solution is not to blame increasing birthrates but to ask how we can limit the negative impact of those births.

Not really, no. It's not so much that overpopulation is a cause of climate change, but it's a major barrier towards finding any real solutions.

I'm not sure that comparing a family of 10 in Somalia with a family of 3 in America is particularly useful here. I can see what you're getting at, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The family in America may be energy hogs and excessive users of fossil fuels and other vital resources. This is true. However, the current trends around the world are towards modernization, development - so that all countries can benefit from living in a modern, industrialized, technologically advanced society.

The family in Somalia may not be contributing as much CO2 emissions now, but over time, they will want to have more - and honestly, who can blame them?

A while back, I posted an article about the burgeoning middle class in India who can now afford and seek to buy such luxuries as air conditioning. Air conditioning is nice to have, particularly in the hotter climates - but there's a tradeoff due to high energy usage and damaging emissions. There are billions in this world, and it's normal that they would want the same things we have enjoyed for decades: air conditioning, cars, superhighways, shopping malls, cellphones, computers, etc.

 

[Stevicus]

We don't need what you suggested, ie, getting over the love affair with capitalism.
If the problems are over-consumption, waste, over-population,
environmental degradation, pollution, GW, etc, then each of
those can be addressed without attacking capitalism itself.

It's not so much that there's any great need to attack capitalism. It's just that whenever any sensible solutions are proposed, it's the capitalists who shriek the loudest in balking against it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, for starters, birth rates are decreasing.

They would better.

Also, the statistics show that it is the wealthiest proportion of the global population who produce the largest carbon footprint.

And that is good news?

 

[Revoltingest]

Attacking or modifying? Richer getting richer, and our environment getting poorer suggests to me that capitalism as it stands isn't working that great for all our benefit, and as we have seen (Trump et al) many aren't that interested in solutions that might hit them locally. And is capitalism really the winner when many others seem to exist in socialist-like systems well enough.

True dat.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not so much that there's any great need to attack capitalism. It's just that whenever any sensible solutions are proposed, it's the capitalists who shriek the loudest in balking against it.

People will always shriek, whatever the system.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, maybe it's the Malthusian influence. The causes of overpopulation aren't really that much of a mystery. I mean, we all know where babies come from.

But that's the point: birth-rates aren't actually the biggest contributing factor to overpopulation, as birthrates around the world have plummeted significantly in the last few decades and that trend looks set to continue.

You really should watch the video. If it helps, just watch the part around 7:17, which illustrates global changing birthrates.

Not really, no. It's not so much that overpopulation is a cause of climate change, but it's a major barrier towards finding any real solutions.

I'm not sure that comparing a family of 10 in Somalia with a family of 3 in America is particularly useful here. I can see what you're getting at, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The family in America may be energy hogs and excessive users of fossil fuels and other vital resources. This is true. However, the current trends around the world are towards modernization, development - so that all countries can benefit from living in a modern, industrialized, technologically advanced society.

The family in Somalia may not be contributing as much CO2 emissions now, but over time, they will want to have more - and honestly, who can blame them?

A while back, I posted an article about the burgeoning middle class in India who can now afford and seek to buy such luxuries as air conditioning. Air conditioning is nice to have, particularly in the hotter climates - but there's a tradeoff due to high energy usage and damaging emissions. There are billions in this world, and it's normal that they would want the same things we have enjoyed for decades: air conditioning, cars, superhighways, shopping malls, cellphones, computers, etc.

Again, you really, REALLY should go and watch the lecture. I actually think you'll find yourself agreeing with what's he says based on what you've written here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They would better.

They are getting better, and have remained fairly consistent for nearly the past two decades. We have had roughly the same number of children (under 15) in the world since around the year 2000.
SOURCE: World Population Prospects - Population Division - United Nations

The increasing global population from then hasn't been from excessive birthrates leading to an increased number of children. It's from a buildup of adults because people are living longer.

And that is good news?

Er... No?

The point is that linking birthrates and CO2 emissions is an over-simplification, because they are not inextricably linked. The fact is that people in the developed world are using disproportionately more energy than those in the poorer, developing world that have higher average birthrates. The problem isn't with "every child born", it's with the children who are born in positions where they can use the energy using far too much. The solution doesn't lie in global reduction of birthrates (which has already happened), but in a change of attitude and activity from the top two-billion or so who use the most energy. People who use the most resources need to learn to use less.

Dammit, why won't people just watch the bloody video??

 

[Stevicus]

But that's the point: birth-rates aren't actually the biggest contributing factor to overpopulation, as birthrates around the world have plummeted significantly in the last few decades and that trend looks set to continue.

You really should watch the video. If it helps, just watch the part around 7:17, which illustrates global changing birthrates.


