The population explosion: a challenging piece of knowledge

[Metyu]

Originally Posted by August

"Because of rape." What nonsense.

What an offensive and thoughtless comment!

[Metyu]

August, why do you think fertility and AIDS rates are so high in developing countries?

[Metyu]

Rape in Marriage - Google Book Search

[Ewald]

Hi all,
I'm new to this forum and have read some of the threads - especially on the population forum.
I have been around for the past 62 years and have witnessed much of the population explosion in my own country, South Africa. Over the past decades and especially as recent as 5 or 10 years ago, many voices could be heard on global warming, food crisis, economical recesses etc - but I am eagerly waiting for someone to mention the population explosion which threatens the globe. And with "someone" I refer to world leaders.
The solution should be simple: Turn the population explosion into a negative growth rate and most of all global problems would be solved!
But, unfortunately, there are too many people who believe that "the world owes me something" and "the world will and have to provide" Many if not all of these people have the view that its their "human right" to have many children - only to find out later in life that it costs and arm and a leg to have those children educated to fend for themselves.
In Africa, my friends, there are millions of people who still hold the view that their "wealth" lies in the number of children they can father.
This planet can only support so many people, and no more! It is also quite ridiculous to hear that scientists are looking for "other planets" for the future! The nearest planet to mother earth can only be reached in around 80 years of age - ie if a baby is born on the space ship, he or she will be 80 years old before he or she will land on that other planet. Its a wast of money - we live on a beautiful planet, we only need to look after it! Or should I say: it was a beautiful planet before man came and buggered it all up! (I prefer another word to "buggered", but I'd rather not use it)
Lastly, for now, I believe that there are too many people who hide behind the word "religion" They believe that all children are given by God, which just cannot be true - it is man's own choice to have one or ten children. It is man who is supposed to use his few brain cells to figure out that ten children will cost ten times more than one - and that he, man, cannot expect or force the rest of the world to feed them.
Our world is under extreme pressure due to over population, and someone, somewhere should do something about it.

[Metyu]

Hi Ewald, welcome to the forum!

I am fairly new myself. That said, I have some strong opinions regarding population. While I am in no way religious, I believe there are some tried and tested methods for reducing fertility rates and this basically requires us all to develop.

History shows that war does not stop population growth; during both WWI and WWII the population of Europe increased at a higher rate than inter war years. It is argued that this is because people looked after each other better.

Also, popultion controls do not work, as evidenced by China's attempts and there is other empirical evidence available.

The way to deal with population is to engage in developmen theories; I highly recommend Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom".

A few specific responses to your comment:

Originally Posted by Ewald

In Africa, my friends, there are millions of people who still hold the view that their "wealth" lies in the number of children they can father.

This will continue until they are able to bring a child up. Isn't there a saying in Africa, "Lucky number 5"? I.e. the lucky child that reaches it's fifth birthday?

Originally Posted by Ewald

This planet can only support so many people, and no more!

Arguably, but we do not know what that limit is. Ecological footprinting is dominated by CO2, take this out of the equation and the problem doesn't look as bad. Particularly if you are like me and see more CO2, more freshwater and more heat as a good thing for making plants grow.

Also, Malthus first put forward this hypothesis about 300 years ago. He was wrong. The Marquis de Condorcet has been shown to be more accurate when it comes to population.

Originally Posted by Ewald

It is also quite ridiculous to hear that scientists are looking for "other planets" for the future! The nearest planet to mother earth can only be reached in around 80 years of age - ie if a baby is born on the space ship, he or she will be 80 years old before he or she will land on that other planet.

I disagree. Currently, physics has no way of getting humans to another planet, due to the timescales and energy requirements, but there is no reason why nanobots cannot be sent to mine other planets for us.

Originally Posted by Ewald

Its a wast of money - we live on a beautiful planet, we only need to look after it! Or should I say: it was a beautiful planet before man came and buggered it all up! (I prefer another word to "buggered", but I'd rather not use it)

I agree much of it is a waste of money. But then, Kyoto raises ~$180 billion per year, which goes into the pockets of bankers, whereas the UN estimates it would cost around $30 billion per year to feed, clothe and provide basic healthcare and education to all the world's children. And let's not forget the billion spent on meteorology and climate research every year.

Also, more people can enjoy the planet now than ever before. We are capable of dealing with many environmental problems, and at the same time we have brought an estimated billion people out of poverty in 50 years. That is also beautiful.

