Does that article really imply that we pass the point of no return in 15 years? (Sorry if I read it wrong--on my phone)
Global Population Issues
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: Global Population Issues
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17116
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: Global Population Issues
@jp -
(Yes, that article implies that. This is also what the World3 model predicted many years ago and so far it has been correct. That the world will see some great upheaval in terms of population numbers, infrastructure, pollution levels, in the 2020-2030 decade.)
In concrete non-metaphorical terms, people gotta eat. The world can only supply enough food for 1 billion people on a western diet on a sustainable basis. The world is currently feeding 7 billion people by pumping up oil and using it to create fertilizers and pesticides which allows farmers to grow more food than they can using traditional methods. This depletes top soil. In order to continue feeding 7 billion people, that is, 1 billion people on a western diet and 6 billion people on a non-western diet, food production needs to grow exponentially. 7 billion people on a western diet is practically impossible. 7 billion people on a diet of rice of 1500 kcal per day is just about doable.
Energy extraction does not grow exponentially because it is finitie.
Top soil is being depleted.
Consequentially food prices and energy prices go up. Despite technological innovations such as shale oil extraction, technology has been unable to send oil prices much under $100. This is in stark contrast to the at-most $35 standard that prevalied two decades ago.
This means that more and more people can not afford energy and since food is grown with that energy and has that cost embedded, they can't afford food.
In the western world, where food is 20% of our budget, we can easily afford a 50% increase in food prices. We can therefore remain largely oblivious to the problem and write op-eds saying that Malthus was wrong. Other parts of the world, say Egypt, where food prices are 40% of the budget can ill afford similar inflation.
When the majority of people can't afford to eat and yet observe that a minority of people still eat, they get cranky. They start wars and revolutions. Depending on who we're currently allied with we refer to them as rebels, freedom fighters, terrorists, ... etc. and depending on our own strategic interests, we will either support the government or the revolution. See Ukraine. See Libya. See Iraq. See Gaza. See Syria. See Lebanon. Rhetorical blather aside, who gets the resources is what's at heart.
Another issue with going hungry and living in dense populations is the epidemics become more prevalent. See ebola. Disease is another pressure point.
In the western world, we're largely oblivious to the direct consequences of this. Instead we observe the maxing out of the global supply capacity in our financial markets. They become volatile as does any kind of signalling system that is taxed to the limit. This makes it hard to plan for the future and consequentially our technological implmentations become less efficient because it gets harder to invest properly.
Now, to cast the problem in non-abstract terms ...
It is not possible to bring 6 billion people to a level of affluence in which women's rights, education, ... will lower their birthrate... because there's be 7 billion people eating a western diet (and consuming resources at a western rate) and the world can only sustainably supply enough for 1 billion.
It is not possible to convince the 1 billion rich people to stop consuming many times the resources per capity compared to the poor people (the other 6 billion). This is mainly because the 1 billion rich people are oblivious to their impact. They will have plenty of excuses along the lines of "my spouse would never go for it", "I can't live like that", "I like to travel and have fun", ... etc. (see standard ERE objections)
It is not possible to wait for "Them to think of something". Oil prices are already so high, the markets are so volatile, the atmosphere is out of whack, a substantial number of countries are at war, that the incentives "to think of something" have been in place for a while. Furthermore, the people in position to "think of something" live in the first world and still focus on first world problems such as "what should my asset allocation be" while the economy in the rest of the world (those very assets that the financial numbers actually represent) are decaying due to war, famine, pestilence, ... in other words, there's a disconnect and because of the inequality, the disconnect will persist.
The solution will be a combination of all three. Typically what happens in a situation like this is that a great deal of people will believe that "our civilization is unique". They will turn out to be wrong as they always have in the past. People will muddle through. Many institutions will fall entirely or simply become a shelf of their former selves. The main question is how individual people will tackle this problem for themselves. I'm not very convinced that humans are capable of acting in groups using foresight (e.g. informed eusocial). Rather we have a bunch of chips (sorry for the metaphor). We throw them up in the air. And then we see where they fall.
PS: I'm also confident that many people can and will remain completely oblivious to these issues and keep casting them in simple-minded terms, e.g. "us vs them", "freedom", "terrorists", etc...
