quote: Clambakes, crabcakes, swordfish steaks and even humble fish sticks could be little more than a fond memory in a few decades.
If current trends of overfishing and pollution continue, the populations of just about all seafood face collapse by 2048, a team of ecologists and economists warns in a report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
....
"At this point 29 percent of fish and seafood species have collapsed -- that is, their catch has declined by 90 percent. It is a very clear trend, and it is accelerating," Worm said. "If the long-term trend continues, all fish and seafood species are projected to collapse within my lifetime -- by 2048."
"It looks grim and the projection of the trend into the future looks even grimmer," he said. "But it's not too late to turn this around. It can be done, but it must be done soon. We need a shift from single species management to ecosystem management. It just requires a big chunk of political will to do it."
....
The National Fisheries Institute, a trade association for the seafood industry, does not share the researchers alarm.
"Fish stocks naturally fluctuate in population," the institute said in a statement. "By developing new technologies that capture target species more efficiently and result in less impact on other species or the environment, we are helping to ensure our industry does not adversely affect surrounding ecosystems or damage native species.
Seafood has become a growing part of Americans' diet in recent years. Consumption totaled 16.6 pounds per person in 2004, the most recent data available, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That compares with 15.2 pounds in 2000.
Whatever it takes to get us to realize the impact we have upon the world. Maybe the death of a billion people due to starvation, the collapse of a $200 billion industry, and the fact that you'll only be able to see fish in an aquarium instead of on your plate will get people to wake up to the reality of human impact on the planet Earth.
[ May 13, 2010, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
This is scary as hell.
My friend Neal has been yelling at me for years whenever I eat sushi or salmon for just this reason. I've been trying to be more careful but it's hard to give up fish. *sigh* I guess I better try harder.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No one needs to give up fish entirely. Americans, and really this one isn't just us, it's everyone, need to learn moderation.
Americans eat a pound more this year than we did in 2001 on average, of seafood. That's 300 million pounds. We all eat make two less trips to Red Lobster and that goes a long way towards easing the burden on the world's oceans.
But that's not enough. I've been reading stories for months now that the world's coral reefs will ALL be dead in the next two decades, from a combination of pollution and warm waters. That will have a catastrophic effect on the world's ecosystem.
Time for the world to step up and pay attention to science. It's all related, no one thing is going to fix the whole problem.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Bad news for us Japanese (you know, especially. It's everyone's problem.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Clambakes, crabcakes, swordfish steaks and even humble fish sticks could be little more than a fond memory in a few decades.
This is one area where, quit frankly, small government conservatives are out of their mind. What I'm speaking of is the idea that if the government does nothing, business/private individuals will be able to solve this kind of problem by themselves without government regulation. What a joke.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm, do you have anything showing that "small government conservatives" don't acknowledge a place for government in commons problems such as this? I'm not sure your assumption that they don't is well-founded.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I was specifically speaking of those who don't. My apologies that I didn't put 'some'.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I eat waaay more than the national average every year.
That is all.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I eat waaay more than the national average every year.
That is all.
It's okay, I don't eat any of it at all. You can have my 16.4 pounds (sorry, I do eat an order of coconut shrimp once or twice a year, so I need those .2 pounds).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Y'all can have my share of crustaceans and other invertebrates. (Ew!)
But I'm keeping the salmon, trout, whitefish, herring, tuna, etc. (*drool*)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the pro-business side would say that when Salmon starts to cost $80 a plate, people will stop buying it, and it'll repopulate.
The problem with that being, salmon isn't like a DVD player, and supply and demand of animals doesn't work the same way.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
But I love fish so much. Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
When it is worth eighty dollars a plate we will actively cultivate it. (or whatever the fish farm term is...)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
They're called fish farms, and we already do it to some extent.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Unfortunately, it likely won't ever reach $80 a plate. When a particular variety of fish becomes in short supply, we switch to a substitute (and a tragedy of the commons typically occurs).
One big problem is that anyone can fish -- property rights are not well-defined for ocean fishing. We don't have such tragedies for most of our resources because individuals hold rights to parts of them, and allocate those parts more optimally, since they don't have the perverse incentive to overutilize that exists on a commons.
This leads to tragedy.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"When it is worth eighty dollars a plate we will actively cultivate it."
Nice of you to volunteer to be ground up, cooked, then compressed into SoylentGreen pellets to feed the fishies.
[ November 04, 2006, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I only like tuna and scallops, pretty much. But mostly tuna. But I love it.
-pH
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I love these "Whoops, we're raping the earth" stories which actually manage to trouble most people simply because they foretell consumer inconveniences.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't know if cutting back on fish is such a great idea, actually. Presumably, you would substitute meat, and with the amount of fossil fuels the meat industry uses, ouch. If it's going to be any use, you'd have to eat rice and grain instead. I don't know if I'd care for that, honestly; I likeses my meatses, yes I does, precious.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
. I really really like crab cakes. I hope I'm dead before they run out.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
A primarily plant based diet with meat in moderation is healthier and better for the environment, both. Meat is awfully tasty, and I will never give it up entirely. Or seafood, for that matter. But I've been reducing my intake. Makes it harder to give blood, though, since I can't get in the habit of taking a vitamin every morning and my iron hovers around the acceptable line.
I've read a couple of different articles lately about fishing depleting the oceans, and they're really scary. We take until the population can't sustain itself, and then move on to another species. It can't go on forever.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Also, here's a page that lists the best and worst seafood choices, both for the environment and your health. One of the things that you wouldn't expect is that farm-raised Atlantic salmon is on the worst list for both. The way they raise it is damaging to natural stocks and polluting the ocean, and the fish are contaminated with PCBs, dioxins and pesticides. Wild Atlantic salmon is endangered, and illegal to sell in the US. But there are several varieties of Pacific/Alaskan salmon and artic char that are both safe and environmentally friendly. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
The meat industry also uses a lot of fresh water (for washing and watering, presumably) which is a problem if you're in a drought region. Sydney has a major water crisis at the moment because the only thing our politicians seem to be able to agree on is; yes, we're running out of water and yes, we need to help the farmers. Great, so what happens when the dam is empty?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I love these "Whoops, we're raping the earth" stories which actually manage to trouble most people simply because they foretell consumer inconveniences.
That, and starvation and the collapse of major coastal economies. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: A primarily plant based diet with meat in moderation is healthier and better for the environment, both.
