4 ms·

Good to hear that I'm not the only one with this opinion. While I'm all for keeping resource-consumption in check and keeping sustainability in mind, I don't li

Good to hear that I'm not the only one with this opinion. While I'm all for keeping resource-consumption in check and keeping sustainability in mind, I don't like what people say about overpopulatiion. Sometimes I would hear people hoping that population numbers would decrease by natural catastrophies or diseases. Or they caution the expansion of health services in Africa "because it would make the problems worse".

lutusp 13y ago
> While I'm all for keeping resource-consumption in check and keeping sustainability in mind, I don't like what people say about overpopulatiion. That's your argument? That you don'e like it? I don't like it either, but mass death is how nature deals with species who exceed the carrying capacity of their environments. > Sometimes I would hear people hoping that population numbers would decrease by natural catastrophies or diseases. People don't hope for that, but they expect it as a natural consequence of biological growth. And they're right. The evidence is clear -- eventually mass birth is balanced by mass death. We're already seeing the first stages. > Good to hear that I'm not the only one with this opinion. Oh, you aren't the only one, not by any means. Most people think there's no reason to think about this. Natural selection efficiently chooses those who don't believe it's worth thinking about, and over time they become the entire surviving population -- people who accept mass death as a practical regulatory mechanism. More here: http://arachnoid.com/evolution http://arachnoid.com/evolution
- ddorian43 13y ago
  what are the first stages?
- IsThisObvious 13y ago
  > We're already seeing the first stages. Can you support this? We're not seeing any mass deaths which are sufficient to even slow the population growth rate, and instead, seem to simply be seeing more statistically unlikely events as the population grows larger - which is what we would expect.
  - smoyer 13y ago
    There have been several articles posted here recently on the health of the oceans, specifically how the oxygen levels are decreasing leading to a decrease in sea-life (with the exception of species like jellyfish that thrive in that environment). While I'm sure the human race could survive as vegetarians, I think it's also important to protect the systems that convert CO2 back into oxygen ... we're still going to need to breath. Of course, there's the whole global warming debate (which I won't get into) as well ... what effect will that have on plant-life and agriculture? P.S. I like seafood, so I'd also prefer we manage to keep the oceans habitable.
    - antris 13y ago
      Of course, there's the whole global warming debate It's not a debate, it's science.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        The question of what to do is not science. And it seems silly to assume that we're starting at an optimal temperature considering the wild swings the planet has had in the past.
      - smoyer 13y ago
        CO2 levels are increasing ... that's science. The question of whether we can actually stop the trend, much less reverse it is both science and debate. The question of what each person, company and country should do is purely debate. Those of us in rich industrialize countries will not want to give up our way of life. Those burning the rain-forests are (from what I remember) doing it to subsist. I'm also a steam-locomotive buff (install sl on all your Linux machines), and it's interesting to follow their decline in the US and other first world countries. China used steam power longer than most (http://www.david-longman.com/China.html http://www.david-longman.com/China.html), since they had vast reserves of coal and other more important infrastructure to build. But it appears China is just now recognizing the types of pollution that led to the 1970s/1980s "super-fund" sites in the US. I suspect that countries that want to join the ranks of the financial superpower will progress through similar stages where they won't be inclined to agree to pollution limits.
fedvasu 13y ago
I curse you to live in a country like India or Bangladesh for rest of your life. I hope you survive that environment and die a natural death.These are the places where population increase is severely under-checked due to various political,religious and plain-old(which are not any of the former) dumb reasons. I am not going to predict anything but I believe these two countries will be the example of hazards of overpopulation in the 21st century.(If Humanity survives ,we might see some awesome horror movies(or something of that sort) based on early-mid to 21st century Indian sub-continent in 22nd century)
- glenra 13y ago
  The population density of Fremont, CA is about the same as the population density of Bangladesh, and it's not a bad place to live. The population density of Hong Kong is much higher still, and it's also a pretty nice place to live. In short, the countries you name have a poverty problem, NOT a population problem. And the poverty problem is generally declining, last I checked.
  - fedvasu 13y ago
    Dude(I hope you are,or else Ma'am), HongKong is an urban conglomerate(yes it is independent region). It is a city you can't apply the same logic of cities to a an entire nation.My point is still valid.
    - glenra 13y ago
      > My point is still valid. WHAT point? Dude, you need to spend some time with gapminders.org . Follow the links below and press the "play" button beneath the charts. India and Bangladesh have in the last few decades had a rapidly falling birthrate (down to around replacement level) along with rapidly improving child mortality rates. Watch this in the form of blue dots marching down and to the left. http://www.bit.ly/1azLeVo http://www.bit.ly/1azLeVo Meanwhile, per-capita income and life expectancy are improving - watch the blue dots march up and to the right: http://www.bit.ly/16sSKR8 http://www.bit.ly/16sSKR8 So where's the impending disaster? I don't see it in any of the relevant metrics.
cnorgate 13y ago
The reality is that the best way to control population expansion is by bringing good healthcare to a region. People in the third world have huge families for a number of reasons - a few of them include the reality that: 1) Many children will die young, so in order to have at least a few that survive they need to have a large number of them 2) They have no form of birth control available available to them, so even if they wanted to they could not control the population To go along with this, in societies that lack a social safety net / old age pensions, your children are your retirement fund, so you tend to have many of them. It's a multi-faceted problem, but there are humane, concrete solutions that don't involve acts of god.
- fedvasu 13y ago
  No that is the problem right there. The advent of good(pretty good for a 3rd world country) health care in India ensured explosive growth of population. The only humane way to control population is extensive education of the masses,strongly backed by government(military can be engaged, if required) It means breaking away from religious factions and beliefs. It is impossible in India where minority politics is very important and in an Islamic country like Bangladesh it would be difficult.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > The only humane way to control population is extensive education of the masses ... Absolutely true, but for one thing. If we educate the masses, we will reduce the average fertility along with doing a lot of general good. Who could argue against that? But natural selection does perverse things with our best-laid plans. If we educate the masses, natural selection will efficiently select those who weren't educated, or who weren't educated very well, and within 100 years, those people will represent the entire human population. Those who doubt this scenario need only study the spread of MRSA, in spite of many well-educated people fighting the good fight: http://mrsa-research-center.bsd.uchicago.edu/timeline.html http://mrsa-research-center.bsd.uchicago.edu/timeline.html Quote 1: "1960-1967: nfrequent hospital outbreaks of MRSA in Western Europe and Australia - See more at: http://mrsa-research-center.bsd.uchicago.edu/timeline.html#sthash.bCnuu7BG.dpuf" http://mrsa-research-center.bsd.uchicago.edu/timeline.html#s... Quote 2: "2012: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology-published study showed MRSA infections doubled at academic medical centers in the U.S. between 2003 and 2008. Hospitalizations increased from about 21 out of every 1,000 patients hospitalized in 2003 to about 42 out of every 1,000 in 2008, or almost 1 in 20 patients." We fought and lost that battle, in the midst of the most advanced society that has ever existed, with a full armament of scientific methods and knowledge. And we didn't have to honor the tastes and individual rights of the organisms we were fighting -- we could be ruthless and warlike. We lost anyway. Now, because of MRSA, to visit a doctor exposes you to a greater risk than ... well, than most reasons to visit a doctor.
gms 13y ago
Your nickname cracks me up.