(Yes, that article implies that. This is also what the World3 model predicted many years ago and so far it has been correct. That the world will see some great upheaval in terms of population numbers, infrastructure, pollution levels, in the 2020-2030 decade.)
In concrete non-metaphorical terms, people gotta eat. The world can only supply enough food for 1 billion people on a western diet on a sustainable basis. The world is currently feeding 7 billion people by pumping up oil and using it to create fertilizers and pesticides which allows farmers to grow more food than they can using traditional methods. This depletes top soil. In order to continue feeding 7 billion people, that is, 1 billion people on a western diet and 6 billion people on a non-western diet, food production needs to grow exponentially. 7 billion people on a western diet is practically impossible. 7 billion people on a diet of rice of 1500 kcal per day is just about doable.
Energy extraction does not grow exponentially because it is finitie.
Top soil is being depleted.
Consequentially food prices and energy prices go up. Despite technological innovations such as shale oil extraction, technology has been unable to send oil prices much under $100. This is in stark contrast to the at-most $35 standard that prevalied two decades ago.
This means that more and more people can not afford energy and since food is grown with that energy and has that cost embedded, they can't afford food.
In the western world, where food is 20% of our budget, we can easily afford a 50% increase in food prices. We can therefore remain largely oblivious to the problem and write op-eds saying that Malthus was wrong. Other parts of the world, say Egypt, where food prices are 40% of the budget can ill afford similar inflation.
When the majority of people can't afford to eat and yet observe that a minority of people still eat, they get cranky. They start wars and revolutions. Depending on who we're currently allied with we refer to them as rebels, freedom fighters, terrorists, ... etc. and depending on our own strategic interests, we will either support the government or the revolution. See Ukraine. See Libya. See Iraq. See Gaza. See Syria. See Lebanon. Rhetorical blather aside, who gets the resources is what's at heart.
Another issue with going hungry and living in dense populations is the epidemics become more prevalent. See ebola. Disease is another pressure point.
In the western world, we're largely oblivious to the direct consequences of this. Instead we observe the maxing out of the global supply capacity in our financial markets. They become volatile as does any kind of signalling system that is taxed to the limit. This makes it hard to plan for the future and consequentially our technological implmentations become less efficient because it gets harder to invest properly.
Now, to cast the problem in non-abstract terms ...
It is not possible to bring 6 billion people to a level of affluence in which women's rights, education, ... will lower their birthrate... because there's be 7 billion people eating a western diet (and consuming resources at a western rate) and the world can only sustainably supply enough for 1 billion.
It is not possible to convince the 1 billion rich people to stop consuming many times the resources per capity compared to the poor people (the other 6 billion). This is mainly because the 1 billion rich people are oblivious to their impact. They will have plenty of excuses along the lines of "my spouse would never go for it", "I can't live like that", "I like to travel and have fun", ... etc. (see standard ERE objections)
It is not possible to wait for "Them to think of something". Oil prices are already so high, the markets are so volatile, the atmosphere is out of whack, a substantial number of countries are at war, that the incentives "to think of something" have been in place for a while. Furthermore, the people in position to "think of something" live in the first world and still focus on first world problems such as "what should my asset allocation be" while the economy in the rest of the world (those very assets that the financial numbers actually represent) are decaying due to war, famine, pestilence, ... in other words, there's a disconnect and because of the inequality, the disconnect will persist.
The solution will be a combination of all three. Typically what happens in a situation like this is that a great deal of people will believe that "our civilization is unique". They will turn out to be wrong as they always have in the past. People will muddle through. Many institutions will fall entirely or simply become a shelf of their former selves. The main question is how individual people will tackle this problem for themselves. I'm not very convinced that humans are capable of acting in groups using foresight (e.g. informed eusocial). Rather we have a bunch of chips (sorry for the metaphor). We throw them up in the air. And then we see where they fall.
PS: I'm also confident that many people can and will remain completely oblivious to these issues and keep casting them in simple-minded terms, e.g. "us vs them", "freedom", "terrorists", etc...
