4 ms·

Depopulation isn't a bad thing and I think it's much better than overpopulation in an already overpopulated world.

by amix 18y ago

alecco 18y ago
Yes. With the current system an aging population can't be supported for long. There isn't yet a solution for that.
- Femur 18y ago
  >There isn't yet a solution for that. There isn't yet a pleasant solution for that. Unfortunately, segments of population have been reduced before.
JulianMorrison 18y ago
The world is overpopulated? News to me. The way I see it, it's under-producing food, largely because of irrational resistance to modern techniques.
- boris 18y ago
  Yes, we need more "techniques" such as those that lead to an infection of spinach with some bacteria that is later traced to a gut of a wild boar used as a fertilizer.
  - nkurz 18y ago
    I don't think you are remembering that case correctly. The animals are not being used as fertilizer. Instead, they are breaking through fences and contaminating the fields through defecation: http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=94&SubSectionID=801&ArticleID=28303&TM=5221.272 http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=94&SubSe...
- Femur 18y ago
  >The way I see it, it's under-producing food, largely because of irrational resistance to modern techniques. While I do agree that the planet can sustain a much higher population, modern farming practices are causing problems and not necessarily sustainable in the long term. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_farming#Disadvantages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_farming#Disadvantages) Properly thought out food production that utilizes under-used resources (vast swaths in Russia for instance!) is the key.
  - JulianMorrison 18y ago
    GM is a modern farming practice that is horrendously underused, and GM can wipe out most of the disadvantages of intensive farming - GM crops can fix their own nitrogen and repel pests without pesticide. They can also be designed to grow well in 3rd world climates and contain extra nutrients.
soldarnal 18y ago
Your comparison of depopulation to "overpopulation in an already overpopulated world" is hardly just. Really you are comparing population decline with population growth, but with the latter in a very particular context in which it is known to be harmful. In contrast, nobody is concerned about population growth among polar bears (but many seem concerned about their potential depopulation). Regardless, the concern of the article isn't even whether or not depopulation is bad; in fact it states: "In the modern era, population decline itself need not be a cause for acute economic alarm." Rather the concern is that Russia's depopulation is fueled by increases in illness and mortality. Just my personal opinion, but death and disease are bad things. The article claims that, furthermore, they are bad things for economic growth over the long term.

Depopulation isn't a bad thing and I think it's much better than overpopulation in an already overpopulated world.

by amix 18y ago

Depopulation isn't a bad thing and I think it's much better than overpopulation in an already overpopulated world.

alecco 18y ago

Yes. With the current system an aging population can't be supported for long. There isn't yet a solution for that.

Femur 18y ago
>There isn't yet a solution for that. There isn't yet a pleasant solution for that. Unfortunately, segments of population have been reduced before.

JulianMorrison 18y ago

The world is overpopulated? News to me. The way I see it, it's under-producing food, largely because of irrational resistance to modern techniques.

boris 18y ago
Yes, we need more "techniques" such as those that lead to an infection of spinach with some bacteria that is later traced to a gut of a wild boar used as a fertilizer.
- nkurz 18y ago
  I don't think you are remembering that case correctly. The animals are not being used as fertilizer. Instead, they are breaking through fences and contaminating the fields through defecation: http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=94&SubSectionID=801&ArticleID=28303&TM=5221.272 http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=94&SubSe...
Femur 18y ago
>The way I see it, it's under-producing food, largely because of irrational resistance to modern techniques. While I do agree that the planet can sustain a much higher population, modern farming practices are causing problems and not necessarily sustainable in the long term. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_farming#Disadvantages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_farming#Disadvantages) Properly thought out food production that utilizes under-used resources (vast swaths in Russia for instance!) is the key.
- JulianMorrison 18y ago
  GM is a modern farming practice that is horrendously underused, and GM can wipe out most of the disadvantages of intensive farming - GM crops can fix their own nitrogen and repel pests without pesticide. They can also be designed to grow well in 3rd world climates and contain extra nutrients.

soldarnal 18y ago

Your comparison of depopulation to "overpopulation in an already overpopulated world" is hardly just. Really you are comparing population decline with population growth, but with the latter in a very particular context in which it is known to be harmful. In contrast, nobody is concerned about population growth among polar bears (but many seem concerned about their potential depopulation). Regardless, the concern of the article isn't even whether or not depopulation is bad; in fact it states: "In the modern era, population decline itself need not be a cause for acute economic alarm." Rather the concern is that Russia's depopulation is fueled by increases in illness and mortality. Just my personal opinion, but death and disease are bad things. The article claims that, furthermore, they are bad things for economic growth over the long term.