3 ms·

> the timescale isn't long enough evolutionary changes to take place. Stabilizing population at a limited number would presumably be done indefinitely, not for

by qrendel 11y ago

> the timescale isn't long enough evolutionary changes to take place. Stabilizing population at a limited number would presumably be done indefinitely, not for a brief period and then removed. Therefore natural selection would have time to take effect. It obviously has not since the institution of the one child policy or the development of birth control, which were recent developments on an evolutionary timescale. > only applies for an exponentially growing population, which must stop at some point, for clearly physical reasons like the Sun not providing enough energy. This discussion keeps going back and forth between needing to implement population controls now, or sometime in the foreseeable future, versus the fact that the entire Hubble volume of the universe likely has some total carrying capacity. Saying that even something like a Dyson sphere surrounding the sun would only provide finite energy is not a valid reason for population controls here and now. > prefers city life Not really, but preferences aside, most living apart from civilization still benefit from a larger civilization to support their needs. Some may prefer to "live off the land" with no technology, but even those living the quiet life can still enjoy things like advanced medical care or a broader range of products and services delivered to them, if they so choose. Population doesn't remove any possibility of quiet walks in nature or ability to see a starry sky at night, though would perhaps make them a scarcer resources. They are, for example, still available to people now, despite a world population of over seven billion. The fact that in some distant future unbounded population growth would lead people to outnumber the number of atoms in the universe isn't a remotely relevant consideration towards whether implement population controls soon.

dalke 11y ago
> Therefore natural selection would have time to take effect Again, evolution does not work that way. Evolution doesn't care if a species goes extinct because it doesn't breed enough. Plus, consider a 1% growth rate per year. In 1,000 years the population will increase over 20,000-fold. With 0.05% growth it takes a bit under 2,000 years for the same growth. But 2,000 years is nowhere near enough for evolution to influence humans. > not a valid reason for population controls here and now I never said it was. Not only that, I say that they were not incompatible, and used as my examples the many counties with full reproductive rights and a birth rate which is below what's needed for replacement and which don't have population controls. > though would perhaps make them a scarcer resources Yes, that's exactly my point. I'm glad you agree that these are scare resources. > They are, for example, still available to people now, despite a world population of over seven billion. No. Some of these scare resources are gone. I gave one example, our buffalo resources which once numbered it the millions. You probably rejected it out of hand, but that's because you grew up in a culture which doesn't have it. But the US destroyed that resource in part to destroy the way of life for the Plains Indians, and open up the Plains for the expansion of the predominately white population with a very different culture. You are repeating the same paternalism when you write "most living apart from civilization still benefit from a larger civilization to support their needs." Who are you to say that everyone must live with that tradeoff? What ways of life will you want destroyed to support the 1000x large population you urge on us?
- qrendel 11y ago
  Evolution - You seem to be assuming no mutation will come into existence which will promote increased desire to reproduce. Since there are behavioral and psychological traits influenced by genetics that promote greater desire for children, this seems far fetched. (I don't have a citation, but this seems almost certain.) Rate of evolutionary change depends on the selection pressures on the allele in question. There are formulas for calculating both the probability a mutant allele goes to fixation[1] as well as the expected number of generations for it to do so[2]. With high selective pressures evolution on the scale of a few thousand years is certainly possible - the time taken for lactase persistence to develop in humans is estimated at around 3,000 years.[3] In the extreme case, if all individuals lacking a given dominant allele are removed from the population, it would only take a single generation. So, no. Though I admit the number of generations does increase with the natural log of the population size, so it would take longer with greater population sizes. [1] http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biomath/tutorials/applications/MutantGene01.html http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biomath/tutorials/application... [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=2zVqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA466&lpg=PA466 https://books.google.com/books?id=2zVqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA466&lpg=... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Evolutionary_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Evolutiona... Buffalo - Current population estimates are around 500,000 in the US. Given that large herds of protected buffalo and many locations with low light pollution still exist, you've failed to provide any examples of experiences that are forever gone. Of course some situation can always be constructed. You can't find 20-30 million buffalo anymore, just as extinct animals are gone (ignoring current work by George Church and others on de-extinction), just as no two people can simultaneously be the US President or first man on the moon. Some particular version of experiences are constantly being made unavailable, and that's a fact of life regardless of population. As for the Plains Indians, I don't think that genocide was caused by overpopulation so much as the US government's desire for westward expansion. Sure, it might not have happened if the population had stayed much smaller, but those aren't the only two possible outcomes. It's not as if resource availability had been exhausted in the east. Aside from that, if you go back and read, you'll see my claim was that there are advantages to larger population, not that it was necessarily a moral imperative. (The only argument for it as a moral imperative I can think of would rely on the assumption that future unborn lives should have moral relevance to us now.) Even if I were arguing that claim, it would be equally paternalistic for one to dictate what state the world should be in simply to protect experiences they prefer.