Unless you need to consume high amounts of protein. Meat/dairy is a much, much easier way to try to get all the protein I need than...I don't know, trying to find high protein soy something.
-pH
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The New York Times had a good opinion piece on this in yesterday's paper.
Too bad you have to register with them to see it and I can't link to it from this forum. And I'd quote it for you, but, you know, copyright violations and all.
But take my word on it, it made a lot of sense.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The Australian drought -- as well as lesser droughts in the US, Argentina, and the Ukraine -- has reduced the world wheat reserve down to 53days as of October. With no relief in sight. Even when such relief finally arrives, all GlobalWarming simulations forecast that drought will become the climatic norm for those regions affected.
Also EU overfishing off the African coast has been has been directly correlated with the increasing use of bush meat, leading to extreme depletion of African wildlife.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting article on crops. Apparently, US efforts to use biofuels, and not oil are going to lead to worldwide starvation.
We can't do anything right.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
This kind of thing is the reason we can't get Condor cakes any more!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
This is aweosme! I can try to convicne my parents to stop serving me fish! <--- Hates fish because fish are out to get me, whenever I eat fish I choke on bones.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
This news only makes me want to eat MORE fish, so I get my share before they're gone.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I don't like seafood much, with the exception of some fried snapper or something. But because of overfishing I just quit eating that too. Mercury is another problem. Occasionally we'll have cholera warnings too, saying don't eat oysters caught in Mobile bay or whatever. Mmmm, cholera! So given all that, I just gave up seafood altogether. Everyone else seems to love it and I've always barely tolerated it so it only seems fair for me not to waste it on me.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
What about dolphins? It's still okay to eat them, isn't it?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Their brain makes you smarter, but their tongue makes you squeal like a 14 year old girl at a Jonas Brothers concert. Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
For a minute I was confused about Telp and Storm Saxon posting, but then I realized it was just aspectre bumping an extremely old thread again.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We can't do anything right.
As long as we keep consuming like we do and looking at the world (an all that is in it) as neverendingly consumable.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Will Red Lobster still serve the cheesy bread? thats the important question.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm vegetarian. Yay I don't feel guilty.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
That's a good site ElJay.
Though I am saddened to see bluefin tuna on the ecoworst list. And recommended for women not to eat it.
I love tuna. Rats.
Ooh, but Barramundi is on the best list. Ok, that's a good excuse to buy some... Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Mmmm, cholera!
Oysters! They're cholericious!
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
There's nothing better than an oyster with a good cholera crust.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
And to think.. I've been trying to gag down MORE fish for health reasons.
Oh well, back to Steak for me!
Lyr: Anyone could have told you turning food into fuel was a stupid idea. There are plenty of other organics you can make high priced oil out of without sucking up farm land and taking food out of people's mouths.
The Pixiest, what are you saying about MTBE? That it is worse than the lead that it replaced?
And almost all of the biofuel people I encounter are against this insane corn-based ethanol methods. Everything about them seems to be bad, unless you're in the business. Biofuels should not be ruled out, but they should not continue on the path they are on now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It figures this thread would be resuscitated on a day when my family plans to go to Red Lobster. Way to guilt trip me from afar.
quote:From Pix Lyr: Anyone could have told you turning food into fuel was a stupid idea. There are plenty of other organics you can make high priced oil out of without sucking up farm land and taking food out of people's mouths.
I don't think that's automatically true. Granted, I don't support the use of corn or soy for fuel, as there are other crops out there that don't take up food growing farmland and are much, much more efficient carriers of energy, but using something than can be consumed doesn't automatically make it a bad idea. Algae is consumable, after some processing, and but it's also grown on non-crop land, and is far more productive than any other large scale biofuel crop.
The problem obviously comes from taking food out of the market and putting it into making fuel, which is obviously a bad idea, but if you were to offset that with new cropland elsewhere, there wouldn't be a problem. Just because we weren't and aren't doing it right doesn't mean the idea is automatically wrong. It does however make it very complicated, burdensome, and in the end, a bad idea because of a lack of interest in the problems named, but not automatically.
quote:From The White Whale Biofuels should not be ruled out, but they should not continue on the path they are on now.
I'm not sure how I feel about that statement. If you mean that we should just kill ethanol cold turkey, I would hesitantly lean toward favoring that idea, with the caveat that I'd want to know what that would mean practically. But nearly all the research going into biofuels right now concerns second, third and even fourth generation biofuels. Corn was a first step, and a worst step, and everyone throwing money at biofuel startups realizes that now, which is why the money is going to a variety of different, some more exotic, potential crops. We need to continue exactly along the path we're on, because that path leads away from corn. We just need to hurry the hell up.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Lyrhawn, yes, that's what I mean. Corn ethanol is doubleplusungood, but it's still where commercialization of ethanol is heading right now. I'm all for non-corn ethanol, but the corn lobbies are a lot bigger than I am.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the fastest way, other than Congress just cutting off funding of course, to kill corn ethanol subsidies would be to change the presidential primary schedule so Iowa falls some time in February, rather than January.
Everyone hates ethanol except the farm belt, but no one dares touch it for fear of never making it past the early stages of the primary. That's the fault of the primary calendar, and the fault of the media, for thinking that New Hampshire and Iowa are somehow indicative of the entire country in such a way that not surviving those two states means not surviving anywhere else.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Alaska's ocean turning more acidic. Colder water dissolves gases more readily than warmer water. As the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide goes up, more is entrained in the cold waters nearer the poles than in the warm waters nearer the equator. Dissolving more CO2 into water produces higher levels of carbonic acid, which in turn makes it more difficult for shellfish and plankton to extract calcium carbonate out of the sea water to build their exoskeletons.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I haven't noticed if anyone mentioned the Plastic Continent here yet.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
"At this point 29 percent of fish and seafood species have collapsed -- that is, their catch has declined by 90 percent. It is a very clear trend, and it is accelerating," Worm said.
Am I the only person who noticed that WORM is an expert on fish?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I've noticed that local chain restaurants like Taco Del Mar and Skippers have stopped offering cod as their fish of choice. Now it's talapia, or something else; sometimes it's just a generic, nameless white fish.