-
Riggerjack
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am
Re: Global Population Issues
Ok, this has been fun, but it's time to inject some optimism.
The new world is nowhere near maxed farmland. When food gets spendier, farming practices will improve. The dept of agriculture has our farming system completely hosed. The limitation is more water than land in most places in north America. Irrigation practices will get better with crop prices.
Fertility rates drop with the rise in women's careers. More women working means smaller family sizes, and more intentionally child free. 2 earner households raise the bar for the Jones, causing people to associate single earner/large families with poverty, and and poverty is the ultimate taboo a society can place on an activity.
The new world is nowhere near maxed farmland. When food gets spendier, farming practices will improve. The dept of agriculture has our farming system completely hosed. The limitation is more water than land in most places in north America. Irrigation practices will get better with crop prices.
Fertility rates drop with the rise in women's careers. More women working means smaller family sizes, and more intentionally child free. 2 earner households raise the bar for the Jones, causing people to associate single earner/large families with poverty, and and poverty is the ultimate taboo a society can place on an activity.
-
Riggerjack
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am
Re: Global Population Issues
@Chad :
I've heard this before, and it sounds reasonable, but do you know of any examples? I can't think of any majority male populations, and I'm starting to suspect this is just some fictional factoid made up by a sociology professor.On a related note, a population with significantly more men than women is a historical warning sign for war.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17116
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: Global Population Issues
@Riggerjack - I think I covered those suggestions.
First, there are not enough resources, that is, the extraction rate can not be increased by a factor 7 in order for the other 6 billion to have first world style careers to the degree that it causes the population to stabilize.
Second, in the US there are currently 9.2 million who are unemployed. If this country can't employ them in careers that would make them turn their back on their former poverty, how can the world find careers for 6000 million others?
The affluence solution to stopping population growth is already too costly. I'd buy the argument if the world population was 700 million, but we are almost 10x the number of people for this solution to work already.
In the US, the water you're talking about is ground water which is also a non-renewable resource. Groundwater reservoirs recharge very slowly. If water is the limiting factor, you can only temporarily increase yields by mining it.
The world could conceivably sustain the current number of people using bio-intensive gardening. China has historically maintained a high population concentration through highly regulated irrigation and the use of serious manpower. Is this the solution we desire? Where instead of 1-2% of the population working in "food supply" we bump the number to 50%+? I'm thinking it's one of the more likely solutions so I suggest everybody start practicing. Seriously.
As mentioned above though, as long as the global economy respects the financial system, us rich folks (the 1 billion people in the developed world) can afford to price almost everybody out of the market and cause social unrest while we continue eating bacon. This suggests that most people in the first world will waste years of "wait see" before actually learning this.
First, there are not enough resources, that is, the extraction rate can not be increased by a factor 7 in order for the other 6 billion to have first world style careers to the degree that it causes the population to stabilize.
Second, in the US there are currently 9.2 million who are unemployed. If this country can't employ them in careers that would make them turn their back on their former poverty, how can the world find careers for 6000 million others?
The affluence solution to stopping population growth is already too costly. I'd buy the argument if the world population was 700 million, but we are almost 10x the number of people for this solution to work already.
In the US, the water you're talking about is ground water which is also a non-renewable resource. Groundwater reservoirs recharge very slowly. If water is the limiting factor, you can only temporarily increase yields by mining it.
The world could conceivably sustain the current number of people using bio-intensive gardening. China has historically maintained a high population concentration through highly regulated irrigation and the use of serious manpower. Is this the solution we desire? Where instead of 1-2% of the population working in "food supply" we bump the number to 50%+? I'm thinking it's one of the more likely solutions so I suggest everybody start practicing. Seriously.
As mentioned above though, as long as the global economy respects the financial system, us rich folks (the 1 billion people in the developed world) can afford to price almost everybody out of the market and cause social unrest while we continue eating bacon. This suggests that most people in the first world will waste years of "wait see" before actually learning this.
Re: Global Population Issues
jennypenny wrote:I still have a couple of questions that aren't related to killing off Ego's neighbors in Soylent Towers ...
1) Is the world currently overpopulated? Or is it the rate of growth that's unsustainable? Or the distribution around the globe? Or is the number sustainable now but not in a low-energy future?