lutusp 13y ago

> While I'm all for keeping resource-consumption in check and keeping sustainability in mind, I don't like what people say about overpopulatiion. That's your argument? That you don'e like it? I don't like it either, but mass death is how nature deals with species who exceed the carrying capacity of their environments. > Sometimes I would hear people hoping that population numbers would decrease by natural catastrophies or diseases. People don't hope for that, but they expect it as a natural consequence of biological growth. And they're right. The evidence is clear -- eventually mass birth is balanced by mass death. We're already seeing the first stages. > Good to hear that I'm not the only one with this opinion. Oh, you aren't the only one, not by any means. Most people think there's no reason to think about this. Natural selection efficiently chooses those who don't believe it's worth thinking about, and over time they become the entire surviving population -- people who accept mass death as a practical regulatory mechanism. More here: http://arachnoid.com/evolution http://arachnoid.com/evolution

ddorian43 13y ago
what are the first stages?
IsThisObvious 13y ago
> We're already seeing the first stages. Can you support this? We're not seeing any mass deaths which are sufficient to even slow the population growth rate, and instead, seem to simply be seeing more statistically unlikely events as the population grows larger - which is what we would expect.
- smoyer 13y ago
  There have been several articles posted here recently on the health of the oceans, specifically how the oxygen levels are decreasing leading to a decrease in sea-life (with the exception of species like jellyfish that thrive in that environment). While I'm sure the human race could survive as vegetarians, I think it's also important to protect the systems that convert CO2 back into oxygen ... we're still going to need to breath. Of course, there's the whole global warming debate (which I won't get into) as well ... what effect will that have on plant-life and agriculture? P.S. I like seafood, so I'd also prefer we manage to keep the oceans habitable.
  - antris 13y ago
    Of course, there's the whole global warming debate It's not a debate, it's science.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      The question of what to do is not science. And it seems silly to assume that we're starting at an optimal temperature considering the wild swings the planet has had in the past.
    - smoyer 13y ago
      CO2 levels are increasing ... that's science. The question of whether we can actually stop the trend, much less reverse it is both science and debate. The question of what each person, company and country should do is purely debate. Those of us in rich industrialize countries will not want to give up our way of life. Those burning the rain-forests are (from what I remember) doing it to subsist. I'm also a steam-locomotive buff (install sl on all your Linux machines), and it's interesting to follow their decline in the US and other first world countries. China used steam power longer than most (http://www.david-longman.com/China.html http://www.david-longman.com/China.html), since they had vast reserves of coal and other more important infrastructure to build. But it appears China is just now recognizing the types of pollution that led to the 1970s/1980s "super-fund" sites in the US. I suspect that countries that want to join the ranks of the financial superpower will progress through similar stages where they won't be inclined to agree to pollution limits.