And then there's salmon. Farmed salmon just isn't as good for you as wild, by many accounts, and there are suggestions that fish farms may actually make things worse for the wild runs: they create areas where fish-unfriendly parasites thrive, and they create less-healty and fit progeny when they crossbreed with the wild strains.
Ebert just reviewed a film called The Cove that covers a place in Japan where dolphins are illegally killed, their meat mis-labelled and put into childrens' lunches despite the high concentrations of mercury in their flesh.
Apparently we should be learning to eat jellyfish. The linked story aside, I know personally they've begun showing up on beaches that have never seen them before. (And I've eaten jellyfish, at a Chinese wedding reception... I'd just as soon not repeat the experience.)
It's scary when something like this hits you in ways you cannot possibly ignore. And it's sad for me, too, because I have a small daughter who may live to see a world with little or no seafood. And she loves salmon.
Many years ago, on witnessing a couple have a loud and unpleasant public fight, a friend of mine commented, "You know... Sometimes I just don't like people."
Sometimes, I agree.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I missed an important news item from February 5, 2009 -- "The North Pacific Fishery Management Council today decided to close a vast stretch of American waters to fishing that has never been fished actively. This sounds strange initially, but it’s actually a proactive move — focused on Arctic waters above the Bering Strait — aimed at avoiding big ecological disruptions as the expanding summer retreats of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean expose virgin waters."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...chain restaurants...have stopped offering cod as their fish of choice. Now it's talapia, or something else; sometimes it's just a generic, nameless white fish."
They were hoki, but the commercial seiners have managed to nearly collapse that fishery too.
Cod fisheries have collapsed due to over-harvesting to the point that the number of cod allowed to grow old enough to reproduce isn't sufficient to maintain their population. Nor is this the first time. What we have been eating recently were considered a trash species of cod until the '60s or so. ie They useta be tossed back into the ocean as an unwanted bycatch of fishing for the couple-or-three other species considered to be "cod worth eating".
[ September 13, 2009, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Poor hoki, ugly delicious hoki....
Edit. Okay The Cove link just made me really sad.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Too bad Pig and Cattle farts are greenhouse gases. We can always get our potein from rats and bugs. I agree with the ethanol/corn comment though. No one really cares about the human cost. Rising grain prices due to ethanol has resulted in more people starving around the world - but we are helping mother earth.
Guess what the greatest killer in the history of mankind is?.....mosquito. DDT saved many lives, for a while. Millions die in the name of bird eggs.
The delta smelt is safe but close to 100k people are out of work and 13% of America's produce crop is cut off.
Rice fields are taking swamp land and natural flood plains that are natural wildlife preserves...how long until rice production is banned to save the birds. What would the human cost be for reduced rice production?
There is no right answer for any of these questions...Green wind turbines kill birds...and preventing controlled burns results in large sections of California burning to the ground uncontollably every year.
I take the unpopular position that people are more valuable. We can adapt, the smelt cannot. 99.9% of all species that ever walked the earth are extinct and only a tiny fraction of 1% of that could be attributed to man. Screw the field mouse, I want my family to eat grain..at least until we get soylent green.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Funny thing about DDT... Or any simple, easy, so-called "common sense", silver-bullet solution: Nature has a tendency to laugh at us.
Case in point... and that doesn't even consider that DDT doesn't break up quickly and easily, and can cause cancer and genetic defects in humans when it leaks into groundwater.
We still don't understand why giant jellyfish are showing up in Japan, or why honeybees are vanishing. If people hesitate to blithely kill off entire species in the name of temporary economic gains or access to limited food sources, it's not necessarily because said species are cute or because of some vague "environmentalism" that irrationally trumps human interest. We are a long way from understanding all the interconnections of such actions, and we're terribly underqualified to play God.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I take the unpopular position that people are more valuable.
I am too, that's why I don't act like you and go off of simple pseudo-causal deductions that result in people making gross, consequential degradations to the ecosphere we're reliant upon.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I take the unpopular position that people are more valuable. We can adapt, the smelt cannot. 99.9% of all species that ever walked the earth are extinct and only a tiny fraction of 1% of that could be attributed to man. Screw the field mouse, I want my family to eat grain..at least until we get soylent green.
First, humans weren't around for a vast majority of those extinctions, so of course it cannot be attributed to humans.
Second, it seems pretty obvious that a non-insignificant amount of the extinctions happening today can be attributed to human activity. Habitat destruction, pollution, toxic chemicals in the water. It doesn't take much to see the obvious.
Third, yes, humans are adaptable. But who knows how far our adaptability extends? You say screw the field mouse, and assume that we do not need the field mouse, and the entire ecosystem that the field mouse represents. Where does your air come from? Where does most of your water come from? Where does your food come from? Where does your medicine come from? Do you not recognize the large, diverse, and potentially fragile systems on which you depend?
I forget who said it (the book is at home), but it was something like: There has never been a time in all of human history where we have not been depleting the earth of it's natural resources. All of this growth and progress comes at the cost of the integrity of the planet. At some point, if we keep taking and keep growing, the planet will cease to be able to provide. It is a closed system, and exponential growth in a closed system is not sustainable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Although I agree with your overall point, the Earth is not a closed system: It has a huge source of external energy driving it. Now, if you wanted to call it a metastable system which will go into completely unexpected states if pushed, that would be accurate.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Sorry. Closed in the sense of mass exchange. Water and air and nutrients do not leave or enter the system.
As long as our primary energy comes from mass (trees, coal, oil, biofuel, nuclear, etc.), it is a good assumption to call it a closed system. If solar ever really becomes dominant, then I would drop the assumption.
And stability doesn't really mean the same thing as closed. As far as the Earth's energy balance goes, the energy coming in from the sun is just about exactly matched by the outgoing energy (small exception for the imbalance caused by the greenhouse effect). There is stability in the energy exchange. Energy in = Energy out, but it is not a closed energy system.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dude, you never heard of entropy? Obviously there's energy balance, but that's completely irrelevant to a discussion of anything but black-body radiation! The question is whether we have "entropy balance", to coin a phrase. We get in photons in the visible spectrum, blackbody temperature around 6000K (modulo atmospheric reflection) and radiate in the infrared, blackbody temperature something like 300K. (Roughly.) That's a huge difference, enough in fact to run the entire anti-entropic biosphere. That the one has total energy equal to the other is trivial; the question is whether the entropy (or other measure of useful work) is the same.
