4 ms·

"Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower our population very quickly." Right, and how does Arne Mooers propose we do this

"Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower our population very quickly." Right, and how does Arne Mooers propose we do this? Thermonuclear war maybe? That would be too damaging. Sterilize everyone? Not even China does that. Maybe ask billions of people to escort themselves off the face of the Earth? Make some Solyent Green? Global pandemic? Maybe more people would take them seriously (and really take them seriously, not just run around scared) if they gave us more choices than "maybe die" and "definitely die".

droithomme 14y ago
That specific phrase "drastically lower our population very quickly" is very interesting because it appeared as exactly those words in the last article about this paper that appeared here yesterday: http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-releases/2012/study-predicts-imminent-irreversible-planetary-collapse.html http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-releases/2012/study-predicts-im... I made some comments about that exact wording and was criticized because that phrase as it is is not in the original paper, but was in the press release about the paper, a press release apparently written by the paper's authors since it gives them as contacts. And here the phrase, not from the actual paper, appears in yet another alarmist article claiming that total irreversible planetary doom is certain if purges do not begin.
- mkramlich 14y ago
  > And here the phrase, not from the actual paper, appears in yet another ALARMIST article claiming that total irreversible planetary doom is CERTAIN if PURGES do not begin. I put three key words in bold above. But I want to focus on this: "doom is certain if purges do not begin." Please point me to where that was said, either in the paper itself or in the co-author's summary. You don't be able to because it doesn't exist. They didn't say that. You said that. I just grepped for "purge" in the paper and in the summary and article you linked to above, and they both yielded 0 results. The paper: http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012... ? I would argue that your comment -- where you falsely accused them of claiming that doom is certain if purges do not begin --- is the one being alarmist. I am certain of that. :P Also, strictly speaking, one possible explanation for why you might be seeing a seemingly growing number of recent "alarmist" articles about the climate & population impact, etc., is because, perhaps, the folks who are studying these areas are actually becoming increasingly alarmed. If that's happening, and they're sharing that with us, that's a good thing. "I wish that darn burglar alarm would stop going off every few weeks!" Well, are you more concerned about the inconvenience of repeatedly hearing the alarm, or that your house keeps getting robbed? :) Let's err on the side of the latter case, if any.
drostie 14y ago
Empower women. I'm serious. If you want to curtail the out-of-control growth rate, and consensually so, women need to be able to choose birth control; they need to not fear rape; they need to not be viewed as an economic liability (where e.g. parents with a son might stop there but parents with a daughter say "hey, we need another child so that someone cares for us in our old age"). The places with high birth rates will be the places where birth control is either hard to find or culturally discouraged. To test this, I went to the CIA World Factbook and multiplied their population growth rates (which are sadly from 2002) against populations to find that the situation looks approximately like this: Country Millions added/yr India 15.79 China 6.45 Nigeria 4.34 Ethiopia 2.98 Pakistan 2.95 United States 2.82 Indonesia 2.58 Bangladesh 2.55 Brazil 2.26 Philippines 1.94 Congo, D.R. of 1.90 Egypt 1.61 Uganda 1.28 Mexico 1.25 Kenya 1.05 Iran 0.99 Vietnam 0.96 Turkey 0.96 Tanzania 0.85 Iraq 0.73 The net is 76.46, summing over all countries, so India is 21% of the problem, China is 8.4% of it. One nice thing about this metric is that both Bangladesh and China are reasonably high here -- Bangladesh of course is struggling with some of the highest population density in the world, while China has a low growth rate but their population is absolutely staggering. It's very hard to get them both to appear in a top 10 list of "where the problem is". If past history is any indication, China will self-regulate its population by descending into civil war, so the major thing to focus on is India + Pakistan. However, if you could make a dent in the United States somehow, that could also help to reduce our population-deficit.
blubbar 14y ago
When I say that we don't need more children and should people not encourage to get more children because we already have enough humans I get the weirds looks. If i tell them that japan has many problems, but their shrinking population is not nobody believes me. They ask "What about their social security?" (I'm European) Well, it's just a ponzi scheme it will collapse anyway. First of all people should stop thinking more people = better. If we cut all our propaganda and financial aid for more children the children per women would probably drop well below one child per woman. That would be a way to start.

