Global Population

[nigel99 568]

Rather than derailing the nuclear thread, this is a topic I find fascinating.

Over the past couple of hundred years with a combination of modern medicine, social welfare programs and international aid the world population has grown exponentially. 

Based on survival of the fittest our interventions have meant that people who would not normally have survived now live. What are the long term consequences for the quality of the human genetic pool? 

It's a complex moral and ethical dilemma, because denying starving people of aid or letting people die on the streets is distasteful. Giving people with low fertility the chance to have children through IVF and other treatments seems compassionate. 

The drive to reproduce is innate in all of us and so despite adverse circumstances people continue to do so, whether they are families who have generations living off social welfare, or people in 3rd world countries facing starvation and living off aid, perpetuating the problem. 

Was forcing people to get vaccinated for Covid and enforcing lockdowns the right approach? Or should it have been a choice and we thin the herd. Personally I think it should have been a choice and let nature run its course. 

For welfare it seems reasonable to pay a premium to people who choose to go on birth control (not sterilisation!). In my past relationship I was with someone who came from a family with generations on welfare and they all had 5+ children with a significant portion of children taken into care. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,436]

2 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Rather than derailing the nuclear thread, this is a topic I find fascinating.

Over the past couple of hundred years with a combination of modern medicine, social welfare programs and international aid the world population has grown exponentially. 

Based on survival of the fittest our interventions have meant that people who would not normally have survived now live. What are the long term consequences for the quality of the human genetic pool? 

It's a complex moral and ethical dilemma, because denying starving people of aid or letting people die on the streets is distasteful. Giving people with low fertility the chance to have children through IVF and other treatments seems compassionate. 

The drive to reproduce is innate in all of us and so despite adverse circumstances people continue to do so, whether they are families who have generations living off social welfare, or people in 3rd world countries facing starvation and living off aid, perpetuating the problem. 

Was forcing people to get vaccinated for Covid and enforcing lockdowns the right approach? Or should it have been a choice and we thin the herd. Personally I think it should have been a choice and let nature run its course. 

For welfare it seems reasonable to pay a premium to people who choose to go on birth control (not sterilisation!). In my past relationship I was with someone who came from a family with generations on welfare and they all had 5+ children with a significant portion of children taken into care. 

Hi Nigel,

If one reads my posts on here, they will know that I believe that the ONLY path to survival of us human folks, is to reduce the current population of the Earth by 65%.  That means 1/3 of what we have now.

I have recently read where the Earth is now in the middle of it's 6th Great Extinction.  The article said that this was the only one human caused.

During the gas shortage in 1973, some of us engineers at work got to discussing oil & it's finite amount.  One engineer said that, eventually, mankind would come to hate the Age of Oil.

I have often posted, that no matter where you are, take a 360* look around & see just what all is the product of oil.

Let's say that you have a 1,000 acres of land and you grow crops.  The yield that you get today is because you use fossil fuels; not only for your farm vehicles, but for your fertilizer.  Now, take away anything used in farming that is based upon fossil fuels.  Ever think about just how much crop you can grow?  Not much; not enough to feed us.

Nice post - I hope it gets other thinking.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  In 1963, while driving from Berlin to West Germany [ thru East Germany ], I watched a farmer plow a field behind a cow using a wooden plow.

PPS)  I also find it fascinating.

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by JerryBaumchen

[nigel99 568]

8 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Nigel,

If one reads my posts on here, they will know that I believe that the ONLY path to survival of us human folks, is to reduce the current population of the Earth by 65%.  That means 1/3 of what we have now.

I have recently read where the Earth is now in the middle of it's 6th Great Extinction.  The article said that this was the only one human caused.

During the gas shortage in 1973, some of us engineers at work got to discussing oil & it's finite amount.  One engineer said that, eventually, mankind would come to hate the Age of Oil.

I have often posted, that no matter where you are, take 360* look around & see just what all is the product of oil.

Let's say that you have a 1,000 acres of land and you grow crops.  The yield that you get today is because you use fossil fuels; not only for your farm vehicles, but for your fertilizer.  Now, take away anything used in farming that is based upon fossil fuels.  Ever think about just how much crop you can grow? 

That's a pretty aggressive figure, how did you come to that conclusion?

[JerryBaumchen 1,436]

30 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

That's a pretty aggressive figure, how did you come to that conclusion?

Hi Nigel,

Which figure?  This:  That means 1/3 of what we have now.