by qrendel 11y ago

dalke 11y ago

> Therefore natural selection would have time to take effect Again, evolution does not work that way. Evolution doesn't care if a species goes extinct because it doesn't breed enough. Plus, consider a 1% growth rate per year. In 1,000 years the population will increase over 20,000-fold. With 0.05% growth it takes a bit under 2,000 years for the same growth. But 2,000 years is nowhere near enough for evolution to influence humans. > not a valid reason for population controls here and now I never said it was. Not only that, I say that they were not incompatible, and used as my examples the many counties with full reproductive rights and a birth rate which is below what's needed for replacement and which don't have population controls. > though would perhaps make them a scarcer resources Yes, that's exactly my point. I'm glad you agree that these are scare resources. > They are, for example, still available to people now, despite a world population of over seven billion. No. Some of these scare resources are gone. I gave one example, our buffalo resources which once numbered it the millions. You probably rejected it out of hand, but that's because you grew up in a culture which doesn't have it. But the US destroyed that resource in part to destroy the way of life for the Plains Indians, and open up the Plains for the expansion of the predominately white population with a very different culture. You are repeating the same paternalism when you write "most living apart from civilization still benefit from a larger civilization to support their needs." Who are you to say that everyone must live with that tradeoff? What ways of life will you want destroyed to support the 1000x large population you urge on us?

qrendel 11y ago
Evolution - You seem to be assuming no mutation will come into existence which will promote increased desire to reproduce. Since there are behavioral and psychological traits influenced by genetics that promote greater desire for children, this seems far fetched. (I don't have a citation, but this seems almost certain.) Rate of evolutionary change depends on the selection pressures on the allele in question. There are formulas for calculating both the probability a mutant allele goes to fixation[1] as well as the expected number of generations for it to do so[2]. With high selective pressures evolution on the scale of a few thousand years is certainly possible - the time taken for lactase persistence to develop in humans is estimated at around 3,000 years.[3] In the extreme case, if all individuals lacking a given dominant allele are removed from the population, it would only take a single generation. So, no. Though I admit the number of generations does increase with the natural log of the population size, so it would take longer with greater population sizes. [1] http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biomath/tutorials/applications/MutantGene01.html http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biomath/tutorials/application... [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=2zVqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA466&lpg=PA466 https://books.google.com/books?id=2zVqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA466&lpg=... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Evolutionary_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Evolutiona... Buffalo - Current population estimates are around 500,000 in the US. Given that large herds of protected buffalo and many locations with low light pollution still exist, you've failed to provide any examples of experiences that are forever gone. Of course some situation can always be constructed. You can't find 20-30 million buffalo anymore, just as extinct animals are gone (ignoring current work by George Church and others on de-extinction), just as no two people can simultaneously be the US President or first man on the moon. Some particular version of experiences are constantly being made unavailable, and that's a fact of life regardless of population. As for the Plains Indians, I don't think that genocide was caused by overpopulation so much as the US government's desire for westward expansion. Sure, it might not have happened if the population had stayed much smaller, but those aren't the only two possible outcomes. It's not as if resource availability had been exhausted in the east. Aside from that, if you go back and read, you'll see my claim was that there are advantages to larger population, not that it was necessarily a moral imperative. (The only argument for it as a moral imperative I can think of would rely on the assumption that future unborn lives should have moral relevance to us now.) Even if I were arguing that claim, it would be equally paternalistic for one to dictate what state the world should be in simply to protect experiences they prefer.