Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the On-a-Pale-Horse-vs-Being-a-Green-Mother dept.

The world population is growing because the birth rate exceeds the death rate, so to stabilize the world population either the birth rate needs to drop, or the death rate needs to increase. The most cited reference for population studies is the projections of future population (PDF) made by the Population Division of the United Nations. The UN report projects the world population to eventually stabilize as a result of countries settling in to a birth rate that falls around the replacement level.

A commentary by Stephen Warren in the open access journal Earth's Future takes the UN report to task for focusing on birth rate. He notes that all species generate offspring in numbers well above the replacement level of two, but you don't see historically the kind of population growth like you do with humans. He argues that despite all the negative feedback mechanisms on population (such as war and pestilence), it seems that Malthus (PDF) was correct that food supply is the driving factor, and wonders whether it is even possible to stabilize the world population until food production levels off.


[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:50PM

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:50PM (#188038) Journal

    There is abundance for more than the world's projected populations - just not at the levels of inequality we have historically tolerated.

    Somehow, having a few live like Kanye or the Sultan of Brunei at the expense of eugenics seems more palatable than an equitable and egalitarian arrangement for everyone.

    Animals on two legs. You should be shamed when you hear of human beings.

    --
    You're betting on the pantomime horse...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:09PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:09PM (#188049) Homepage
    Can you provide some maths to back up that assertion - in particular the "inequality" part.
    I suspect it's incorrect - in particular the "inequality" part - because inequality is causing *billions* to survive (or die) on only a tiny fraction of what it's comfortable to live on. The mega-rich are not eating a billion times as much as the extremely poor - so you can't equalise food distribution like you can money distribution (where the ultra-rich indeed do have a billion times as much as the extremely poor). Billions of people would need to eat less in order for billions of people to eat more. Therefore you can't easily pull the lowest layers up much easily - simply because they are so numerous.

    You also have to remember that the projected populations are arrived at after factoring into the equations things like lots of people dying from malnutrition and famine.

    I'm not saying that equality isn't a noble goal, it's just that I don't think it will achieve what you claim it will, namely abundance for all.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:10PM

      by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:10PM (#188094)

      Food shortages and warfare are irrelevant since there are no eugenics against diseases. Breeding for intellect, physical strength, beauty or sociability just means limiting long term genetic diversity on the expense of a better quality of life in whatever society you're living in that happens to encourage those traits as vestiges of defending against predators that are no longer around.

      You could argue targeting health for eugenics, but that's a shifting socio-political term as any. e.g. current life expectancy ratings in 1st world countries only reflect externally uninhibited health (no wars, predators or pandemics) and relies completely on access to food and medicine which are no guarantee in the long run.

      Eventually, you'll be faced with the fact that the only thing you can do is breed young and for numbers with multiple partner as genetically distant from you as you can in hopes whatever kills everyone else won't get to your offspring.

      --
      compiling...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @12:34AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @12:34AM (#189416)

        Louis C.K. is that you ?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:33PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:33PM (#188258)

      The problem isn't that there isn't enough food - IIRC current global food production is 4-8x greater than necessary to adequately feed the global population. The problem is that there's no *profitable* way to get that food into the hands of the poorest quarter or so of the world's population.

      I.e., we don't have a food problem, we have an economics problem.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:29PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:29PM (#188328) Homepage
        Ah, yes, thanks for the *emphasis*, perhaps with appropriately-portioned money, the problem can be solved by logistics? But logistics requires fule, and fuel's one of those things that we're also having the occasional flap about. And I get the feeling that it would quickly lead to us exploiting them and taking all their money back off them, as we do that kind of thing, historically.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by WillAdams on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:35PM

    by WillAdams (1424) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:35PM (#188179)

    Well, there was Gandhi's quote,

    “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed”

    http://thinkexist.com/quotation/earth_provides_enough_to_satisfy_every_man-s_need/181709.html [thinkexist.com]

    • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:36PM

      by Nuke (3162) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:36PM (#188219)

      Well, there was Gandhi's quote, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed”

      He said that getting on for a century ago and no doubt it was true then. But we are talking here about centuries to come.

      Despite being in the West, and probably among the better-off half of it, I am already noticing shortages of things. Small signs, that do not matter very much at the moment, but worrying for the longer term. Like modern furniture being made out of compressed chippings of crappy timber; OTOH I have some old kitchen cupboards in my shed to store tools, nothing special in their day, but nevertheless made of quality wood back then. There is certainly not enough wood in the world now to make quality furniture, and one day soon I expect it will not even be made of wood chips - probably dried shit or laminated recycled human skin, those being things of which there will no doubt be plenty in the future.

      • (Score: 1) by WillAdams on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:21PM

        by WillAdams (1424) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:21PM (#188248)

        You can still get solid wood furniture, you just have to be willing to pay for it, or make it yourself (in which case you either need to buy the wood, or mill it yourself).

        I live in Pennsylvania, in the middle of Penn's Woods, and there's an almost unbelievable amount of timber --- it's still getting cut, and it's still growing, and new trees are still being planted.

        Even w/ SCITES, exotic woods continue to be available, and there's been some effort to make species such as Lignum Vitae commercially available and grown sustainably.

        • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday May 27 2015, @10:16AM

          by Nuke (3162) on Wednesday May 27 2015, @10:16AM (#188541)
          I should have said there is not enough good solid wood any more for more than the wealthy. Like the very wealthy could still afford a bit of real meat in Soylent Green.

          I also live in a forest, in South Wales, and some of my garden looks like part of it. I had two big hardwood trees blow down two years ago and I am still burning them for heating. But in the UK that is very exceptional. I have old maps (like 50 years old) and comparing them with new maps it is frightening how much less woodland there now is (and how much more area has been built on) in just a generation or two. My bit of forest is curently protected, but I can see that being overruled by politicians in another generation to make room for more housing.

          Despite making a lot of noise about eg wind generation, supposedly to save global warming to save trees and wildlife, politicians actually don't give a shit about trees and wildlife directly and will readily sign off square miles of green countryside for new development, and with little opposition either. The "Green Movement" is really more paranoia about poisons (supposed or real) than caring about the natural world.

          Ironic that no-one (yet) in this discussion had mentioned what inspired the name of this website.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:12AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:12AM (#188400) Journal
        Hmm, you're right. I notice that I can't get whale oil for my lamps any more.