If so, just generally thinking about it.  Somewhat based upon my comment about taking that 360* looksee.

Jerry Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, nigel99 said:

...Over the past couple of hundred years with a combination of modern medicine, social welfare programs and international aid the world population has grown exponentially...

 

...Was forcing people to get vaccinated for Covid and enforcing lockdowns the right approach? Or should it have been a choice and we thin the herd. Personally I think it should have been a choice and let nature run its course...

 

You forgot chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Not having 'crop failures' causing massive famines has done a hell of a lot to increase lifespans.
When's the last time you heard a plea for the 'starving children in India'? Or Africa?

When and where were people forced to get vaccinated?

I don't know of any in the US. I don't think there were any elsewhere.

There were strong social pressures to get it.
There were some consequences (loss of job, inability to enter certain businesses, ect), but it wasn't required.

 

Of course, the vast majority of the Covid deaths in the US since late 2021 were the unvaxxed. As you point out, that's just the 'herd' thinning itself.

The main reason for the lockdowns was the idea of 'flatttening the curve'.
If too many people had gotten sick and needed care all at once, the healthcare system would have gotten overloaded and failed. 
It came damned near doing that in Italy early on. The hospitals were full. At one point, they were triaging care. Older people were being told 'we can't help you, we don't have the ability. Go home and die'. Untreated death rates were approaching 10%. 
A few of the surges in the US saw situations approaching that. People waiting a couple days on a gurney in a hallway for a bed. The treatment protocols had improved to the point that the death rates didn't spike as bad, but there were people dying because they couldn't get care (not only for Covid, but for other things). 
They were still at the point that they were using refrigerated semi trailers for temporary morgues. More than one place and more than one time.

If it had gotten to the point that the hospitals shut down, there would have been serious problems.

I agree we need to reduce the population. What's been shown to work is education and emancipation of women. 
So, of course, the major religions and conservative governments are trying to oppress that.

[Phil1111 1,149]

34 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Nigel,

If one reads my posts on here, they will know that I believe that the ONLY path to survival of us human folks, is to reduce the current population of the Earth by 65%.  That means 1/3 of what we have now.....

IMO climate change is already having a huge impact already on the arable land. Water and food are going to have enormous impacts on migration. Wealthy countries will be able to deal with the challenges. Poor countries like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc. will have larger problems.

At the start of 2022, corn production was down 9 percent from 2021. Nearly all counties in Iowa, the United States' largest corn-producing state, will see corn yields that are more than 5 percent lower than they would have been without climate change by 2030. More than half will see declines of 10 percent or greater.

Direct link below is for an enlargement of the map showing most effected countries for climate change food insecurity.

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/211026_Zembilci_Climate_Change_0.png?w5sBZLLeoIxQe9zDkr7gaVy6A0YcYFht

 

[gowlerk 2,249]

2 hours ago, nigel99 said:

The drive to reproduce is innate in all of us and so despite adverse circumstances people continue to do so,

Not really so much as you are assuming among the young and educated women that I know. There is a reason the birth rate in western countries is not high enough to sustain the population without immigration. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,436]

15 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Not really so much as you are assuming among the young and educated women that I know. There is a reason the birth rate in western countries is not high enough to sustain the population without immigration. 

Hi Ken,

I agree.  Re:  The drive to reproduce is innate in all of us

Not in me.  While I absolutely love both of my offspring, I could quite easily go thru life without becoming a father.  I really only did because my wife wanted children; I was quite ambivalent about it.

I do think it is innate in most people.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[nigel99 568]

20 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Not really so much as you are assuming among the young and educated women that I know. There is a reason the birth rate in western countries is not high enough to sustain the population without immigration. 

I would say that is a small minority, albeit with no statistically valid reference to back up my assertion. 

Generally the wealthy and educated reproduce less and poorer and less educated more. At least that is a widely held belief. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,436]

2 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

I would say that is a small minority, albeit with no statistically valid reference to back up my assertion. 

Generally the wealthy and educated reproduce less and poorer and less educated more. At least that is a widely held belief. 

Hi Nigel.

And, I believe it.

Society somewhat supports it.  Here is the USA, you want more welfare money each month => have another kid.

IMO we need to discourage this.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming => How are we going to survive; or are we?

Jerry Baumchen

 

[gowlerk 2,249]

3 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

Generally the wealthy and educated reproduce less and poorer and less educated more. At least that is a widely held belief. 

It mostly comes down to how much freedom and what options women have. 