2) is the problem population itself, or is the problem that we haven't adequately addressed other problems such as educating women, adequate health care, sustainable food sources, energy consumption, etc.? If population rates naturally decline when those issues are addressed, do we even need a 'solution' to the population issue, or will rates go down as we solve other problems?
3) What happens when big issues have contradictory solutions? This thread implies that our transition from a meat-based to a grain-based diet lead to population issues. The climate change thread implies that a grain-based diet is better than a meat-based diet for the environment. Do I have that right? Then what's the solution?
------------------
btw ... Those questions aren't just directed at jacob. I'm curious about what everyone thinks since we all come at this from different angles/biases/cultural backgrounds.
You must be a racist because you don't support "the greater good" and believe in individual determination. How dare you.
-
Devil's Advocate
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:25 am
Re: Global Population Issues
Racism is passe. So last-millennium, so neanderthal, so bloody plebian and semi-literate!
INTJs are the new Aryans!
MBTI's just the right age, not too old, not too recent. It does explain so many things, given bounded conditions. Best of all, it's pseudo-science, or so they tell us : and very compelling nevertheless. And the clinching argument : INTJs are clearly the Chosen Ones. As non-INTJs too agree--don't they?
And further : no need to mutilate ancient religious symbols, like the Nazis did the Swastika. "INTJ" is in itself a cool symbol, and can be made more so via some calligraphy--I can picture running vines, for instance, with leaves and flowers sprouting symbolically.
So please, let us hear no more about that r-word. Let us discuss INTJism instead, if we must!
INTJs are the new Aryans!
MBTI's just the right age, not too old, not too recent. It does explain so many things, given bounded conditions. Best of all, it's pseudo-science, or so they tell us : and very compelling nevertheless. And the clinching argument : INTJs are clearly the Chosen Ones. As non-INTJs too agree--don't they?
And further : no need to mutilate ancient religious symbols, like the Nazis did the Swastika. "INTJ" is in itself a cool symbol, and can be made more so via some calligraphy--I can picture running vines, for instance, with leaves and flowers sprouting symbolically.
So please, let us hear no more about that r-word. Let us discuss INTJism instead, if we must!
Re: Global Population Issues
@ jacob & ffj
Bio-intensive agriculture/permaculture have an important part to play.
Transitioning to a society where > 50% of people work in food production/procurement seems like a return to a more natural, long term state for humans. I think the problem is the solution i.e. the economy may be suffering, people will be out of work and short on food; farmers will be short on energy and labour inputs. It’s a natural fit. I see a few big issues though:
- Top soil loss, loss of biodiversity, pests and diseases caused by monoculture if allowed to go too far may not be recoverable for a long time.
- Significant changes may need to be made to existing systems/ways of thinking. Permaculture systems can take decades to reach maximum productivity.
- A lack of skills, fitness and willingness to live an agricultural life.
I think that a society with a significant portion of the population “working the fields” could be really good, or really bad. On one end of the spectrum, with well-designed permaculture on a large scale, a conducive climate and some appropriate technology we could be living in relative abundance, the other 50% could pursue “cultural activities” and essential services as their contributions, it would be grand, perhaps a bit too utopian... On the other end we could have 98% in food production, unskilled and working against nature, feeling the effects of droughts and other events, struggling to survive.
What end of the spectrum a community ends up on will be influenced by local factors i.e. demographics, skill level of community, climate, top soil, access to appropriate technology etc. Densely populated areas in desert regions that currently import all their food will struggle…
____________________________________
On another note I think comparing efficiencies of meat vs grain is too simplistic. I agree that feeding animals grain which would be perfectly fine for humans to eat is highly inefficient and detrimental, however:
- Not all meat is grain fed and nor does it have to be
- Animals provide important functions that can reduce/eliminate the need for artificial fertilisers (manure), pesticides (eating bugs and weeds) and energy inputs (both human and fossil fuel).
- They also provide multiple yields (eggs, milk, meat, furs)
- Some land is inappropriate for intensive cultivation i.e. steep country, low rainfall areas, cold climates etc.
