Argument For Population Control

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1300064493' post='2220550']
I'm not saying I agree, but the most reasonable argument goes something like this:

1) Planet Earth can only handle so many inhabitants. Fact.[/quote]

Yes, because Earth is a finite space, it can only hold so many inhabitants.

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1300064493' post='2220550']
2) Some say that we surpassed that number a long time ago, that we can hardly fit one billion people on this planet,[/quote]

Unless we are living in the Matrix, some people are clearly wrong.

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1300064493' post='2220550']
Others on the other end of the spectrum insist that we are nowhere near the Earth's capacity, that we can handle a population of 100 billion or more.[/quote]

Depends on how many people want to live in Hong Kong, but definitely truth in this. Of course, one can easily imagine that by the time we reach such figures, permanent residency will not be limited to our planet.

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1300064493' post='2220550']
3) However, Earth's upper limit is not important within the context of this debate. We currently have a population growth rate of approximately 1.2%. At this rate..."[/quote]

Always ignore anything stated after the term "at this rate

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1300064493' post='2220550']
4) Therefore, Earth's population growth rate must eventually come to approximate zero in order to sustain life on a long-term basis.[/quote]

All else being equal.

By the way, all else is never equal. But it makes for good theorizing since the sciences of economics and meteorology could not exist without pretending to freeze in time countless highly variable variables in order to study the effects of a single variable.

A few years ago I read this book, [url="http://www.amazon.com/Cities-John-Reader/dp/0802142737/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1300153705&sr=8-3"][i]Cities[/i][/url]. Reads like a novel about the development of urban civilization. Quite fascinating to learn what human societies are capable of achieving in everyday mundane life.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' timestamp='1300153876' post='2220781']
Yes, because Earth is a finite space, it can only hold so many inhabitants.
[/quote]

uhh, yeah, there is no way it is an infinite space, even assuming 100% efficiency in space useage and location of people, etc there will be an upper limit to what the earth can support. and sustain.

[quote]
Unless we are living in the Matrix, some people are clearly wrong.
[/quote]

not true, although unlikely it is possible that the population could exceed the maximum limit of the earth. Of course, referring to maximum sustaining limit. as in, resources are replenished at a lower rate than they are used up, which would eventually lead to those resources being gone. It is theorhetically possible that that point is behind us already. Doubtful, although i would say that given current resources useage, we are running unsustainably over the long term, and as fuels dry up, we will have to change our habits.

the maximum limit would not be the moment the earth ran dry, but rather the moment it started to dry out, so to speak.


[quote]
Always ignore anything stated after the term "at this rate
[/quote]

sure, why look into the future at all? and if we do, why start at a reasonable baseline, assuming current rates of useage, etc are the same?

Edited March 15, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Nihil Obstat]

The term being searched for is carrying capacity, which is the number of individuals that an environment can properly support indefinitely. The actual population can theoretically surpass carrying capacity, but will tend to decrease to reach it again.
The fact that our population is increasing at an accelerated rate indicates that we likely haven't reached carrying capacity yet.

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1300147594' post='2220760']
Wrong side. The Arctic is Canada's. Antarctica is the south pole.
[/quote]

..........I know. I was throwing around other areas of unpopulated earth that would be SO amazing to live in.
I'm no dunce. Lol.

[XIX]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1300154633' post='2220785']
The term being searched for is carrying capacity, which is the number of individuals that an environment can properly support indefinitely. The actual population can theoretically surpass carrying capacity, but will tend to decrease to reach it again. [/quote]
Nice. Thanks for the term.

[quote]The fact that our population is increasing at an accelerated rate indicates that we likely haven't reached carrying capacity yet.
[/quote]
How, then, would you essplain the population growth in Africa, where people are (at least apparently) having way more children than they can handle?

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is something I posted on another forum that I thought might be interesting to some here. It is obviously a partial list, and kind of old so I'm aware of some other good stuff now but don't have time to update it atm. If anyone has any good resources to add to these lists please do.

