8 ms·

Mechanisms for sustainability and productivity - the Haber-Bosch process, genetic engineering, the "green revolution", etc. - are a bit of a two-edge sword in t

by xefer 11y ago

Mechanisms for sustainability and productivity - the Haber-Bosch process, genetic engineering, the "green revolution", etc. - are a bit of a two-edge sword in that they have allowed for massive population growth. New highways ultimately increase traffic through induced demand. Is not a similar effect at play with these technologies? I don't want to have to start eating bugs just to make room for a few billion more fellow bug-eaters.

adwn 11y ago
What a cynical, inhuman, and shortsighted comment. The right way to stop population growth is not to starve poor countries to death, but to bring them to a higher level of wealth, education, and stability. Do this, and overpopulation (and a bunch of other problems) will solve itself.
- nsomaru 11y ago
  How have you relegated anyone who doesn't believe that supporting indiscriminate population growth with tech is always a good thing as 'cynical, inhuman and shortsighted'? Parent noted that these technologies are a double edged sword, i.e., having strengths and weaknesses. Nobody is asking that we starve poor countries. Population regulation through resource scarcity is a natural phenomenon and should be allowed to happen. I'm not sure what's inhuman about this? Are we expected to treat people who don't yet exist in a humane way? The fact of the matter is that the Earth is a finite place and resources are limited. Maybe there will come a time when we're space faring that it won't matter, but we seem a little far away from that goal.
- xefer 11y ago
  I think you've wildly misinterpreted my point. Perhaps it's my fault for how I phrased things. I think these technologies, while undoubtably beneficial, have for many decades only pushed back the Malthusian limits imposed by nature which allowed exponential population growth while just as many people remained hungry and destitute. We're finally turning the corner where the population growth rate has slowed somewhat (recent UN population projections where increased significantly; e.g. Sub-Saharan Africa alone is projected to have a population of 4.5 billion(!) by 2100) allowing people to get ahead of the rate of increased food production. But we're still basically just using up most of the increased production. Vaclav Smil has pointed out that population growth has been directly corollated to the amount of artificial fertilizers. He points out that even if every bit of arable land was used to its maximum extent, only 3 billion people could be supported. So just think, by 2100 when the UN projects a population of 11 billion, 8 billion of those people will only be alive because the proteins in their bodies use nitrogen from factories producing artificial fertilizers.
  - Retra 11y ago
    If those limits can be pushed back, then nature isn't actually imposing them on us.
kleer001 11y ago
What kind of world would it be if the Green revolution had never happened? What if Norman Borlaug hadn't increased yields?
tomjen3 11y ago
The average number of children per women worldwide is only 2.40, which is not that much above replacement and has been falling for decades. Primarily because the child mortality rate has fallen (drastically so) along with the number of very poor people. Richer people can expect to see all their children reach adulthood, and so they want to have a lot less. http://kff.org/global-indicator/total-fertility-rate/ http://kff.org/global-indicator/total-fertility-rate/

by xefer 11y ago

adwn 11y ago

What a cynical, inhuman, and shortsighted comment. The right way to stop population growth is not to starve poor countries to death, but to bring them to a higher level of wealth, education, and stability. Do this, and overpopulation (and a bunch of other problems) will solve itself.

nsomaru 11y ago
How have you relegated anyone who doesn't believe that supporting indiscriminate population growth with tech is always a good thing as 'cynical, inhuman and shortsighted'? Parent noted that these technologies are a double edged sword, i.e., having strengths and weaknesses. Nobody is asking that we starve poor countries. Population regulation through resource scarcity is a natural phenomenon and should be allowed to happen. I'm not sure what's inhuman about this? Are we expected to treat people who don't yet exist in a humane way? The fact of the matter is that the Earth is a finite place and resources are limited. Maybe there will come a time when we're space faring that it won't matter, but we seem a little far away from that goal.
xefer 11y ago
I think you've wildly misinterpreted my point. Perhaps it's my fault for how I phrased things. I think these technologies, while undoubtably beneficial, have for many decades only pushed back the Malthusian limits imposed by nature which allowed exponential population growth while just as many people remained hungry and destitute. We're finally turning the corner where the population growth rate has slowed somewhat (recent UN population projections where increased significantly; e.g. Sub-Saharan Africa alone is projected to have a population of 4.5 billion(!) by 2100) allowing people to get ahead of the rate of increased food production. But we're still basically just using up most of the increased production. Vaclav Smil has pointed out that population growth has been directly corollated to the amount of artificial fertilizers. He points out that even if every bit of arable land was used to its maximum extent, only 3 billion people could be supported. So just think, by 2100 when the UN projects a population of 11 billion, 8 billion of those people will only be alive because the proteins in their bodies use nitrogen from factories producing artificial fertilizers.
- Retra 11y ago
  If those limits can be pushed back, then nature isn't actually imposing them on us.

kleer001 11y ago

What kind of world would it be if the Green revolution had never happened? What if Norman Borlaug hadn't increased yields?

tomjen3 11y ago

The average number of children per women worldwide is only 2.40, which is not that much above replacement and has been falling for decades. Primarily because the child mortality rate has fallen (drastically so) along with the number of very poor people. Richer people can expect to see all their children reach adulthood, and so they want to have a lot less. http://kff.org/global-indicator/total-fertility-rate/ http://kff.org/global-indicator/total-fertility-rate/