- Permaculture systems generally work best with intelligent integration of plants and animals i.e. working with natural processes (vegan permaculture doesn’t work well)
- Cereal agriculture is often highly mechanised and reliant on petroleum/chemical inputs. Animal husbandry doesn’t have to be.
I’m deliberately avoiding the discussion of health and ethics here as it’s not the place...
Bio-intensive agriculture/permaculture have an important part to play.
Transitioning to a society where > 50% of people work in food production/procurement seems like a return to a more natural, long term state for humans. I think the problem is the solution i.e. the economy may be suffering, people will be out of work and short on food; farmers will be short on energy and labour inputs. It’s a natural fit. I see a few big issues though:
- Top soil loss, loss of biodiversity, pests and diseases caused by monoculture if allowed to go too far may not be recoverable for a long time.
- Significant changes may need to be made to existing systems/ways of thinking. Permaculture systems can take decades to reach maximum productivity.
- A lack of skills, fitness and willingness to live an agricultural life.
I think that a society with a significant portion of the population “working the fields” could be really good, or really bad. On one end of the spectrum, with well-designed permaculture on a large scale, a conducive climate and some appropriate technology we could be living in relative abundance, the other 50% could pursue “cultural activities” and essential services as their contributions, it would be grand, perhaps a bit too utopian... On the other end we could have 98% in food production, unskilled and working against nature, feeling the effects of droughts and other events, struggling to survive.
What end of the spectrum a community ends up on will be influenced by local factors i.e. demographics, skill level of community, climate, top soil, access to appropriate technology etc. Densely populated areas in desert regions that currently import all their food will struggle…
____________________________________
On another note I think comparing efficiencies of meat vs grain is too simplistic. I agree that feeding animals grain which would be perfectly fine for humans to eat is highly inefficient and detrimental, however:
- Not all meat is grain fed and nor does it have to be
- Animals provide important functions that can reduce/eliminate the need for artificial fertilisers (manure), pesticides (eating bugs and weeds) and energy inputs (both human and fossil fuel).
- They also provide multiple yields (eggs, milk, meat, furs)
- Some land is inappropriate for intensive cultivation i.e. steep country, low rainfall areas, cold climates etc.
- Permaculture systems generally work best with intelligent integration of plants and animals i.e. working with natural processes (vegan permaculture doesn’t work well)
- Cereal agriculture is often highly mechanised and reliant on petroleum/chemical inputs. Animal husbandry doesn’t have to be.
I’m deliberately avoiding the discussion of health and ethics here as it’s not the place...
Re: Global Population Issues
Actually I want to takeaway the pessimism from this thread.Riggerjack wrote:Ok, this has been fun, but it's time to inject some optimism.
In a study published earlier this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of British neuroscientists created an equation that they say accurately predicted the short-term happiness of more than 18,000 people by comparing their expectations of an event to its real-life outcomes. Here’s what that looks like:
http://explore.noodle.com/post/94117458 ... ign=bufferFor the algebraically reluctant, it boils down to this: Happiness “doesn’t depend on how things are going [but] on whether things are going better or worse than you had expected they would.”
Re: Global Population Issues
Yeah, I don't have source I can link too, as I got the information from my professors. They were former intel analysts for various agencies or the military. I have found other information they talked about to be valid, so I give them credit for this.Riggerjack wrote:@Chad :I've heard this before, and it sounds reasonable, but do you know of any examples? I can't think of any majority male populations, and I'm starting to suspect this is just some fictional factoid made up by a sociology professor.On a related note, a population with significantly more men than women is a historical warning sign for war.
Last edited by Chad on Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: Global Population Issues
gandk posted a white paper once about the preponderance of males in china that (I thought) referenced the research. I can't find it. Maybe someone else remembers the thread name?Chad wrote:Yeah, I don't have source I can link too, as I got the information from my professors. They were former intel analysts for various agencies or the military and I have found other information they talked about to be valid, so I give them credit for this.Riggerjack wrote:@Chad :I've heard this before, and it sounds reasonable, but do you know of any examples? I can't think of any majority male populations, and I'm starting to suspect this is just some fictional factoid made up by a sociology professor.On a related note, a population with significantly more men than women is a historical warning sign for war.