[b]Overpopulation is a Myth[/b]

[i]Books[/i]

[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=sPNP4_POjc8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+War+Against+Population:+The+Economics+and+Ideology+of+World+Population+Control&source=bl&ots=rqXEHRtyGL&sig=09Mc_Y7zOzFXABu6zHI2J7T81f8&hl=en&ei=42a5TOTQK4LGlQe1qOHvDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false"]The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of World Population Control[/url]
[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=CwImmRvyyiEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fatal+Misconception:+The+Struggle+to+Control+World+Population&source=bl&ots=FMZfmP-Pph&sig=xjaqobbq-vsSrLfIimJXWydlw8c&hl=en&ei=rGa5TJ2TD8H7lwe7nqHZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false"]Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population[/url]
[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=99n9LOp1h5AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Population+Control:+Real+Costs,+Illusory+Benefits&source=bl&ots=k8_7JUokFO&sig=Tg46_VEXkadTmzj4LOl6ztuWEeY&hl=en&ei=3GW5TJCkFMH7lwfcrbHaDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false"]Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits[/url]
[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=r1Qa5RLNGDIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Coming+Population+Crash:+and+Our+Planet's+Surprising+Future&source=bl&ots=M3J_iXQB2S&sig=LoddKq1wtvSYgKoD9fWMXzuIA7c&hl=en&ei=Tmm5TNmOBcGAlAfwzJzYDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false"]The Coming Population Crash: and Our Planet's Surprising Future[/url]

[i]Interwebs[/i]

[url="http://www.demographicwinter.com/"]Demographic Winter / Demographic Bomb[/url]
[url="http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/03ruse.shtml"]The Myth of Overpopulation and the Folks Who Brought it to You[/url]
[url="http://www.cuf.org/FileDownloads/overpopulation.pdf"]Debunking the Overpopulation Myth (PDF)[/url]
[url="http://www.pop.org/"]Population Research Institute[/url]
[url="http://overpopulationisamyth.com/food-theres-lots-of-it"]1. Food: There's Lots of It[/url]
[url="http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth"]2. Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth[/url]
[url="http://overpopulationisamyth.com/2-point-1-kids-a-stable-population"]3. Kids: A Stable Population[/url]


[b]Overpopulation is True[/b]

[i]Books[/i]

[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=QRyQiINGW6oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Limits+to+Growth:+The+30-Year+Update&hl=en&ei=iWu5TIP3GsPflgfuz5ifDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"]Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update[/url]
[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=TDe9Vp0dNUgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=How+Many+People+Can+the+Earth+Support%3F&source=bl&ots=e6DKabo4ZQ&sig=yf0WnQgiz7uKfAkxP2PA7ZdXXXU&hl=en&ei=TGi5TJ6mHsKclgetvdmwDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"]How Many People Can the Earth Support?[/url]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Population-Introduction-Concepts-John-Weeks/dp/0495096377/ref=pd_sim_b_1"]Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues[/url]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Notes-Dying-Planet-2004-2006-Scientists/dp/0595400949/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287220546&sr=1-2#reader_0595400949"]Notes from a Dying Planet, 2004-2006: One Scientist's Search for Solutions[/url]

[i]Interwebs[/i]

[url="http://www.overpopulation.org/"]World Overpopulation Awareness[/url]
[url="http://www.overpopulation.org/older.html"]Population Implosion, Graying of the Population and Negative Population Growth[/url]
[url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/15/philippines-overpopulation-crisis"]Manila: A warning against overpopulation[/url]
[url="http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-1-three-beliefs"]Overpopulation Crash Course: 1 of 20[/url]

"Horizon" special featuring Sir David Attenborough, et al.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/user/marksmanr#p/c/6DA2E24DD385096C/0/LF15YAvT9G0"]Horizon: How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth? (Playlist)[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Qk6rJIaD4"]The Selfish Green[/url], featuring David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins, Richard Leakey and Jane Goodall
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Qk6rJIaD4"]Part 1[/url] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzsYazk2RtY"]Part 2[/url] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n2fLq-4aXI"]Part 3[/url] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=015B3HUyOeU"]Part 4[/url] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FTl_eI_MWA"]Part 5[/url] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rts14OENKuU"]Part 6[/url] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ExKp8cnd_g"]Part 7[/url]