Let me point out that your "energy from mass" in fact comes, other than nuclear, from old solar. Put in solar energy and you can make oil from scratch (well, from table scraps anyway) if you like. It's just not economically viable at the moment.
"Metastability" wasn't intended to refer to the energy (or the entropy) balance; the point is that the ecosystem, closed or not, is not in a fully stable equilibrium - push it a little bit, it might or might not come back to the same point. Firstly, it's chaotic; secondly, it has multiple semi-stable equilibria; and thirdly, we have no idea what the equilibria even are, much less of the transitions between them (except for the ones staring us in the face, like the transition from an ocean full of fish to one full of algae, or whatever will take over the energy that fish used to use). But this has nothing to with being or not being a closed system.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Obviously there's energy balance, but that's completely irrelevant to a discussion of anything but black-body radiation!
I do believe that the energy balance is a primary indicator of the temperature of the planet. You look at the solar (shortwave) energy coming in, and look at the terrestrial (longwave) energy coming out, and you can estimate the temperature. If you look at it without greenhouse effects, you get around -15 Celsius. You include a (simplistic) greenhouse effect, and you get around 30 Celsius. Reality is not quite at 30 Celsius, the observations show something more like 16 Celsius. But the energy balance does directly lead to the surface temperature, which is quite relevant.
When you talk about "energy from mass" or vice-versa, this does not happen often on our planet. It is not at all common for energy to be converted into mass, or mass converted into energy. So much so that when calculations and assumptions are made, energy balance and mass balance are treated as separate balances. You put in solar energy, and you provide energy for the compound oil to be made from its basic parts. But the solar energy itself does not make oil.
I agree with you with your stability statements. The earth may have several stability points, and we have no idea if we're nearing a tipping point from one to another. But if we ever hope to make a good guess, it's good to understand mass, momentum, and energy. And we know that only very negligible amounts of mass enter of leave the system. For any calculations, you can safely assume that it is closed. That is what I mean when I talk of a closed system.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
White Whale: but, as you've pointed out, if the mass is closed, it doesn't make sense to talk about "depleting" the mass by using it as fuel. All of the mass is still there. And, if enough energy were applied, a lot of it could again become fuel.
Note: I'm not saying there aren't serious conservation issues, but your advocacy is at odds with other parts of your position.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Since an Earth populated by one-celled algae, an Earth containing a flourishing human civilisation, and a flaming radioactive desert all contain the same mass, I fail to see the interest.
quote:I do believe that the energy balance is a primary indicator of the temperature of the planet. You look at the solar (shortwave) energy coming in, and look at the terrestrial (longwave) energy coming out, and you can estimate the temperature.
Right; blackbody radiation, as I said. (And non-blackbody, if you include the chemical effects.) This has nothing to do with whether we have an ecosystem, or Venus, which depends in effect on the biosphere.
quote:When you talk about "energy from mass" or vice-versa, this does not happen often on our planet. It is not at all common for energy to be converted into mass, or mass converted into energy.
I didn't! You're the one who introduced the phrase! "Our primary energy comes from mass", quo' you. No, it doesn't; it comes from the sun, and is stored as high-energy-density forms of matter. This has nothing to do with energy-to-matter conversion. It's a matter-to-other-form-of-matter-mediated-by-energy conversion. That we don't gain or lose any matter is unimportant; we'd have the same oil reserves if you doubled the number of meteorites through Earth's history, but try that trick with solar input.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
fugu13, thanks. I think I'm getting ahead of myself, or not explaining everything clearly. When I'm talking about "our primary energy comes from mass," I mean that the way that we currently get the energy we need is my converting mass from a high-energy state to a low-energy state. We burn it. We burnt wood until we discovered that we could burn coal. We burnt coal until we discovered that we could burn oil. Now we're burning all three.
And for much of this mass, specifically coal and oil, it does not cycle back on any time scale that really matters for us, and it would be quite expensive (energy-wise) to convert it back into coal or oil. It would not make sense to do, although it would be possible. Wood has a much shorter cycle-back time, but providing the energy for 6 billion plus people with only wood is not appealing.
If we're talking about human energy needs over the next 100 years, which I think is something that really needs to be talked about, a good working assumption is that the coal and oil we burn is gone. It is no longer usable. It is not worth talking about methods for turning the byproducts of its combustion back into coal or oil. It is not going to cycle back any time soon. In that sense, it is being depleted.
On geologic timescales, it is not. But geologic timescales are not the timescales on which our current problems exist.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
KoM: sorry about the mix-up with energy to mass. That is my mistake. See my previous post.
quote:Right; blackbody radiation, as I said. (And non-blackbody, if you include the chemical effects.) This has nothing to do with whether we have an ecosystem, or Venus, which depends in effect on the biosphere.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. The temperature of our planet has *a lot* to do with the existence of our ecosystem. Venus does not have a ecosystem (or biosphere, is that what you're saying? because Venus most assuredly does not have a biosphere) for a lot of reasons. A primary one being one that it does not have the right energy balance, and thus the right temperature for water to exist in all three states.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. At this point I think we are, as my advisor puts it, "agreeing violently". The point is, although the ecosystem is a big system, it's also chaotic and multi-equilibric (is that a word?); it doesn't take a stimulus anywhere near the size of the system to provoke a change to a different equilibrium. Further, most changes in equilibrium will be violently bad for humans, quite independent of what happens to fish. If nothing else, our economy has spent a lot of time tuning itself to the current availability of resources - this tuning process is why free markets work so well - and changing the available resources is a bit like suddenly slapping a big tax on a lot of different things. Sure, the economy will adjust, but that takes a while and anyway you can't avoid a price increase. And the process of adjustment is likely to be unpleasant, because unemployment will overshoot.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Any way you slice it, ultimately, in the long run humans will have to make a choice. There are limited resources on this planet. Eventually there will be an us or them choice to be made, perhaps this is the current discussion. Either there is a worldwide mandated form of population control or man will relegate most forms of life, other than our domesticated food crops, to zoos and terrariums. I'm not advocating forced population control but it is an inevitable choice. Humanity or the ecosystem. Maybe its our medical technology and world economy that has made things worse. True pandemics, wars, disasters and local ecosystems once kept our population in check. Is food aid to highly reproductive people who lack the resources to support themselves really a good idea? Eventually, the grain belt of the United States will not be able to feed the populations of the deserts around the world. At least for now, they have oil under that sand to trade. You want to see the middle east decline and starve, move away from oil.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Your analysis is too blunt. You are correct that there is a tradeoff between numbers of humans and amount of biomass dedicated to non-human nature; and people can legitimately have different preferences on the matter. If you prefer, say, a human population of 50 billion, with every piece of ecosystem pressed into producing food for them; and I prefer say 5 billion and quite a bit of nature for them to enjoy - well, this is a difference of opinion, and we can argue about it, vote on it, and ultimately fight over it if we can't reach agreement.