 

4 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

I would say that is a small minority, albeit with no statistically valid reference to back up my assertion. 

Small minority? I'm not sure how you can think that when the proof is right there. The population in the most developed nations is declining despite our longer lives. 

[nigel99 568]

58 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

You forgot chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Not having 'crop failures' causing massive famines has done a hell of a lot to increase lifespans.
When's the last time you heard a plea for the 'starving children in India'? Or Africa?

When and where were people forced to get vaccinated?

I don't know of any in the US. I don't think there were any elsewhere.

There were strong social pressures to get it.
There were some consequences (loss of job, inability to enter certain businesses, ect), but it wasn't required.

 

Of course, the vast majority of the Covid deaths in the US since late 2021 were the unvaxxed. As you point out, that's just the 'herd' thinning itself.

The main reason for the lockdowns was the idea of 'flatttening the curve'.
If too many people had gotten sick and needed care all at once, the healthcare system would have gotten overloaded and failed. 
It came damned near doing that in Italy early on. The hospitals were full. At one point, they were triaging care. Older people were being told 'we can't help you, we don't have the ability. Go home and die'. Untreated death rates were approaching 10%. 
A few of the surges in the US saw situations approaching that. People waiting a couple days on a gurney in a hallway for a bed. The treatment protocols had improved to the point that the death rates didn't spike as bad, but there were people dying because they couldn't get care (not only for Covid, but for other things). 
They were still at the point that they were using refrigerated semi trailers for temporary morgues. More than one place and more than one time.

If it had gotten to the point that the hospitals shut down, there would have been serious problems.

I agree we need to reduce the population. What's been shown to work is education and emancipation of women. 
So, of course, the major religions and conservative governments are trying to oppress that.

I was born in Zimbabwe and there are constant pleas for aid due to food shortages, so that is one example. 

Here in Western Australia it was mandated for the vast majority of jobs, including non essential workers. Sure you had a choice, lose your house and job or get vaccinated. I understand the flattening the curve argument and my counter argument is that a large swath of deaths although harsh would largely affect the poorer, weaker population. In the bigger picture over the next 50 years is that really such a bad thing? I have asthma so may well have been a statistic. 

[nigel99 568]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

It mostly comes down to how much freedom and what options women have. 

 

Small minority? I'm not sure how you can think that when the proof is right there. The population in the most developed nations is declining despite our longer lives. 

That's a good point. There is lots of evidence on declining populations in the developed world, that I had not considered.

My question to you is since global population is rising and based on developed countries declining, what is the solution or do you not think it is a problem? 

[gowlerk 2,249]

12 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

My question to you is since global population is rising and based on developed countries declining, what is the solution or do you not think it is a problem? 

It is certainly a growing problem in some parts of the world. Especially the Indian sub-continent and sub-Saharan Africa. The solution is education of and rights for women. A lot of the key points are here:

https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/population#:~:text=The world's population is expected,billion in the mid-2080s.

And my favourite go to.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

Edited December 7, 2023 by gowlerk

[JerryBaumchen 1,436]

44 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

It is certainly a growing problem in some parts of the world. Especially the Indian sub-continent and sub-Saharan Africa. The solution is education of and rights for women. A lot of the key points are here:

https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/population#:~:text=The world's population is expected,billion in the mid-2080s.

And my favourite go to.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

Hi Ken,

Some scary numbers; not surprising.

IMO starving to death, at any age, is not a fun way to go.

From your 2nd link:   For example the UN projects that Nigeria will gain about 340 million people

How many of them will be Nigerian prince's calling me?

Sorry, I could not resist.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Not really so much as you are assuming among the young and educated women that I know. There is a reason the birth rate in western countries is not high enough to sustain the population without immigration. 

Agree. The pressure in China for unwed and childless women to get at it is relentless. From the government and from relatives. But for many women they have decided NO.

"The proportion increased from 5.39% to 10.91% in 35-year-old women, from 2.66% to 7.85% in 40-year-old women, from 1.55% to 5.86% in 45-year-old group, and the proportion of childlessness in 49-year-old group increased from 1.29% to 5.16%"

Many have resorted to telling everyone that they have medical conditions that prevent them from becoming pregnant. It takes off the pressure and garners sympathy at the same time. In addition, now that the government allows two kids. It has made no significant impact on reproduction rates.

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, nigel99 said:

 

My question to you is since global population is rising and based on developed countries declining, what is the solution or do you not think it is a problem? 

