posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think I either saw this very talk or read about it recently. I think marine reserves are a great idea.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're looking at data for five generations, and using it to deny an effect that would need many more generations to show up.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 . . .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