But! There's also this point to be made: That we cannot reach that 50 billion, nor keep the 5 billion, if we simply ignore the ordinary workings of the ecosystem. If you want to have the oceans populated only by algae producing food for humans, that's a policy goal; but you won't get there by just sweeping up the fish, willy-nilly. Such a change must be made consciously, not randomly. If we go on simply pumping out poisons and grabbing every piece of protein in sight, we won't get a world populated only by humans and our commensals; we'll get a population crash, "of the classic two-thirds degree". Surely this is something we can agree we want to avoid, independent of whether we desire a 5-billion or 50-billion steady-state population?
Until we are able to actually engineer the ecosystem in a properly controlled manner, we would be very stupid to continue providing it with random inputs. An unpredictable result, in a chaotic system which you need to produce your food, is with 98% certainty going to be a very bad result.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Any way you slice it, ultimately, in the long run humans will have to make a choice. There are limited resources on this planet. Eventually there will be an us or them choice to be made
The ecosystem is not a sum-styled game where it comes down to either "us winning" or "the ecosystem winning." It's actually remarkably different than how you make it (or are even capable of seeing it). It's "us and the ecosystem winning" or everybody losing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Although the ecosystem is not necessarily zero-sum, at some level there's a tradeoff between number of humans and amount of non-human biomass.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sure, but that doesn't mean the existence of humans is sustainable if they significantly increase their percentage of the available biomass.
My personal suspicion, though, is that the percent of biomass present in humans will come nowhere near being a problem by the time resource usage of other sorts would become a problem.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yep, that's the side of things I'm arguing as well. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I'm not a vegetarian, but I've been consciously cutting down on my fish and meat intake this year. I don't eat it less often, I just eat less of it. I've eaten fish once this year.
Poverty is a great way to cut down on your meat (and fish, yowch fish is expensive nowadays!) intake.
It can be done. But I know so many people who plow their way through tons of meat. Not that I blame them: we are omnivores and as a protein source meat is invaluable.
Here's one thing, though: Americans (and Canadians, and the British...) are fatter than the world average. Whenever I see a photo of a group of Americans, I am always struck by how round they are. Many Americans could cut their calorie intake, including fish and meat, in half or even a third and they wouldn't even be hungry. They would be healthier. I appreciate how tasty food is, but it drives me nuts that certain people talk about how putting restrictions to prevent ecological damage is impacting the starving. You know who else is impacting the starving? People who eat vast quantities of meat that far exceed what they need!
If you have 200 million people eating three times what they need, you have 400 million people who could be adequately fed without improving the efficiency of food production.
Of course, having less people is also a big thing. The Papal insistance that contraception is evil is so problematic, I barely know where to begin. In the past, child death was contraception. Our scientific advances save many children all over the world and in order to not raise dozens of children, a billion people must resist moral blackmail in order to put a leash on their procreation.
I don't have a problem with a few big families, a few big meals and eating meat. I believe that we could have these things on the Earth without any formal restrictions if people would only be more aware.
</rant>
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:You know who else is impacting the starving? People who eat vast quantities of meat that far exceed what they need!
I agree with some of your sentiment, but this is just fallacious. If there weren't as many people eating as much meat, less meat would be produced, and the meat produced would cost more. That's econ 101. Poor people would have to pay more when they wanted meat, not less.
We already have more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet at current levels of production. The problems with starvation and hunger are not fundamentally due to the planet not having enough food; they are due to food not being effectively delivered to the people who need it most.
If you want to help starving people, trying to get people in the US to eat less won't help -- indeed, it will be actively counterproductive, though probably not a huge amount (people who are truly starving aren't doing so for lack of meat). This doesn't mean that desiring people to both eat less meat for health reasons and for more food to be available to starving people aren't both good goals that can be held reasonably at the same time, but they're not nearly so interrelated as you think. Learning a little about how markets work will help you in assessing situations like this for likely effects.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Regarding the original post, first, the amount was a 90% drop in catches, not extinction. That's a very different state of affairs. Second, more than half of all seafood eaten in the world is farmed, not caught. Prices might go up somewhat on certain fish, but I suspect farms will keep up with demand on all fish that can be farmed -- its too profitable not to.
I do worry for tuna, though. I love really good tuna.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:You know who else is impacting the starving? People who eat vast quantities of meat that far exceed what they need!
I agree with some of your sentiment, but this is just fallacious. If there weren't as many people eating as much meat, less meat would be produced, and the meat produced would cost more. That's econ 101.
Um... no. Econ 101 would be that if less meat was produced while demand remained the same, the price would go up. If demand and supply both fall at the same rate, the price remains the same.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Does econ 101 cover economy of scale? I think it makes sense that if there's less overall meat being produced, it's going to drive up the average costs of production or distribution.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Econ 101 tells you that if you remove some demand, you get a new balance by some combination of shifts in price and supply, but doesn't tell you which effect will be more important.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Regarding the original post, first, the amount was a 90% drop in catches, not extinction. That's a very different state of affairs. Second, more than half of all seafood eaten in the world is farmed, not caught. Prices might go up somewhat on certain fish, but I suspect farms will keep up with demand on all fish that can be farmed -- its too profitable not to.
I do worry for tuna, though. I love really good tuna.
It took you three and a half years to read the OP? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is true, I'm working under some additional assumptions regarding economies of scale in meat production. In the absolute simplest scenario, a decrease in quantity demanded would result in a decrease in price. I'd expect to see such a scenario with vegetables, for instance.
I'm sorry Teshi, I shouldn't have been quite so blasé about it. Your statement that price would drop has a good chance of being correct.
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the correct answer is neither, and the supply curve remains fairly flat.