Again, you really, REALLY should go and watch the lecture. I actually think you'll find yourself agreeing with what's he says based on what you've written here.

Yeah, alright, maybe I'll give it a watch. However, I would just rather read a summary of the main points. It's easier to review and respond to. With a video, if there's a part I want to address, I have to take notes and write down what the person is saying. It might also involve charts which I can't reproduce or copy and paste.

In short, trying to respond to and address points in a video is a huge pain in the butt in a discussion forum.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yeah, alright, maybe I'll give it a watch. However, I would just rather read a summary of the main points. It's easier to review and respond to. With a video, if there's a part I want to address, I have to take notes and write down what the person is saying. It might also involve charts which I can't reproduce or copy and paste.

In short, trying to respond to and address points in a video is a huge pain in the butt in a discussion forum.

I'm not expecting people to respond and address it - it's not an argument, it's a fact-based lecture that presents the actual data regarding population growth in an entertaining and informative way. I presented it not by way of argument but because I find it interesting and thought others may find it informative.

Try watching it without a view to "addressing" it, and you might actually find it informative.

EDIT: Rather than me having to write it out myself, I found a fairly good summary of the main points of the lecture from a blog. Here it is:

"In the wonderful hour-long video above, Rosling blows up some misconceptions and misunderstandings, and convincingly makes the following points:

• Population growth should hit a limit around 11 billion within the next hundred years, as the world equalizes in health outcomes.
• In developed countries, a ratio near 2 parents to 2 children mostly exists and developing nations are getting closer and closer as their childhood health outcomes continue to improve. (And they have improved drastically.)
• Stated another way, as a result of equalizing health outcomes, low child mortality, and family planning, family sizes go down, and population growth slows in a predictable way.
• Current population trends are strong enough that by 2100, only ~10% of the world population will be in Western nations (North America, Western Europe) — Africa will quadruple in population and Asia will increase about 25%. It will be a very different world.
• After an explosion of births in the second half of the 20th century, the number of children worldwide has already leveled off at around 2 billion, and should stay there at least through the century, barring a major development. Population growth from here will mostly be determined by more 30-85 year olds existing in the future than now. (In other words, births are nicely leveling off, but population growth must continue for a while anyways as the current crop of children grow up and have 2 children each. We currently have a very young world.) Watch from minute 22:00 or so for this counter-intuitive conclusion.
• There are three or four income “groups,” roughly defined, across the planet — most of you reading this are in the $100/day or more income bracket. We’re extremely fortunate. Then, a major swath in the $10/day bracket. And then the world’s poorest, around $1/day. There’s also a big group with less than that. (Of course, there are also the super rich in the $1000/day+ bracket — it works in a power-law like fashion). One problem for those of us at the top is that when we look down, we see the people living one order of magnitude down ($10/day) and two orders of magnitude down ($1/day) as the same. The difference between the two groups is at least as big as the difference between you and someone who makes 10x as much money as you. (And probably larger.)
• An interesting way for “rich” Westerners to think about the above, which Rosling demonstrates in a genius way: The absolute poorest in the world, nearly a billion people, would love a good pair of shoes with which to walk. The people living around two orders of magnitude down from us (~$1/day) are struggling to afford a bicycle. Those living one order of magnitude down (~$10/day) are working to afford one car for the family. The richest billion fly in airplanes, and the super-wealthy fly in their own airplanes. It’s an interesting way to conceive of the stratas of the world and where we all stand.

Of course, one of Rosling’s more interesting points is that, when polled, most Westerners are fairly clueless about all of this.

For example, over 50% of Brits think that the average Bangladeshi mother births around 5 children — the actual answer is 2.5 (and declining). When they were asked what percentages of adults in the world are now literate, about half the Brits thought it was 40% or less — the actual answer is over 80% (and rising). (Not to pick on Brits — I doubt most Westerners would have done any better.)

He concludes with a discussion on energy: As billions are lifted out of poverty by improvements in health, education, and infrastructure, as is happening and seems likely to continue, their energy use goes up dramatically. Think about the stratas we discussed above: Bicycles to a car to airplanes to private jets. As hundreds of millions look to improve their lot, and are now able to do so, human power is replaced by machine power, which takes great amounts of energy. With 80% of it currently coming from fossil fuels, what will we do?

Rosling doesn’t really provide an answer and we too must quitclaim this problem, but simply admonishing Westerners to “chill out with your energy use” is probably not going to be effective. We’ll probably have to solve it with great engineering — and, in some, ways, we already are."
SOURCE: Hans Rosling's Important Truths about Population Growth and the Developing World


I would still strongly recommend anybody who is interested watch the actual lecture anyway, as the way Rosling visualizes the data is actually very captivating.