Want to Help the Planet? Just Die!

[Sand]

I think the optimal human population would be somewhere around 2 to 3 billion people on a Earth sized planet.

[Humodour]

n00b: I make no claim those figures and projections are exact. But they are less hypothetical than you might think, as they do in fact consider immigration levels, and are typically based on high/low/middle projections which examine extremities.

No, they don't consider migratory movements, as the causes behind those are too unpredictable to make the factor a constant. What the theory does in retrospective is a different matter.

 

You might want to actually check that out properly. Most population projection models account for immigration because it is a fairly predictable factor over time. Further, as I said generally the high and low projections account for lowest and highest possible immigration rates, while the middle projection uses current immigration trends.

 

Any country that made health and economic policy based on population projections which omitted immigration rates would be up **** creek without a paddle.

 

Regardless of the ethical acceptability of China's communist government policies, the one child policy certainly served its purpose of lowering TFR and alleviating resource pressure. The politics of it are irrelevant; it is simply an example of the fact that such an idea has pragmatic use. Moreover, as a voluntary movement, VHEMT is capable of producing the same result whilst circumventing such ethics arguments.

No. Germany circumventing the Versailles Treaty served the purpose of turning post-WWI Germany into a solidly industrialized country. But that didn't end too well. That's usually the problem with "the ends justify the means" politics, they tend to get exploited quite a bit.

 

I said nothing about the ends justifying the means. I said the one child policy is an example of how restricting reproduction alleviates resource pressure in the future and limits overpopulation. Less people is more sustainable when resources are scarce (see logistic curve), OK?

 

And no, VHEMT can't produce the same results as China's one child policy precisely because it lacks any means to enforce their ideas. Just read the reactions in this thread. Most people will at least scoff at the idea of not having children as a means to attain some goal species-wide. Unenforceability, in this case, means unfeasibility.

 

I didn't say it does. I said it could. An idea like VHEMT could easily be marketed favourably (for example by shifting focus from protecting the environment, which a lot of people don't like, to a better world for their children and to having only one child instead of none). You write it off far too easily.

 

The 'beauty' of VHEMT is that it produces benefits without really asking for sacrifice; many people these days don't desire children anyway, and for many others, children are an option that lack of isn't felt as a loss.

 

But I agree as a movement it likely won't see any real momentum, not least because population levels will stabilise and/or fall without its help.

 

And yes, I am saying that the smart thing to do is to lower breeding rates: to have 0% growth. That means we still breed, but we do so to replace, not to increase.

Smart thing, according to whom, and with what purpose? No species survives by not expanding. And the purpose of the human race is to survive, not to preserve some idea of natural balance or some equally arbitrary new-age ideal.

 

Where is this mythical pressure for humanity to have exponential population growth? Everything seems to indicate continued population growth leads to more and more problems. Again, see logistic curve.

 

Stop abusing the concept of natural selection - most selective pressures these days are man-made, not natural ones. Humanity will not 'die out' if we stop colonising. Zero population growth means less competition for resources, less selective pressure, HIGHER fitness - in evolutionary terms. There is nothing arbitrary about zero population growth - it is a concept with a very logical basis (less competition means more resources) which produces very real benefits (stronger human rights and higher quality of life). There is no demon that will suddenly pop out and wipe humanity out with swarms of locusts if we have fewer babies.

 

As for your dismissal (I think?) of demographic transitioning - sounds similar to dismissals of evolution "oh it's just a theory", regardless of high explanatory power and closeness of fit. It's a big picture theory, so wars, outbreaks, and revolutions cause perturbations only locally, being unlikely to change the overall end result (but making timeframe less certain).

The mistake you are making is equating the theory itself with the models derived from it, and the predictions said models yield. I don't dispute the worth of the evolutionary system, but will take any predictions based on evolution, that in X years people will have wireless interfaces instead of ears, with a grain of salt.

 

That's the practical difference between theory and law.