But, even if there is some price decrease for meat if many people stop eating it as much, it still isn't a solution to the problems of starvation, which are rooted in other things.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I wasn't referring to the price (although good point), I was referring to the availability of food. We were talking about how much food there is vs. how many hungry people there are. If we kept producing the exact same amount of food, but spread it about more evenly, there would be more food for everyone without having to do any more ecological damage to the environment.
I'm not an economist/financially minded and rarely remember to think in terms of cost when making grandiose statements.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The price is the availability. Meat at a dollar for a meal does you no good if you have ten cents, even if the butcher's desk is overflowing with the stuff.
quote:but spread it about more evenly, there would be more food for everyone
You cannot have thought this sentence through. To spread something about more evenly, you must by construction take some from those who have a lot and give to those who don't have so much. Now this may be the right thing to do, but it absolutely can not produce more for everyone!
[ May 16, 2010, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Again, there is already more than sufficient food for everyone on earth. Reduced food usage for people with a lot of food will not increase the food for those who desperately need it. Starvation is primarily caused by failed institutions (for instance, price controls have caused several famines), not a general lack of food.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Again, there is already more than sufficient food for everyone on earth.
Cynical me thinks that it might be possible that cutting back on the amount that North Americans eat might reduce the amount of money we sent abroad for processed food products from the third world*, thus causing more poverty and more of the very under-nutrition or starvation that we are trying to avoid in the first place.
* (or the number of immigrants, legal or otherwise working in the agricultural industry, sending back remittances)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:You cannot have thought this sentence through
Yes, I'm sorry, I muddled a word. I mean there would be ENOUGH food.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yo that link is dead right now but I'm already going to predict that it says that there's currently sufficient food reserves for everyone on earth; food production is already deficient and cannot be sustained at its current levels anyway so even if we were able to feed the current world population for the next 2-4 years it's already irrelevant.
The human species is pretty much too stupid to manage institution of an effective population growth control system and/or otherwise prevent africa and other parts of the world from having a massive starvation event by 2025 anyway, so it's also an academic issue; it's gonna happen, it's just a question of when the phosphorous famine / soil collapse hits and how quickly the crisis ramps up.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No, it's not.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Samprimary: I'd be more than willing to bet on the occurrence of such a starvation event (subject to reasonable definition of the parameters). $100 to the winner's favorite charity?
We'd need an independent adjudicator to eliminate starvations caused by wars, price controls, or other political institutions. It should be fairly easy, as in your scenario every African country of similar per capita income should experience famine, whereas in other scenarios famines should only occur in African countries with badly formed institutions.
Heck, since you seem to be saying that it is only possible for maybe 2-4 years, perhaps you'd be willing to make the bet based on a sooner time period?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
rivka said, ten minutes later
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ... And I've eaten jellyfish, at a Chinese wedding reception...
I on the other hand, love food at Chinese wedding receptions, jellyfish included. One of the few reasons to look forward to a wedding if you don't know the guests/couple that well personally.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: ... reasonable definition of the parameters ... badly formed institutions
If you two go through with this, it might be helpful to name precisely which countries and/or institutions are subject to "badly formed institutions" now before waiting for 2-4 years and then arguing over whether X famine counts because of Y institution.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Samprimary: I'd be more than willing to bet on the occurrence of such a starvation event (subject to reasonable definition of the parameters). $100 to the winner's favorite charity?
Let's just assume I'm donating the cash either way.
basically we have two factors:
- rising world population - unsustainable, nearly capped food production
the latter of which is itself is a combination of
- running out of cheap phosphorous - soil exhaustion
and other things.
If you read the wikipedia article on overpopulation, for instance, it says pretty much what I say. that we largely agree we can cover NOW, but that issues of sustainability mean that even if we kept the world population at where it is, there would still be famine not too long from now. And our population will not maintain at its current levels. it will continue to go up, to a wholly and inarguably unsustainable level. Assuming that the research isn't WILDLY off to an astounding degree, and no miracle self-regulation of world population, there is only one possible outcome.
My scenario doesn't even necessarily have to hit all of similar per-capita african nations equally. All it necessarily entails is severe net population reduction.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: rivka said, ten minutes later
It worked for me earlier in the day as well. Or are you saying it was just for a few minutes, just when you were trying to view it, that it didn't work?
WTH?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
In the 60s, Paul Erlich wrote a best-selling book predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve during the 70s and 80s due to unsustainable population growth. It didn't happen.
It seems to me that usually the people that make these types of pessimistic claims are not adequately allowing for human ingenuity and resourcefulness.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep. The idea of inevitable near-term impending mass starvation due to inability to grow enough food has been promoted quite frequently over the past century. So far it has not only failed to be correct, but been wildly wrong in the opposite direction.
Even the wikipedia article (they tend to go heavily with alarmism) notes there's quite a bit of disagreement about the particular issue you raise.
As for this:
quote:My scenario doesn't even necessarily have to hit all of similar per-capita african nations equally. All it necessarily entails is severe net population reduction.
If it isn't hitting everyone at a similar level of income at least somewhat, then how could it be due to an inability of the globe to provide sufficient food (absent some incredibly uneven emergency aid)?
I'm quite certain there will continue to be large starvations in Africa, but that's because I am certain that there will continue to be brutal wars and incompetent rulers in Africa. The combat in the congo and Mugabe's incompetence have added greatly to the toll, but have nothing to do with global food shortages.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think I either saw this very talk or read about it recently. I think marine reserves are a great idea.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: If it isn't hitting everyone at a similar level of income at least somewhat, then how could it be due to an inability of the globe to provide sufficient food (absent some incredibly uneven emergency aid)?
Logistical and production circumstances. What hits the fan is not evenly distributed. Low income african nation A and low income african nation B may during a massive famine event have greatly divergent available food production resources and may stay cohesive and fare better in that timeframe. Much better.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: rivka said, ten minutes later
It worked for me earlier in the day as well. Or are you saying it was just for a few minutes, just when you were trying to view it, that it didn't work?
WTH?
I am. I was saying that it wasn't up for me right then. I like to preface that sort of thing because i don't like to go forward without mentioning when I haven't looked at the material provided for me
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: In the 60s, Paul Erlich wrote a best-selling book predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve during the 70s and 80s due to unsustainable population growth. It didn't happen.
It seems to me that usually the people that make these types of pessimistic claims are not adequately allowing for human ingenuity and resourcefulness.