Philippine nurse immigrants to look after all the old people. "After Japan and Korea, Italy is the country experiencing the fastest population ageing, with 37 people older than 65 per every 100 working-age individuals (aged 15-64) in 2022 and will rise to 65 by 2050."

[Bigfalls 111]

A few thoughts on this subject.

On Nov. 20, 1967, as the United States Census Bureau's Population Clock ticked past 200 million, the Union's editorial board looked ahead to the challenges facing Americans. The U.S. population officially reached 300 million in 2006 and topped 333 million this year.

How many is enough, how many is too many.

At the start of 2022, corn production was down 9 percent from 2021.

How much of that corn goes to making ethanol to add to gasoline rather than for food.

The carrying capacity of an environment is the maximum population size of a biological species that can be sustained by that specific environment, given the food, habitat, water, and other resources available.

What is the carrying capacity of the earth?  I think we may have exceeded that number already.

I used to joke with my wife that what this world needs is a good plague.  I guess it is not much of a joke any more.

In the future, the human species may not experience a complete extinction but certainly a massive reduction in number.

[gowlerk 2,249]

18 minutes ago, Bigfalls said:

What is the carrying capacity of the earth?  I think we may have exceeded that number already.

We are nowhere near the maximum. The real question is what kind of world we want to live in. Biodiversity is already declining due to our species. 

 

20 minutes ago, Bigfalls said:

I used to joke with my wife that what this world needs is a good plague. 

As we dominate and populate the Earth more we become more vulnerable to large scale disease events. But war and breakdown of society in fights over resources may come first. Most likely worldwide events will not happen but localized breakdowns will. In a dystopian society access to the medical care you and I take for granted will not be available for most people. 

[billvon 3,070]

1 hour ago, Bigfalls said:

In the future, the human species may not experience a complete extinction but certainly a massive reduction in number.

That's inevitable.  The only question is how it happens.

The #1 way to reduce birthrate is to educate women; there is a very strong correlation between lack of education and number of births per women, as well as a strong correlation between more education and the welfare of the children they do have.  Two of the charities I contribute to are Tostan and Camfed, both centered around women's education in third world countries.

I would prefer to reduce birthrate through improving both women's outcomes and child welfare, rather than how nature will do it.  We won't like how nature does it.

[JoeWeber 2,823]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

The #1 way to reduce birthrate is to educate women;

And at the same time give them social agency and access to credit or grants. Otherwise they're still under the boot.

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

...The #1 way to reduce birthrate is to educate women; there is a very strong correlation between lack of education and number of births per women, as well as a strong correlation between more education and the welfare of the children they do have.  Two of the charities I contribute to are Tostan and Camfed, both centered around women's education in third world countries.

I would prefer to reduce birthrate through improving both women's outcomes and child welfare, rather than how nature will do it.  We won't like how nature does it.

Speaking of nature, education and third world countries. There is the issue of GOP districts in the southern US and their fertility rates as compared to democrat ones.

"we estimate that Trump’s victory led to over 7,000 additional births in Republican counties(the study counties) and 38,000 fewer Democratic births over nine quarters. Using our alternative measure based on the rightward vote shift instead of the vote share, we estimate 18,000 more Republican and 48,000 fewer Democratic births."

Above from Partisan Fertility and Presidential Elections Dec. 2021 Study

So the uneducated GOP are raising more AR-15 a-totin, trump a-votin, younguns every day.

[JerryBaumchen 1,436]

50 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

And at the same time give them social agency and access to credit or grants. Otherwise they're still under the boot.

Hi Joe,

You, obviously, have not met my daughter since she became an adult.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,436]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

That's inevitable.  The only question is how it happens.

The #1 way to reduce birthrate is to educate women; there is a very strong correlation between lack of education and number of births per women, as well as a strong correlation between more education and the welfare of the children they do have.  Two of the charities I contribute to are Tostan and Camfed, both centered around women's education in third world countries.

I would prefer to reduce birthrate through improving both women's outcomes and child welfare, rather than how nature will do it.  We won't like how nature does it.

Hi Bill,

Each January is when I send out my donations to various organizations.  I'll put them on my list.

Here are two I have been donating to for yrs:

Reproductive Freedom For All [NARAL]

1725 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900

Washington, DC  20006

 

The Center for Reproductive Rights

199 Water Street

New York, NY  10038

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I agree completely with your post.  It is only a matter of how.