Originally Posted by Ewald

Our world is under extreme pressure due to over population, and someone, somewhere should do something about it.

I find blase claims like this worrisome. Where is your evidence that the world is under extreme pressure due to overpopulation?

Who do you want to do something about it and why, and how do you propose they go about it?

Best,
M.

[Ewald]

Dear Metyu
Thanks for the response to which I would like to comment:
1. I don't suggest that wars will reduce the population growth at all, but the world will at least be able to start with a clean slate.
2. No, we don't know what the limit of population is that the globe can sustain, but if one considers global warming, the energy crisis, foor shortages, droughts and famine, I believe that limit is not far off.
3. Reaching another planet is not viable at all - and even if we do, it might even be more crowded than our own! Again, if our population could be halved over the next millennium, there will be enough sustainable resources on our own planet.
4. It surely is a noble act of mankind to bring people out of poverty and we all agree with that. The problem lies in the fact that there are too many people who hold the view that someone else can feed their multiple children - "we can just carry on making them!"
5. Well, Metyu, if the current global problems regarding global warming, energy, food shortages etc etc are to be taken seriously (and it is!), it must surely be an indication that the world is under "extreme pressure' to provide for us all?
6. Who do I want to do something about it? Everyone! We should all talk about over population - amongst our families, our workers, in our work place, to the less educated, on forums like these. Politicians should warn against irresponsible family planning when they paint the dark picture of global warming and sea levels rising! People should hear this warning from day to day and we must all remember never to say: "It won't happen to me - there will always be enough of everything!"

I feel good talking about it!
E

[Metyu]

Hi Ewald,

Thanks for your response. I like talking about it too! I hope we can learn from each other; I should say that my opinions are largely influenced from studying development theory, in which not only were my 'environmentalist' opinions overturned, I realised there is a significant amount of political manipulation of this subject matter; colonialism did not die with decolonisation!

That said, of course the planet cannot sustain unchecked growth forever. More accurately, Western civilisation may be threatened by unchecked resource consumption, much as there is evidence of the decline of previous civlisations for the same reason. However, there are plenty of examples where attempts at the control of resources have had far worse results than would otherwise have occurred if people were left to their own devices.

This is a tough pill to swallow and it took me a long time to reach these conclusions, but I now consider myself a libertarian capitalist, and I believe the way forward is not government intervention, it is raising awareness of issues and searching for truth. While the planet may not be able to sustain unchecked growth, there is no reason why it does not have built-in limits to such growth [an example of built-in limitations is the coryceps fungus, which I linked to from my blog: Cordyceps Fungus..

Originally Posted by Ewald

1. I don't suggest that wars will reduce the population growth at all, but the world will at least be able to start with a clean slate.

Glad we agree, although I think my statement was incorrect; I think it's longevity rates that increased during war, not population.

"Clean slate"?

Originally Posted by Ewald

2. No, we don't know what the limit of population is that the globe can sustain, but if one considers global warming, the energy crisis, foor shortages, droughts and famine, I believe that limit is not far off.

A significant aspect of one of the biggest famines the world has known was centralised planning. In China in 1958, the Great Leap Forward put a lot of pressure on farmers, who basically lied about how much they were producing, and took the inspectors to the fields that were producing a lot of food. This led the government to believe everything was fine. An estimated 30 million people died as a result.

No other famine or drought comes close to this as far as I'm aware.

I've also blogged about the so-called food shortage here:

What Food Shortage? Pt 3: Latin America.

(see also parts 1 and 2).

The energy crisis is compounded by global warming... It is difficult to argue this point, so I'll just say there is more to this than meets the eye. The 2005 Unocal affair is indicative of the kinds of problems. I have heard that there is about 300 years worth of oil left, and nearly as much gas.

That is not to say there is no problem, nor that access to this energy will be easy (this is a good read, http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...7/rp07-042.pdf) but all activists should be aware that are people out there who want to control fossil fuels not because they care about the planet but because they want to control people.

Originally Posted by Ewald

3. Reaching another planet is not viable at all - and even if we do, it might even be more crowded than our own! Again, if our population could be halved over the next millennium, there will be enough sustainable resources on our own planet.

I agree re: going to another planet. Not convinced we can't bring one to us, though!