I absolutely allow for ingenuity and resourcefulness. The Green Revolution was immensely resourceful. it allowed world population growth in places like india to continue to grow, at the cost of sustainability.
While we are very resourceful, we also cannot stop our population growth. We, as a species, are simply unable to self-regulate ourselves in that way. We can keep pushing short-term gain in order to eke out short-term sustainability, but the physical reality of the globe's maximum sustainable population in the face of ever-expanding billions of people mean, via a very simple equation, that large portions of the world will begin to starve to death, and a few generations in the future we will have very, very different attitudes towards procreational rights as a result.
Let it also be noted that I think "A best selling book once said" is completely irrelevant to what I consider an effective understanding of the situation. Best selling books once predicted a new global ice age; that doesn't make the position that anthropogenic global warming is actually happening any less valid, even though it's frequently used in that way.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It was a popular theory, is all I'm saying. And it's not as if it's a diametrically opposed theory, or even a different theory, the way the Ice Age was. It's the same theory as yours. Population explosion will result in mass starvation.
All I'm saying is these types of predictions ignore the potential for human creativity to solve the problem before it gets to that level.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:While we are very resourceful, we also cannot stop our population growth. We, as a species, are simply unable to self-regulate ourselves in that way.
The over 70 countries with a fertility rate less than the one needed to sustain their population don't exist? The rapidly declining world average fertility rate isn't real?
We've learned quite well what lowers fertility rates: economic advancement and the education/empowerment of women. They're busy being applied in large parts of the world, including the more populous ones.
The UN doesn't base their projection on mass famine-related die-offs when they anticipate the world population peaking sometime in the next several decades and then beginning a decline (note: I am well aware that some parts of the UN believe famine due to lack of food is inevitable). That prediction is based on relatively simple projections of existing trends in population growth and total fertility that have existed since 1990 (for Africa) or before (for everybody else). Humans are already on their way to controlling their population growth -- and have done it in many places around the globe.
By the way, perhaps I was unclear earlier. If I win in 2035 (or we can pick an earlier year, if you desire; name some basic parameters and I'd be happy to discuss specifics), you'd contribute $100 to a charity of my choice. Unless you're planning on letting me direct some of your charitable donation in 2035, I suspect it won't happen without the bet Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
The over 70 countries with a fertility rate less than the one needed to sustain their population don't exist? The rapidly declining world average fertility rate isn't real?[/QUOTE]
Conveniently, I have said neither of these things!
'we as a species of only the nations that have sustainable population levels' sure may have the capacity to keep our population sustainable, but 'we as a species' maintain the same level of catastrophic population increases. It is not in anyone's sociopolitical power to prevent the rate from continuing to climb even though we cannot sustain our present amount of people.
As for the bet, it's really not my idea of fun to bet on mass famine in huge portions of the world for a time where there's no way I'll still even be posting here.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:but 'we as a species' maintain the same level of catastrophic population increases
Nonsense. Population increases have been declining in every region of the world for two decades (more, most places). That directly contradicts what you said above. As I said, the UN is basing the estimate of maxing out on population and then entering decline on the basis of long-established trends towards that place. Humans are well on track to zero population growth.
What's more, that a very large chunk of the world population has actually succeeded in lowering birth rate to below replacement is very good evidence that it can be successfully carried out by humans.
edit: saying a species is unable to do something when coherent populations of something like a billion individuals have, indeed, managed to do it engenders a bit of dismay that one was even aware of the data.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I was saying that it wasn't up for me right then. I like to preface that sort of thing because i don't like to go forward without mentioning when I haven't looked at the material provided for me
In that case, why not just say, "The link's not working for me." No need to claim it's dead, or point out that my post was 10 minutes after yours.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oooo...maybe we can eat the asian carp!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shhh*
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Nonsense. Population increases have been declining in every region of the world for two decades (more, most places). That directly contradicts what you said above. As I said, the UN is basing the estimate of maxing out on population and then entering decline on the basis of long-established trends towards that place. Humans are well on track to zero population growth.
The world population has been steadily increasing by approximately .75 billion people every ten years since 1960. One sourceAnother
While the rate of growth as a percentage may be decreasing, a smaller percentage of a bigger number can be very much the equivalent of a larger percentage of a smaller one.
There's also the very real possibility of a population crash based on a number of factors that are either outside of human control or not being addressed at a rate likely to offset them. New diseases, water table depletion, and the fish stock depletion that started this thread are only three of same. The chance of any of these coming up- not as a gradual occurence, but a sudden and graph-shaking one- increases markedly as population increases, especially as those population increases are marked by increasinly localized concentrations.
In any case, before dismissing an opposing point of view as "nonsense", it would generally be considered polite, if not politic, to adequately address it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sterling: you missed a chance to click the appropriate link in one of your sources, which would have told you that, even in absolute numbers, world population increase has been declining since about 1990.
I have not called the general view nonsense, just wrong, and argued against it. I have called specific ideas that are explicitly contradicted by available data nonsense, such as this one (which I was responding to in your quotation):
quote:but 'we as a species' maintain the same level of catastrophic population increases
And there's a good reason for that: it is nonsense. The level of "catastrophic population increases" has been steadily declining, in rate and in absolute number, for two decades. We do not maintain those levels at a global scale, period. It is a false, nonsensical, view of the world.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So, I'm not saying the population increase hasn't been declining, at least in recent times. What I'm noting is that our population is still going up and it's already beyond the level that we can't sustain anyway.
Doesn't matter. All we need is the catastrophe to show that these trends are catastrophic, and watch as all the bright-sided thinking on human reproduction and ingenuity vanish.
basically, all it comes down to, in terms of my own predictions, is that the population will continue to rise, then several compounding factors including the end of cheap and readily available phosphorous will mean that large chunks of the world will have a hellscape famine event.
quote:In that case, why not just say, "The link's not working for me." No need to claim it's dead, or point out that my post was 10 minutes after yours.
I pointed out the link was dead for me right then. I wasn't saying that the site didn't exist. I claimed it was dead right then because it was dead right then.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Feel free to amend the statement to be more correct, but you did say the population increase hasn't been declining, unambiguously:
quote:but 'we as a species' maintain the same level of catastrophic population increases
I guess we'll just see
If there isn't such an event in two and a half decades, though, and for some reason we're still mutually present in some internet location, I may be tempted to say "I told you so". Feel free to do so if the converse holds. Heck, I'll probably do it if phosphorous production rises sufficiently, as prices increase Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Sterling: you missed a chance to click the appropriate link in one of your sources, which would have told you that, even in absolute numbers, world population increase has been declining since about 1990.
