Decrease of population growth

Message boards : Politics : Decrease of population growth
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1502615 - Posted: 11 Apr 2014, 9:46:29 UTC

ID: 1502615 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1502696 - Posted: 11 Apr 2014, 15:46:27 UTC

I've been making this point for a while now to all the hysterical over population believers.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1502696 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1502704 - Posted: 11 Apr 2014, 15:55:12 UTC
Last modified: 11 Apr 2014, 15:55:40 UTC

I always thought it was pretty obvious that once a country develops economically and baby making no longer is the best retirement plan available to people the birthrates would drop.

Still, nice to see some more proof of this.
ID: 1502704 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1502706 - Posted: 11 Apr 2014, 15:58:10 UTC - in response to Message 1502704.  

I always thought it was pretty obvious that once a country develops economically and baby making no longer is the best retirement plan available to people the birthrates would drop.

Still, nice to see some more proof of this.

Its one of the reasons that western countries need immigration, because the birthrate is not replacing the population.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1502706 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1502708 - Posted: 11 Apr 2014, 16:00:34 UTC - in response to Message 1502706.  

I always thought it was pretty obvious that once a country develops economically and baby making no longer is the best retirement plan available to people the birthrates would drop.

Still, nice to see some more proof of this.

Its one of the reasons that western countries need immigration, because the birthrate is not replacing the population.

Agreed, but tell that to the xenophobes that seem to be everywhere these days.
ID: 1502708 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1502714 - Posted: 11 Apr 2014, 16:07:32 UTC - in response to Message 1502708.  

I always thought it was pretty obvious that once a country develops economically and baby making no longer is the best retirement plan available to people the birthrates would drop.

Still, nice to see some more proof of this.

Its one of the reasons that western countries need immigration, because the birthrate is not replacing the population.

Agreed, but tell that to the xenophobes that seem to be everywhere these days.

Inciting xenophobia is an easy way for politicians to distract from the real problems and promise a quick fix. Its a pretty standard technique by now.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1502714 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1502753 - Posted: 11 Apr 2014, 17:28:04 UTC - in response to Message 1502696.  

I've been making this point for a while now to all the hysterical over population believers.


Oh, I see:) Are there really over population believers out there is what I ask now *scratches head*
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1502753 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1502770 - Posted: 11 Apr 2014, 17:58:44 UTC - in response to Message 1502753.  

Oh, I see:) Are there really over population believers out there is what I ask now *scratches head*

There were a few in the Global warming/climate change threads.
ID: 1502770 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1502773 - Posted: 11 Apr 2014, 18:06:09 UTC - in response to Message 1502770.  
Last modified: 11 Apr 2014, 18:09:46 UTC

Oh, I see:) Are there really over population believers out there is what I ask now *scratches head*

There were a few in the Global warming/climate change threads.



Really? I don't understand that. Everyone must know that's a seriously important factor in our evolution? At least people who are able and want to contemplate it, know.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1502773 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20084
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1505776 - Posted: 18 Apr 2014, 21:03:43 UTC
Last modified: 18 Apr 2014, 21:04:09 UTC

You might say I've seen an example of population growth first hand across the spectrum of people I encountered during a 'typical' day this week:


Exhibit one at one end of the spectrum is a worker with a stereotypical beer girth greater than his height who can boast 3 generations of family behind him whilst he is yet to be at work for a long time yet. He already has 18 grand-children and at the present rate, there is time for one or two more generations yet!

Exhibit two is another who is happy with her twins with no plans for any more;

Exhibit three to five are well settled fellow workers with no plans for any children, ever.


All a question of environment and education?...


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1505776 · Report as offensive
Batter Up
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,860,347
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1505792 - Posted: 18 Apr 2014, 21:27:20 UTC - in response to Message 1505776.  

Exhibit one at one end of the spectrum is a worker with a stereotypical beer girth greater than his height who can boast 3 generations of family behind him whilst he is yet to be at work for a long time yet. He already has 18 grand-children and at the present rate, there is time for one or two more generations yet!