fedvasu 13y ago

I curse you to live in a country like India or Bangladesh for rest of your life. I hope you survive that environment and die a natural death.These are the places where population increase is severely under-checked due to various political,religious and plain-old(which are not any of the former) dumb reasons. I am not going to predict anything but I believe these two countries will be the example of hazards of overpopulation in the 21st century.(If Humanity survives ,we might see some awesome horror movies(or something of that sort) based on early-mid to 21st century Indian sub-continent in 22nd century)

glenra 13y ago
The population density of Fremont, CA is about the same as the population density of Bangladesh, and it's not a bad place to live. The population density of Hong Kong is much higher still, and it's also a pretty nice place to live. In short, the countries you name have a poverty problem, NOT a population problem. And the poverty problem is generally declining, last I checked.
- fedvasu 13y ago
  Dude(I hope you are,or else Ma'am), HongKong is an urban conglomerate(yes it is independent region). It is a city you can't apply the same logic of cities to a an entire nation.My point is still valid.
  - glenra 13y ago
    > My point is still valid. WHAT point? Dude, you need to spend some time with gapminders.org . Follow the links below and press the "play" button beneath the charts. India and Bangladesh have in the last few decades had a rapidly falling birthrate (down to around replacement level) along with rapidly improving child mortality rates. Watch this in the form of blue dots marching down and to the left. http://www.bit.ly/1azLeVo http://www.bit.ly/1azLeVo Meanwhile, per-capita income and life expectancy are improving - watch the blue dots march up and to the right: http://www.bit.ly/16sSKR8 http://www.bit.ly/16sSKR8 So where's the impending disaster? I don't see it in any of the relevant metrics.

cnorgate 13y ago

The reality is that the best way to control population expansion is by bringing good healthcare to a region. People in the third world have huge families for a number of reasons - a few of them include the reality that: 1) Many children will die young, so in order to have at least a few that survive they need to have a large number of them 2) They have no form of birth control available available to them, so even if they wanted to they could not control the population To go along with this, in societies that lack a social safety net / old age pensions, your children are your retirement fund, so you tend to have many of them. It's a multi-faceted problem, but there are humane, concrete solutions that don't involve acts of god.

fedvasu 13y ago
No that is the problem right there. The advent of good(pretty good for a 3rd world country) health care in India ensured explosive growth of population. The only humane way to control population is extensive education of the masses,strongly backed by government(military can be engaged, if required) It means breaking away from religious factions and beliefs. It is impossible in India where minority politics is very important and in an Islamic country like Bangladesh it would be difficult.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > The only humane way to control population is extensive education of the masses ... Absolutely true, but for one thing. If we educate the masses, we will reduce the average fertility along with doing a lot of general good. Who could argue against that? But natural selection does perverse things with our best-laid plans. If we educate the masses, natural selection will efficiently select those who weren't educated, or who weren't educated very well, and within 100 years, those people will represent the entire human population. Those who doubt this scenario need only study the spread of MRSA, in spite of many well-educated people fighting the good fight: http://mrsa-research-center.bsd.uchicago.edu/timeline.html http://mrsa-research-center.bsd.uchicago.edu/timeline.html Quote 1: "1960-1967: nfrequent hospital outbreaks of MRSA in Western Europe and Australia - See more at: http://mrsa-research-center.bsd.uchicago.edu/timeline.html#sthash.bCnuu7BG.dpuf" http://mrsa-research-center.bsd.uchicago.edu/timeline.html#s... Quote 2: "2012: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology-published study showed MRSA infections doubled at academic medical centers in the U.S. between 2003 and 2008. Hospitalizations increased from about 21 out of every 1,000 patients hospitalized in 2003 to about 42 out of every 1,000 in 2008, or almost 1 in 20 patients." We fought and lost that battle, in the midst of the most advanced society that has ever existed, with a full armament of scientific methods and knowledge. And we didn't have to honor the tastes and individual rights of the organisms we were fighting -- we could be ruthless and warlike. We lost anyway. Now, because of MRSA, to visit a doctor exposes you to a greater risk than ... well, than most reasons to visit a doctor.

gms 13y ago

Your nickname cracks me up.