Wednesday, February 15, 2006

How Many?

It is very clear that "only mad men and Economists" believe that it is possible to have infinite growth on a finite base. If you believe that the size of the human population in the world has reached a level that is already of concern what would be the specific policies that you would be willing to follow in order to resolve the issue?

7 comments:

  1. I have an honest question, and perhaps someone here has an answer. How does the growing AIDS epidemic fit in? Are people going to start dying at a more rapid rate than are being born? Forgive me my ignorance, but I am curious how it all fits in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yosef,
    I am not in a position to comment on McKenna since I have never read him. Thank you for the deoxy URL. I will visit it soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon 1:00pm,
    I would rather not have you post under anonymous. This blog is not advertised and so the 11 of us are the only users(i think).
    I have not had a chance to research your question but I am not aware of any country where the death rate from AIDS has reached the level whereby it is the reason for a contraction in the human population. I do not believe that this will be the case globally. Remember that the world is currently adding around 75-77 million people every year.
    I am not dismissing the very legitimate issue that you raise but I do not think that the world can even forsee the posiibility of 75 million annual deaths from AIDS.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Regarding the population demographic regional vs global scenario:

    http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004Highlights_finalrevised.pdf

    See esp. p. 3 and 4 regarding age distribution and effect on population increase,
    fig. 4 page 22 showing projected trends toward roughly the same global birth rate in all countries, and
    p.32 showing effect of aids on population growth (not much).

    I think these data are as good as such things get, though I am quite skeptical of projections out to 2050 that don't mention either carrying capacity or oil.

    We’ve already exceeded global carrying capacity. We are now in “overshoot”. (Visualize a car sailing smoothly, but quite temporarily, through the air after having been driven off of a cliff.)

    Global population is nearing 7 billion. Different theorists using different methods seem to end up agreeing that global carrying capacity is probably about 2 billion. (This assumes some level of social justice and a moderate, low by US standards, standard of living. More is possible if you accept a cattle car / Matrix-esque "life".)

    In any case, we will get to that much-lower-than-7-billion number the hard way (wars, famine, disease, and their accompanying losses of environmental quality, freedom, and social justice) OR the less hard way (immediately and drastically reducing our population voluntarily). Yes, all of us, yes, everywhere. There is no scenario anywhere in which population growth is a "good thing" long term.

    Yes a drop in population would cause problems, but none of those problems are as big as the problems, suffering, and environmental collapse that is certain to occur if we don’t.

    I disagree with any argument that there is some “right to reproduce”. If there is any "right to reproduce" it's in the concept that one has the freedom to nurture a child or children and form some sort of family. Biological reproduction is not necessary to do that and there are many in need of this sort of nurturing.

    This is a global issue with local and nation-state consequences. For example, immigration is a consequence of overpopulation, not a cause of it. Likewise, global climate change is not impressed by national boundaries.

    No technological / "alternative energy" options have the capacity or can be ramped up fast enough to avoid major global calamity. That isn't to say we shouldn't do them. Aggressively shifting to alternative energy is necessary, just not sufficient.

    For more comprehensive analysis of all this I suggest

    Bandura etc.
    http://growthmadness.org/2008/02/18/impeding-ecological-sustainability-through-selective-moral-disengagement/

    Albert Bartlett on the exponential function as it relates to population and oil:
    http://c-realm.blogspot.com/2008/12/kmo-interview-with-albert-bartlett.html

    Approaching the Limits www.paulchefurka.ca

    Bruce Sundquist on environmental impact of overpopulation http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/

    The Oil Drum Peak Oil Overview - June 2007 (www.theoildrum.com/node/2693)

    ReplyDelete