Originally Posted by Ewald

4. It surely is a noble act of mankind to bring people out of poverty and we all agree with that. The problem lies in the fact that there are too many people who hold the view that someone else can feed their multiple children - "we can just carry on making them!"

I'm not sure anyone thinks that far in advance?

Originally Posted by Ewald

5. Well, Metyu, if the current global problems regarding global warming, energy, food shortages etc etc are to be taken seriously (and it is!), it must surely be an indication that the world is under "extreme pressure' to provide for us all?

I agree, and I would suggest that pressure is relative, and we also do not know how the system will respond under pressure. For myself and many others, I committed my life to the pursuit of problem. Not as an activist or charity worker, but as a professional consultant. There are many many more like me, and word is spreading. What concerns me is that certain organisations will use this issue to further their political aims.

We must remember that Nature holds some fascinating surprises for us yet!

Originally Posted by Ewald

6. Who do I want to do something about it? Everyone! We should all talk about over population - amongst our families, our workers, in our work place, to the less educated, on forums like these. Politicians should warn against irresponsible family planning when they paint the dark picture of global warming and sea levels rising! People should hear this warning from day to day and we must all remember never to say: "It won't happen to me - there will always be enough of everything!"

Again I agree, with the reservation that we must spread truths and solutions, not hysteria and hyperbole.

M.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ewald

In Africa, my friends, there are millions of people who still hold the view that their "wealth" lies in the number of children they can father.

That's true. And there is no spreading of the word going on, that the practice of giving birth to an average of three children per woman gives rise to population explosion, and inevitably so. Furthermore, there is no spreading of the word that population explosion can ever be a bad thing. The fact that plenty of African countries can expect a population increase of more than a 120% in the next forty years, is really not an issue. Now, what with the local ecological consequences of such a development? No. Nobody wants to know. And why? Well, mostly because of culture and tradition, I'm afraid. People do things just like their grandparents used to do things; because that's the only wisdom that matters. It is a sad fact. And the price is going to be paid by future generations, struggling with deforestation, desertification, erosion of the land, and severe freshwater worries. And mass migration. And wars over dwindling natural resources. Much of it precisely because of the population explosion. But that is not an issue, of course. It is not the way of our ancestors, that's why? And that is, unfortunately, all too often the only wisdom that makes sense to the people who are making sure that the population explosion is going to take place, no matter what! And come to think about it: the only way to stop the population explosion from taking place would be to introduce a one-child-policy. And from a common tradition based African perspective, I guess that would be (what?) preposterous. So we've just got to live with the fact that the most areas of Africa, the Middle East, and South-East Asia is going to experience a population growth that really is out of this world, and then brace ourselves (well, well) while we look forward to facing the consequences; both on a local, a regional and a global level.

[Ewald]

Thanks August,
You echo my very thoughts! Fact is unfortanely that I am almost on my way out at 62 years of age! But it still saddens me to see it all "deteriote" - maybe its just because I was not brought up that way. I was taught that one should always think of tomorrow as well. Have my parents not always said that I should not eat all the sweets today, but save some for tomorrow?
I think what bothers me most is that there is just not enough said about the pop explosion. Should there not be more politicians, leaders, and other people in influential positions talking and warning about it more often? Or has the problem perhaps just gone too far - beyond the point of "no return"? Will it take a third world war to reduce the number of people or will it take another pandemic in the form of a deadly virus or even major natural disasters? No one knows. Natural disasters are obviously out of our hands, but why are people so damn stupid not to see and realise that we just cannot survice without food and water? And rather have one child with a good future than to have 6 or 8 or 10 with no future at all?
Which brings me to another point: To have children, knowing that their future might be very bleak, is surely the most selfish deed parents can do. It is unfair towards that child and at large it is unfair towards the whole world. And it is selfish to expect the rest of the world to feed these poor souls with food programs for which you and I eventually pay!
Ewald

[Metyu]

Originally Posted by Ewald

To have children, knowing that their future might be very bleak, is surely the most selfish deed parents can do.

I'm not sure if I've said this before, but I've heard the follwoing anecdotally.

There is a saying in Africa that a child is "lucky number 5". This means the child is the lucky one in 5 that lives to see the age of 5.

This has nothing to do with resource scarcity, because the very reason these people exist at all is because they have survived for thousands of years on the resources available to them.

Why might this have changed in recent centuries?