Important also to note that this peak coincided with a higher overall life expectancy. We are not just dealing with the number of new births, but the total number of population increases every year- a large contribution to population increases in the past 60 years has been the fact that people live longer, but since life expectancies are now not growing as quickly as they were, the total growth per year is decreasing. In most of Europe, the total growth in native born population is now negative.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep; there are a number of factors that were contributing greatly to past-century population growth that have decreased substantially. Those, combined with increases in standards of living and the status of women, are leading to this major sea-change in population trends.
It is feasible to argue that the change comes to late, but it is definitely present. If even a few innovations make it possible to sustain population increases for a while longer, things will turn out just fine (well, war and incompetent leaders will still kill millions, but you know what I mean).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do note that, in the longer term, we may still be screwed. It is clear that the median human responds to the current economic situation by reducing the number of children they have; k strategy, presumably. However, everything's a bell curve; some don't. If the propensity to have many children in times of economic plenty and female empowerment is at all inheritable (it doesn't even need to be genetic, cultural transmission will do!) then those who have that trait will eventually outnumber those who don't, and the Earth will shake with the sound of Malthus laughing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM: I'm not too worried about that scenario. That so many countries have reached below replacement total fertility even when they have had (and often still have) large populations of people having lots of kids is pretty strong evidence that it is generally possible (especially given pretty much everywhere is already following the same trend, just at different offsets).
I mean, disaster could happen, if innovation doesn't happen. But it doesn't require nearly as much innovation as Samprimary seems to be supposing it does, and humans are very innovative in response to incentives.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You're looking at data for five generations, and using it to deny an effect that would need many more generations to show up.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If the effect were to show up at all, odds are it would show up quickly, since for most values of sub-population cultural transmission you'd get an obvious exponential growth curve.
Whereas the declines in total fertility are apparent almost every way you slice the demographic data. Of course such things are possibilities, but the chance is small enough for me to be comfortable with being, as I said, "not too worried". I never said it wasn't possible.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, some parts of the parameter space can be excluded, but if you had, say, a difference between 1.9 children on average and 2.3 on average, that wouldn't necessarily be visible over five generations if the 2.3-group started out small. Mormons, for example, might be a good candidate for such a group.
Edit: Let me rephrase that; a 2.3 vs 1.9 difference would show up if you looked for it in the specific subgroup, but it would be very hard to see just by looking at overall, aggregate data. You would still have an overall decline for many generations.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... then those who have that trait will eventually outnumber those who don't ...
Well, assuming that the rate of that trait inheriting is faster than that the rate of cultural conversion toward having fewer children and more empowered women.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've read quite a few looks at subsets of the population; I'll try to dig some up. Basically, such populations tend to not have a high enough cultural transmission rate to result in such problems. What's more, there's a long (several hundred years) history of such groups becoming more and more like the mean population (statistically), and being replaced by new demographically distinct groups . . . that start out small and then become more like the mean as they grow.
Indeed, there's a lot of public choice work on why both 1) strict churches have strong growth and 2) strict churches never get really large (the key: they gradually stop being strict churches).
And, as I said, I'm not ruling it out, just saying I consider the possibility fairly low, based on a wealth of data that show things like how such groups rarely form a significant portion of a larger population.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sure, but you can add another level: Having the trait in a stickily-transmissible form, resistant to the mainline culture's attractions.
Edit: That was in response to Mucus, not fugu. Data showing that such stickily-transmissible forms rarely arise is something else again, and quite a relief, actually. Although, again, how about them Mormons? They seem to be having more children than the average American without being a particularly small group.
[ May 19, 2010, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: But it doesn't require nearly as much innovation as Samprimary seems to be supposing it does, and humans are very innovative in response to incentives.
We are innovative, but that's not going to make us cohesive or intelligent enough to head this off at the pass (see: our 'response' to global warming). We'll adapt to it, only after food gets really expensive and a significant number of entire nations become failed states and we experience a major population reduction via brute starvation. We won't keep this from happening in the first place.
but you don't have to be very worried (though you're already not inclined to be), if you live in a modern western nation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ok, some parts of the parameter space can be excluded, but if you had, say, a difference between 1.9 children on average and 2.3 on average, that wouldn't necessarily be visible over five generations if the 2.3-group started out small. Mormons, for example, might be a good candidate for such a group.
But I think order for the trend to be deeply ingrained through cultural transmission, it would likely have to be a cultural tendency towards a much higher average than 2.3. The same economic and social factors that effect everyone also effect those groups, so unless you had a very strong sub-cultural tendency towards large families, the tendency would dissappear in that group for the same reasons it dissapeared in others earlier. I mean, as a case in point, France and Italy and Spain are all Catholic countries, and they are experiencing negative growth, so clearly adherence to the church's teachings on birth control and marriage, as well as families, has been changed. No subgroup is immune from economics forever. Mormonism will be an interesting thing to watch, but my prediction is that the expansionist consumer driven Mormon culture of today is more a function of where the centers of Mormonism are- I don't think even if the population keeps expanding, it will keep reproducing at the same rate in a different environment. Having 8 kids is no fun after all if you can't afford an SUV and a two car garage, with a big house in a flat neighborhood. And if you were to raise 8 kids in a small house in a crumby neighborhood in a city with no car, the saleability of that lifestyle to your kids decreases dramatically.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: They seem to be having more children than the average American without being a particularly small group.
Nominally 1.3 percent of the US population. That would be smaller than the nominal sum of Muslims in the US. Again, I think you need to pay more serious attention to *where* Mormons live, rather than how they live. I would love to see data on the average size of non-Mormon families in areas where many Mormons live. I bet it's high.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, Mormons are probably having more children, some of them, but they aren't a very large part of the population. And I suspect that as their size grows (presuming it does), the rate of birth will decrease (and probably already has).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nu, 1% of the US population is not, IMO, small for a church. But still, we're now coming into empirical questions where we have little data, so it's time to stop speculating.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, immigration.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sure, but even with immigration the population growth of the US is pretty minimal (less than 1%), so if the mormon church's growth rate is even lower . . .
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)