You shall know them by their fruits; JAH commands us to be fruitful and multiply.
ID: 1505792 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1505858 - Posted: 18 Apr 2014, 23:09:30 UTC
Last modified: 18 Apr 2014, 23:12:26 UTC

Hello all! How is everyone? :)

Came across something that might be of interest. It may have already been referenced elsewhere in another thread, but in case not, I hope you don't mind me bringing it up here. :)

It in many ways supports my own thinking on population growth - but puts it across a little more succinctly than I probably could :) (though I am not entirely clear on the references to "liberals" in the report - probably means different things to different people)

The article starts with a section on the economic consequences that come with falling population growth. (I'll let you read that bit for yourself in it's entirety - other than to say - concentrating wealth in the hands of the very few chokes economies and unduly influences government policy decisions - the evidence is all around for those who choose to see it. Anymore on that (and I'm sure there will be :)) will probably need to go in another thread :))

The second point made is this one:
Total population is not the most important factor affecting climate change and the environment.

The most important factor with regards to climate change is the structure of society’s resource use.


What does that mean? Well, using 2010 carbon dioxide emissions (see below - figures in metric tons) per capita for a few countries (and remembering that CO2 emissions come wrapped up and are indivisible from some truly nasty stuff - some mentioned in my eulogy to trees over in the climate change acceptance thread)...

Burkina Faso: 0.1
Colombia: 1.6
Austria: 8.0
Finland: 11.5
France: 5.6
Kuwait: 31.3
United States: 17.6

Kuwait has a per-person carbon emission rate that is 313 times greater than Burkina Faso's. That’s an extreme example, and driven mostly by the fact that Burkina Faso is very poor, but the point is clear. More pertinently, consider the difference between France and the United States. The average American creates more than three times as much carbon pollution as the average French person, which means that if we reduced American emissions to French levels, we could then double our current population and still be far below our current aggregate emissions level.

In other words, the whole world could stop having babies tomorrow, and there would be still be more than enough residual population to cause catastrophic climate change before humanity goes extinct.


...because the same people would still be alive and they would still be carrying on doing things the same way they're doing them now. They may even do more of the same because "well... now we've stopped all those people having babies... we can afford a little carbon spree"

The article goes on to say:

I've only discussed carbon emissions, but similar arguments hold for land use (in which density far outranks raw population in effects) and raw materials (in which wealth, efficiency, and recycling are the important factors, not population).

That’s not to say that overpopulation is a non-issue. Especially for poorer countries stuck in a subsistence agriculture trap — in which agricultural land is divided among very many low-producitivity smallholders — it can be a serious problem. But for rich countries, making society more efficient is far more important than controlling population growth when it comes to the environment.


The article finishes by returning to a point on economics:

And as Piketty suggests, for countries with a declining population, bringing populations back up to a stable level could be a critical anti-plutocracy initiative — one that could presage the kind of climate change legislation that has been opposed by wealthy corporations.


An interesting viewpoint don't you think? :)

full article
ID: 1505858 · Report as offensive
Batter Up
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,860,347
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1505910 - Posted: 19 Apr 2014, 4:43:52 UTC - in response to Message 1505858.  

Burkina Faso: 0.1
Colombia: 1.6
Austria: 8.0
Finland: 11.5
France: 5.6
Kuwait: 31.3
United States: 17.6

Those numbers include "gas flaring", the burning off of natural gas at wells. 30% of the natural gas is flared in the US; that is why Kuwait along with all oil producing countries are so high.
ID: 1505910 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1506130 - Posted: 19 Apr 2014, 19:17:56 UTC - in response to Message 1505910.  

Burkina Faso: 0.1
Colombia: 1.6
Austria: 8.0
Finland: 11.5
France: 5.6
Kuwait: 31.3
United States: 17.6

Those numbers include "gas flaring", the burning off of natural gas at wells. 30% of the natural gas is flared in the US; that is why Kuwait along with all oil producing countries are so high.