[b]Related Stuff[/b]

[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=HqhFbplNYQEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+Pivotal+Moment:+Population,+Justice,+and+the+Environmental+Challenge&hl=en&ei=SG-5TPbwDsSblgfKwrneDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"]A Pivotal Moment: Population, Justice, and the Environmental Challenge[/url]
[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=ExRCABR5ic8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Enough:+Why+the+World's+Poorest+Starve+in+and+Age+of+Plenty&hl=en&ei=h2q5TO2xC4S0lQeEiMDsDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"]Enough: Why the World's Poorest Starve in and Age of Plenty[/url]
[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=C0_q-90H1aAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=When+the+Rivers+Run+Dry:+Water--The+Defining+Crisis+of+the+Twenty-first+Century&hl=en&ei=Rmy5TOStAoP6lwe85KDLDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"]When the Rivers Run Dry: Water--The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-first Century[/url]
[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=IsG6j4rcdmsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Blue+Covenant:+The+Global+Water+Crisis+and+the+Coming+Battle+for+the+Right+to+Water&hl=en&ei=nmy5TJS_NIL6lwev7oHrDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"]Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water[/url]
[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=S6TjbOz0z68C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Stolen+Harvest:+The+Hijacking+of+the+Global+Food+Supply&hl=en&ei=B4m5TKHwFcOblge6pOX4DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"]Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply[/url]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Confronting-Collapse-Crisis-Energy-Money/dp/1603582649/ref=pd_sim_b_13"]Confronting Collapse: The Crisis of Energy and Money in a Post Peak Oil World[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

And then this is a little cheat sheet of basic principles to keep in mind while researching such things as this. At least has been useful for me at times. I'll wrap it in a spoiler since it's a tad teal deer.

Based on the book [i]The Demon Haunted World[/i] by Carl Sagan

[spoiler]
The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

[list]

[*]Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
[*]Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
[*]Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
[*]Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
[*]Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
[*]Quantify, wherever possible.
[*]If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
[*]"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
[*]Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
[/list]Additional issues are
[list]

[*]Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
[*]Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
[/list]

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

[list]

[*]Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
[*]Argument from "authority".
[*]Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
[*]Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
[*]Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
[*]Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
[*]Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
[*]Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
[*]Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
[*]Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
[*]Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
[*]Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
[*]Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
[*]Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
[*]Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
[*]Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
[*]Confusion of correlation and causation.
[*]Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
[*]Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
[*]Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
[/list]
[/spoiler]

Edited March 15, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[sixpence]

ok so... this depends upon how you define "over-population" ... if you are going to use ecological terms, it would occur once the population surpasses K (carrying capacity). A tell-tale sign that a population has surpassed K is that it begins to degrade its environment, lowering K even farther (further?).

Over-population for humans is probably never going to have to do with physical space to live in, it is going to have to do with the supply levels of other resources. Look at somewhere like NYC... where are they getting their resources? Do they grow their own food, or drill their own oil? No, they get it from somewhere else. Is it sustainable? maybe. That depends where they are getting them from.

Over recent decades there have been enormous leaps in Agricultural productivity per acre, but this is not going to infinite. And the amount of arable land? clearly not infinite. That being said, I believe we may not be at K yet, as long as everyone does not decide they need to live like Americans (THAT IS A BIG IF).