 

I am not making any such mistake. I am pointing out to you the fairly damn obvious fact that the world is and has been following the predictions of the demographic transition model.

 

Sand: 6 billion is actually fairly sustainable. Right now, less would be better because we have some nasty pressures like political strife, HIV, wars and improper distribution of wealth and nourishment, but in general the Earth is fairly capable of handling a population of 6 (even 10) billion humans whilst providing high human rights and quality of life for all. It would require some large shifts in the way we do things and how we think, though and is more likely to be something we achieve later this century or next century, once the world population has fallen into equillibrium and places like India and China have become fully developed.

[Laozi]

I think there is a subtle but important difference between suggesting violence and killing, and then suggesting not breeding

 

 

 

We should test that theory. First we'll kill walkerguy. Then, well.... Lets get that done before we spend too much time worrying about phase II.

 

Is phase III profit? I never found out about phase II.

 

 

 

I won't lie, there will be those who profit from phase I, but we're talking about a better tomorrow for everyone.

[thepixiesrock]

I think the optimal human population would be somewhere around 2 to 3 billion people on a Earth sized planet.

 

What video game did you harvest that opinion from?

[Laozi]

Sim City

[random n00b]

You might want to actually check that out properly. Most population projection models account for immigration because it is a fairly predictable factor over time. Further, as I said generally the high and low projections account for lowest and highest possible immigration rates, while the middle projection uses current immigration trends.

"Over time" being the key here. And "most population projection models" don't attempt to make such far-flung predictions. So, yeah.

 

 

Any country that made health and economic policy based on population projections which omitted immigration rates would be up **** creek without a paddle.

Newsflash. Europe and the US are already receiving more immigrants than they can handle. I guess it's not that these models failed to predict that. No, that can't be. More likely, it's stupid politicians to blame.

 

 

I said nothing about the ends justifying the means. I said the one child policy is an example of how restricting reproduction alleviates resource pressure in the future and limits overpopulation. Less people is more sustainable when resources are scarce (see logistic curve), OK?

So what? If the only means to achieve that is by stepping over the individual's rights (see HOW one child policy was enforced), you are effectively supporting that "the ends justify the means". It doesn't matter if you said it explicitly or not.

 

 

I didn't say it does. I said it could. An idea like VHEMT could easily be marketed favourably (for example by shifting focus from protecting the environment, which a lot of people don't like, to a better world for their children and to having only one child instead of none). You write it off far too easily.

Yes. So, now with many governments actually encouraging couples to have babies (to the point of offering monetary bounuses), to stop the inversion of the population pyramid, the smart thing to do is actually encourage a whole generation to do the opposite. Yes, because you and some guys advocating "human voluntary extinction" say so.

 

Um, good luck.

 

 

But I agree as a movement it likely won't see any real momentum, not least because population levels will stabilise and/or fall without its help.

As per the logistic function, yes. So, again, the point of this silliness is?

 

 

I am not making any such mistake. I am pointing out to you the fairly damn obvious fact that the world is and has been following the predictions of the demographic transition model.

The mistake is assuming that a (rather incomplete) model, that has been undergoing a constant state of fine-tuning and revision to produce its present results ever since its inception in the 40's, will be able to predict things in 200 years time. So, please, stop waving those extrapolations around as if they were fact.

[Nick_i_am]

SIM CITY?!

 

I LOVE THAT GAME!

[Laozi]

The you're overly qualified to speculate on the ideal population of the world.

 

That is if you didn't turn off natural disasters in the gameplay menu.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Laozi

[random n00b]

Not just speculate.

 

Postulate!

[taks]

I predict that i'll pick my nose in 10 seconds.

 

EDIT: salty!

ewww... you didn't say you were going to eat it, too. and certainly you didn't need to share that little tidbit, either.