Hi Batterup :) How are you?

Absolutely correct. Around 150 billion cubic meters of natural gas is flared in the world each year, contributing 400 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent global greenhouse gas emissions. That is the equivalent of all the residential gas used in the US for a year. The energy being lost (at an enormous cost to the environment) is the equivalent of 2.4 million barrels of oil per day.

Given the point that was under discussion (reducing population growth, to the point that it's negative) if we took the hypothetical scenario postulated in the article mentioned, and everyone stopped having babies tomorrow - per capita emissions attributable to gas flaring, would actually go up, not down, as would all other emissions. Not exactly a solution to the problem (until we're all dead of course). :) There is very little point continuing along that train of thought I admit :) (but if you fancy a bit of a giggle at some of the links available on the voluntary human extinction website take a peak. I haven't clicked on a single one yet, but there are a few that I might... :))

Re: Gas flaring: Reduction of the practise has the potential to be one of the great energy and environmental success stories. Yet the oil and gas industries are doing little or nothing to eliminate it. It is only through scrutiny by environmental campaigners and "warmists" (as people insist on calling those concerned about climate change) that the practise has even reached the public arena.

For producer governments, legacy flaring could be eliminated within five years (leaving only minimal flaring required in the very early stages of new oil wells being sunk). It would create value from a wasted resource and enable wider access to energy, improved environmental conditions, and economic development for local populations. You'd think those kind of benefits would be something they would want for their people.

So why is it not being forced on the industry by our elected governments...?

Because their ears have been bought and paid for and the next campaign donation cheque is in the mail.
ID: 1506130 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 3387
Credit: 4,182,900
RAC: 10
United States
Message 1506377 - Posted: 20 Apr 2014, 6:35:05 UTC

Population growth may be slowing in the developed countries of the world but it isn't slowing in the places where leveling the population is needed the most like most of Africa and India. It may be true that we could feed and house 10 billion people but not in a "green" way
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1506377 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1506518 - Posted: 20 Apr 2014, 14:55:52 UTC - in response to Message 1506377.  
Last modified: 20 Apr 2014, 14:56:37 UTC

Population growth may be slowing in the developed countries of the world but it isn't slowing in the places where leveling the population is needed the most like most of Africa and India. It may be true that we could feed and house 10 billion people but not in a "green" way


Hi Bob! Nice to see you :) How are you?

The feeding issue throws up some interesting academic points.

1. That there are nearly twice as many overweight people in the world as their are undernourished ones...

2. That in Africa (where so many countries were plundered of natural resources by colonial powers who got very wealthy off the back of it... and I'm afraid that includes America - remember slavery and us upstanding moral anti-slavery Brits who provided the transport for you?) to pay off IMF and foreign debt, many that could be using their precious water and arable land for growing crops to feed their people, are instead growing flowers for foreign markets... palm oil - for western "beauty" products... sugar and corn for methanol and ethanol needs... and this is NOT a definitive list... nor is it "green"...

3. Should I also mention the natural resources that go in to the production of alcohol? Tobacco? Illegal drug crops? All contribute to premature death... Should we be helping these industries to do more of what they're already very good at, perhaps with export subsidies and free trade agreements?

I can't see the wisdom in that, but maybe some can.

In fact, with regards exporting anything, most exports cannot by their very nature, "be green"... but if they were more about intelligent distribution of resources and technology rather than profit... then perhaps we could lift everyone up to a standard where education was available to all and trying to scrape a morsel of food didn't stand in the way of the classroom.

Why education? Because education has THE strongest serendipitous side-effect of slowing population growth of any other. And deprived children are hungry for it! No bunking off lessons with these little ones. After a hard day fetching water (often from miles away) and/or gathering meagre seeds from dustbowl fields, gathering under a tree to learn maths, science, biology, geography, English etc, in an open air classroom happens everyday in Africa. Why is population growth so high in these places? Because infant mortality and maternal death are also high. Contradiction in terms? Not when you stop to think aabout it.