PS~ I think it is entirely possible to have AREAs that are over-populated, even if the entire world might not be there yet

[Nihil Obstat]

As I said earlier, I think it would be a big step if we learned to utilize ocean space in the form of seasteading. I don't think this is out of the question, by a long shot. The key would be to construct large spaces for growing food crops and raising animals. They would probably have to run on a combination of wind and solar, with some coal backups, but they might be able to use geo-thermal if they're near thermal vents.
Anyway, I wish it was being looked into more.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Carrying capacity can be variously defined with respect to human beings given the costs of human population expansion, resource extraction and the like. Ecological destruction, loss of biodiversity, impacts on human health and quality of life, etcetera. I think a truly sustainable civilization is based on an ecological pov. And yes, on local levels overpopulation is quite real, although I question the usefulness of this way of looking at the problems. I think it is an overused and imprecise buzzword that does more harm than good.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1300208361' post='2220889']
As I said earlier, I think it would be a big step if we learned to utilize ocean space in the form of seasteading. I don't think this is out of the question, by a long shot. The key would be to construct large spaces for growing food crops and raising animals. They would probably have to run on a combination of wind and solar, with some coal backups, but they might be able to use geo-thermal if they're near thermal vents.
Anyway, I wish it was being looked into more.
[/quote]
I don't think that this would address any real issues atm. Even if it were relevant to matters of resource scarcity and population stresses the countries that would have the technical and economic resources to develop such floating villages could surely use those resources for much more fruitful endeavors (wealthy counties tend to have declining populations these days anyway). I doubt this will be proposed in a UN population report any time soon. It seems kind of up there with colonizing the moon and Mars, which, while amesome and something that I'm into, doesn't really offer practical solutions to the overpopulation-related problems in the world here and now.

There is enough arable land on the planet (hunger has more to do with sociology than productivity), and it would be more practical and worthwhile to try and restore arable land in deserts or in places where topsoil has been eroded by industrial agriculture than to build sea platforms. I admit I haven't looked into any research on seasteading and am just guessing, but it really seems like a waste of time and money as a proposed solution to social and economic problems. What you describe makes me think of Dubai.

I guess I'm wondering what your angle and argument is. What issues would the sea platforms address?

Edited March 15, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1300209570' post='2220900']
I don't think that this would address any real issues atm. Even if it were relevant to matters of resource scarcity and population stresses the countries that would have the technical and economic resources to develop such floating villages could surely use those resources for much more fruitful endeavors (wealthy counties tend to have declining populations these days anyway). I doubt this will be proposed in a UN population report any time soon. It seems kind of up there with colonizing the moon and Mars, which, while amesome and something that I'm into, doesn't really offer practical solutions to the overpopulation-related problems in the world here and now.

There is enough arable land on the planet (hunger has more to do with sociology than productivity), and it would be more practical and worthwhile to try and restore arable land in deserts or in places where topsoil has been eroded by industrial agriculture than to build sea platforms. I admit I haven't looked into any research on seasteading and am just guessing, but it really seems like a waste of time and money as a proposed solution to social and economic problems. What you describe makes me think of Dubai.

I guess I'm wondering what your angle and argument is. What issues would the sea platforms address?
[/quote]
Well I think that the goal would be to make them as self-sufficient as possible. Basically, it would be like adding another continent of usable land. I don't imagine that it would have a direct effect on those areas which are most overcrowded, but basically it would just give us more room, and let our population diffuse just that much further.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I wonder what tnavarro might have to say in response to the article above which takes Manila as an overpopulation case in point.

[url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/15/philippines-overpopulation-crisis"]This article.[/url]

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1300214545' post='2220913']
I wonder what tnavarro might have to say in response to the article above which takes Manila as an overpopulation case in point.

[url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/15/philippines-overpopulation-crisis"]This article.[/url]
[/quote]

I don't know what he has to say, but I have this to say. High population density does not cause poverty. If it did, Hong Kong and Singapore would be destitute. And Kenya would be wealthy beyond reckoning.

36,500 people per square mile in Manila. 44,775 per square mile in Seoul. Where's the poverty in Seoul? Where are the tenements? Moon Village is a sight better than Manila's scenes. High population density does not cause poverty. State intervention and culture causes poverty.

~Sternhauser

[4588686]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1300065882' post='2220554']
Population growth rates are not static.

At any rate, don't stay up worrying about it: WWIII is on its way. Or perhaps another plague.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

The Good Lord would much prefer mass death and destruction to something truly evil like condoms to maintain a stable population.