 

reminds me of a funny futurama joke. bender is talking to the celestial being (a galaxy, but god, possibly) and he says: "So, do you know what I'm gonna do before I do it?", "yes" came the reply. "What if I do something different?" bender asks. "Then I don't know that."

 

taks

[Sand]

What video game did you harvest that opinion from?

 

No video game, but simple logic. If we want to remove food shortages and not use up so much fossil fuels we need to lower our population. Currently we have around 6 billion people on this lil' mudball so if we drop our population by half it goes to reason that we would use up half as much resources, therefore not have any shortages.

[Xard]

Sand is right - though I'm not sure how accurate he is with the numbers

 

But earth already IS seriously overpopulated. It won't take long to all hell break loose in poor and heavily populated areas in e.g east asia

Edited May 16, 2008 by Xard

[Musopticon?]

If we want to remove food shortages and not use up so much fossil fuels, we should just do that. There's no reason for "lowering population".

 

There's tons of arable land left, instead of cattle chow we could produce edible crops, farm coasts for fish, instead of mass highways, use public transportation, connect cities with it, improve upon already existing technology for both, etc.

 

Then again, there's tons of money in both fossil fuels and beef and we live in world with western appetite and western habits so that is not about to happen anytime soon, heh.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Musopticon?

[Xard]

and that's lesson of the day kids: Capitalism and neoliberalism sucks

[LadyCrimson]

Fossil fuels would still run out.

What we need is to move away from dependence on such as energy resources.

[Moatilliatta]

Then again, there's tons of money in both fossil fuels and beef and we live in world with western appetite and western habits so that is not about to happen anytime soon, heh.

We should invent the right to eat beef. Seriously our habit of eating beef isn't dangerouss enough that we need to worry, you could make an argument against fossil fuels though.

 

I'm not worried, unless one of these local doomsday eggheads can produce something that would make me believe that we won't be able to invent technology that will kill all their simplistic theories, then I'm not worried.

[Xard]

While we're sitting comfy in our chairs problems are already culminating here and there. The recent biofuel **** up is the newest case

[LadyCrimson]

While I think being environmentally conscious is important, it doesn't keep me up at night, simply because I'll be dead by the time we completely run out of anything.

[Moatilliatta]

Nothing has yet shown that reason doesn't win out in the end. Personally I'm much more willing to worry about stuff like how we treat each other as human beings and such, stuff that matters, and where I can actually contribute.

[Sand]

Lowering the human population is the best way of doing it, and if we do it in combination of Muso said I think it would go a long way to make the planet a bit better off.

[Moatilliatta]

Personally I value the experience of life higher than most anything else so I can't agree to anything that robs people of the potential chance of experiencing it.

[Xard]

...lolwut

 

I don't think anyone in here is advocating holocaust or something

[Sand]

Personally I value the experience of life higher than most anything else so I can't agree to anything that robs people of the potential chance of experiencing it.

 

I am not saying we should go off and kill half the human population, just curb our reproduction rate just a bit. Abstinence, birth control, abortions and the like can be useful tools in controlling human population growth.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Sand

[Moatilliatta]

You are advocating not having children that people would otherwise have and that is robbing the potentiality of life from certain potential people. This wouldn't be a problem if we knew that it would neccesarily lead to a (very) markedly improved life for the rest of the people on the planet, but we know nothing and as such it is a simplistic theory based on assumptions that only you support.

 

Guys seriously, I'm talking of potentialities. READ.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[Sand]

You are advocating not having children that people would otherwise have and that is robbing the potentiality of life from certain potential people. This wouldn't be a problem if we knew that it would neccesarily lead to a (very) markedly improved life for the rest of the people on the planet, but we know nothing and as such it is a simplistic theory based on assumptions that only you support.

 

Guys seriously, I'm talking of potentialities. READ.

 

The only "potential" I see is overpopulation that will not only stress out the varied economies of the nations of this planet but also have a very strong and negative impact on the environment. Overpopulation can lead to far more "potential" problems that could very much lead to extinction.