Re: Global Population Issues
This may be it.
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hapr/winter ... hudson.pdf
from here
viewtopic.php?p=60936#p60936
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hapr/winter ... hudson.pdf
from here
viewtopic.php?p=60936#p60936
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: Global Population Issues
That's it!
Thanks.
Thanks.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: Global Population Issues
For discussion's sake, let's say we all agree that the global population is well beyond the planet's carrying capacity. What would you suggest? How would you deal with it? What would work, and work fast enough? (no moral judgments allowed; only discussions of effectiveness, practicality, or palatability)
Is there anything that could be done that would be effective but wouldn't tear apart the fabric of society?
Is there anything that could be done that would be effective but wouldn't tear apart the fabric of society?
Re: Global Population Issues
I just moved to an emptied near-Detroit neighborhood filling up with immigrants from Bangladesh (also Bosnia and Yemen.) My share rent and utilities = $300/month. Food at local markets (strawberries 50 cents/quart) or even restaurants (Tandoori chicken $1.99 serving) extremely inexpensive. Cheap bike repair shop round the corner in fly-by-night dollar store. Vacant lots with full sun exposure available for next-to-nothing if I want to garden. Problem solved ...for me (and I didn't even have to buy a plane ticket!)
-
Little_empty_attic
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:21 pm
Re: Global Population Issues
@ jennypenny
No tax incentives/rebates/deductions or paid child benefits for having children for starters.
No tax incentives/rebates/deductions or paid child benefits for having children for starters.
-
workathome
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:06 pm
Re: Global Population Issues
@Little_empty_attic - The highest population growth is among people who don't consider tax implications...
You'd have to completely cut of charity and literally let people starve, or force permanent birth-control to have a large impact. Or trade Xboxes or new cars or something for consent.
You'd have to completely cut of charity and literally let people starve, or force permanent birth-control to have a large impact. Or trade Xboxes or new cars or something for consent.
Re: Global Population Issues
I don't think there are "global population issues." There are local population issues. Either your country/locality is increasing in population or its not. Most developed societies are at replacement or below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
Not to be too much of a wet blanket, but even talking about "global population" issues seems like a meaningless or at least grossly uninformed discussion to me.
There seems to be a strong correlation between the emancipation of women and declining birth rates. Overall literacy also seems to be a factor. So free women to act as equals in a given society and the problem solves itself. Restrict women to only the status of motherhood and related tasks, and you'll get a lot more babies.
Not to be too much of a wet blanket, but even talking about "global population" issues seems like a meaningless or at least grossly uninformed discussion to me.
There seems to be a strong correlation between the emancipation of women and declining birth rates. Overall literacy also seems to be a factor. So free women to act as equals in a given society and the problem solves itself. Restrict women to only the status of motherhood and related tasks, and you'll get a lot more babies.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17116
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: Global Population Issues
The local issues become global because resource use is not local. For example, the US which comprises less than 5% of the world's population uses 25% of the global resources. These are not all sourced locally by a long shot (the US has the biggest trade deficit in the world meaning we're importing goods and exporting IOUs). Pollution is not local either in that it doesn't care about whatever lines on a map humans have currently drawn. Because of free trade, the trade impact is not local either. For example, using ethanol as fuel caused a spike in corn prices which caused food riots in poorer countries. Because of international travel, diseases that benefit from poverty and dense populations can easily spread across the world. And then there's terrorism as a way of hitting back on colonial powers once life is no longer worth living locally.
Different locales seem to respond differently to the pressures of resource constraints and pollution.
Each response has a public and a private response. You can work for either or both in your own locale or in other locales.
The Middle East has engaged in sectarian violence. Since women's rights and overall literacy has come up in this thread at least 3 times now as a solution to these problems, I note that any gains in rights were very quickly eroded. Unless you carry an AK47 for the team that's currently winning in these locales, you have zero rights. The suggestion for these areas is either to "be the better warrior/war machine" or work to eliminate sectarian differences so as to render team red vs team blue violence moot.