As it stands - many of our most profitable western businesses are already contributing to higher death tolls in the places you mentioned. The clothing industry is one. Those who are not dying when buildings fall in on them, are being poisoned by the toxins being dumped in the rivers. Are we really getting to a point where we're going to see these organisations as saviours of our planet?! I hope I'm not alive to see that.

And it's not just the west. What China is getting away with in Africa is beyond dreadful (and I'm not just talking about the decimation of the African elephant and the increasing number of deaths of game rangers trying to protect them)! Chinese mining operations on that continent should be banned, or at least receiving worldwide attention and condemnation. They aren't and won't be because the west is being bankrolled by them. We're doing trading "vital to our economic growth" with them. Take Britain for example. Did you see our Prime Minister ecstatically applauding himself for turning our economy around by securing a lucrative contract to export PIG SEMEN to them?

With regards your other point... housing an increasing population... it would come at a very significant environmental cost if we were to continue building infrastructure in the way we do now. I know there has been some study and progress made in looking into more environmentally sustainable building design and methods (some involving 3D printing - which boggles my brain a little) but I don't know much more than what I've just written here, so would either have to bow out to someone more knowledgeable on the subject, or go and do a bit of research and come back :)

But that was a thought provoking post you made Bob. Thankyou! :)
ID: 1506518 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1506521 - Posted: 20 Apr 2014, 15:12:52 UTC - in response to Message 1506517.  

Population growth may be slowing in the developed countries of the world but it isn't slowing in the places where leveling the population is needed the most like most of Africa and India. It may be true that we could feed and house 10 billion people but not in a "green" way

Where is China in this Board?

In 2010, USA emitted 5.433 Billion tons of CO2.
In 2010, China emitted 8.287 Billion tons of CO2.

In 2011, USA emitted 5.420 Billion tons of CO2.
In 2011, China emitted 9.700 Billion tons of CO2.

In 2012, USA emitted 5.190 Billion tons of CO2.
In 2012, China emitted 9.860 Billion tons of CO2.

(data sources: US DoE (2010), The European Commission (2011, 2012), and The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2011, 2012)).


Without Control's over 'Emerging Nations': What we do in the West is futile.


Hi Clyde! Nice to see you :)

Re China: they don't stand out in the per capita figures, so in any discussion relating to per capita emissions (being that they're less than one-third of the United State's statistically speaking) they just don't appear.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION THOUGH (which is one of the reasons they are mentioned in the post I made just before this one) Just because their per capita figures are lower due to their higher population... should NOT be a get out of jail free card I agree!!!!!!!!!!!

But they are embracing green technology far swifter than your country has, possibly only because they don't have the gas and oil resources you do, but the end result is what will count... not the motivation for it. If America want's to stay ahead of the game energy wise and not keep getting attacked on it's emissions - there is still time to out-compete China on green technology and win... but it's up tp you all to want to... :)
ID: 1506521 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22149
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1506844 - Posted: 21 Apr 2014, 7:35:40 UTC

This tread is locked to give you a chance to think before you post.
There are threads discussing Climate Change form both sides. This thread is about the way the global population is changing.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1506844 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1506895 - Posted: 21 Apr 2014, 12:34:22 UTC - in response to Message 1506844.  

This tread is locked to give you a chance to think before you post.
There are threads discussing Climate Change form both sides. This thread is about the way the global population is changing.


Oh... ok... Sorry Rob. Will try not to wander again. Not actually sure this WILL post, but it is on topic, so will give it a try.

The link takes you to a pdf file with some interesting graphs - hope that is okay everyone.

MAGNITUDE AND SPEED OF POPULATION AGEING
ID: 1506895 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1537307 - Posted: 7 Jul 2014, 15:11:11 UTC

ID: 1537307 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Decrease of population growth


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.