droithomme 14y ago

That specific phrase "drastically lower our population very quickly" is very interesting because it appeared as exactly those words in the last article about this paper that appeared here yesterday: http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-releases/2012/study-predicts-imminent-irreversible-planetary-collapse.html http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-releases/2012/study-predicts-im... I made some comments about that exact wording and was criticized because that phrase as it is is not in the original paper, but was in the press release about the paper, a press release apparently written by the paper's authors since it gives them as contacts. And here the phrase, not from the actual paper, appears in yet another alarmist article claiming that total irreversible planetary doom is certain if purges do not begin.

mkramlich 14y ago
> And here the phrase, not from the actual paper, appears in yet another ALARMIST article claiming that total irreversible planetary doom is CERTAIN if PURGES do not begin. I put three key words in bold above. But I want to focus on this: "doom is certain if purges do not begin." Please point me to where that was said, either in the paper itself or in the co-author's summary. You don't be able to because it doesn't exist. They didn't say that. You said that. I just grepped for "purge" in the paper and in the summary and article you linked to above, and they both yielded 0 results. The paper: http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012... ? I would argue that your comment -- where you falsely accused them of claiming that doom is certain if purges do not begin --- is the one being alarmist. I am certain of that. :P Also, strictly speaking, one possible explanation for why you might be seeing a seemingly growing number of recent "alarmist" articles about the climate & population impact, etc., is because, perhaps, the folks who are studying these areas are actually becoming increasingly alarmed. If that's happening, and they're sharing that with us, that's a good thing. "I wish that darn burglar alarm would stop going off every few weeks!" Well, are you more concerned about the inconvenience of repeatedly hearing the alarm, or that your house keeps getting robbed? :) Let's err on the side of the latter case, if any.

drostie 14y ago

Empower women. I'm serious. If you want to curtail the out-of-control growth rate, and consensually so, women need to be able to choose birth control; they need to not fear rape; they need to not be viewed as an economic liability (where e.g. parents with a son might stop there but parents with a daughter say "hey, we need another child so that someone cares for us in our old age"). The places with high birth rates will be the places where birth control is either hard to find or culturally discouraged. To test this, I went to the CIA World Factbook and multiplied their population growth rates (which are sadly from 2002) against populations to find that the situation looks approximately like this: Country Millions added/yr India 15.79 China 6.45 Nigeria 4.34 Ethiopia 2.98 Pakistan 2.95 United States 2.82 Indonesia 2.58 Bangladesh 2.55 Brazil 2.26 Philippines 1.94 Congo, D.R. of 1.90 Egypt 1.61 Uganda 1.28 Mexico 1.25 Kenya 1.05 Iran 0.99 Vietnam 0.96 Turkey 0.96 Tanzania 0.85 Iraq 0.73 The net is 76.46, summing over all countries, so India is 21% of the problem, China is 8.4% of it. One nice thing about this metric is that both Bangladesh and China are reasonably high here -- Bangladesh of course is struggling with some of the highest population density in the world, while China has a low growth rate but their population is absolutely staggering. It's very hard to get them both to appear in a top 10 list of "where the problem is". If past history is any indication, China will self-regulate its population by descending into civil war, so the major thing to focus on is India + Pakistan. However, if you could make a dent in the United States somehow, that could also help to reduce our population-deficit.

blubbar 14y ago

When I say that we don't need more children and should people not encourage to get more children because we already have enough humans I get the weirds looks. If i tell them that japan has many problems, but their shrinking population is not nobody believes me. They ask "What about their social security?" (I'm European) Well, it's just a ponzi scheme it will collapse anyway. First of all people should stop thinking more people = better. If we cut all our propaganda and financial aid for more children the children per women would probably drop well below one child per woman. That would be a way to start.