In Western Africa, overall poverty, cultural customs, and population densities favor the disease solution. Here the solution is to align cultural habits to a scientific understanding of epidemics. Eliminate poverty and corruption and replace it with a more equitable and socialized system to prevent kids=social security. Economic growth is tricky since it will be competing with western empires (notably: China, Russia, the EU and the US). All of you who suggest that an increase in living standard will bring this about, consider that the sum total of living standards have already overshoot carrying capacity. The solution here is aligning habits with medicinal knowledge; ending corruption by diversifying power. That means no more foreign aid that indiretly supports western corporations and local dictators. They need to make themselves economically independent from the west (the colonial powers).
In Europe and Japan which are some of the most civilized areas in the world (by civilized I mean eusocial in that culture or institutions strongly regulate behavior), the solution is mass unemployment and economic stagnation. I'd put Russia in this category as well, although, also see the US. The solution here is not to be the dumbass left with lots of personal debt and to build strong family ties or other ties when the gov can no longer afford the support. Also, population densities are really really high here, but people are "civilized/informed" enough to deal with epidemics, hopefully.
In the US/UK/Australia, the drive is to keep the bubble economies working creating bubble after bubble while using the financial proceeds to make the rich richer and keep the rate of import (trade deficit) going. Since these countries are high on the waste scale relative to the rest, the public solution is to decrease wastefulness. The private solution is to separate oneself from dependence on the bubble economics and/or understand it enough to take advantage of it.
I don't know about China. It's a wild card.
Different locales seem to respond differently to the pressures of resource constraints and pollution.
Each response has a public and a private response. You can work for either or both in your own locale or in other locales.
The Middle East has engaged in sectarian violence. Since women's rights and overall literacy has come up in this thread at least 3 times now as a solution to these problems, I note that any gains in rights were very quickly eroded. Unless you carry an AK47 for the team that's currently winning in these locales, you have zero rights. The suggestion for these areas is either to "be the better warrior/war machine" or work to eliminate sectarian differences so as to render team red vs team blue violence moot.
In Western Africa, overall poverty, cultural customs, and population densities favor the disease solution. Here the solution is to align cultural habits to a scientific understanding of epidemics. Eliminate poverty and corruption and replace it with a more equitable and socialized system to prevent kids=social security. Economic growth is tricky since it will be competing with western empires (notably: China, Russia, the EU and the US). All of you who suggest that an increase in living standard will bring this about, consider that the sum total of living standards have already overshoot carrying capacity. The solution here is aligning habits with medicinal knowledge; ending corruption by diversifying power. That means no more foreign aid that indiretly supports western corporations and local dictators. They need to make themselves economically independent from the west (the colonial powers).
In Europe and Japan which are some of the most civilized areas in the world (by civilized I mean eusocial in that culture or institutions strongly regulate behavior), the solution is mass unemployment and economic stagnation. I'd put Russia in this category as well, although, also see the US. The solution here is not to be the dumbass left with lots of personal debt and to build strong family ties or other ties when the gov can no longer afford the support. Also, population densities are really really high here, but people are "civilized/informed" enough to deal with epidemics, hopefully.
In the US/UK/Australia, the drive is to keep the bubble economies working creating bubble after bubble while using the financial proceeds to make the rich richer and keep the rate of import (trade deficit) going. Since these countries are high on the waste scale relative to the rest, the public solution is to decrease wastefulness. The private solution is to separate oneself from dependence on the bubble economics and/or understand it enough to take advantage of it.
I don't know about China. It's a wild card.
Re: Global Population Issues
Nice post. Sounds like you are saying that waste and/or mis-allocation of resources is the real global issue -- not population. I would definitely agree with that, particularly on the waste front, which I view as a moral issue.
Oddly, or perhaps maybe not so odd, the mis-allocation can be attributed in large part to the dollar being the global reserve currency.
And I don't know about China either. I think their one-child policy has resulted in a gender imbalance which may work out in unexpected and potentially negative ways.
Oddly, or perhaps maybe not so odd, the mis-allocation can be attributed in large part to the dollar being the global reserve currency.
And I don't know about China either. I think their one-child policy has resulted in a gender imbalance which may work out in unexpected and potentially negative ways.