StarDestroyer.Net BBS

this was taken from the locked thread as a basis for this thread. Its just some thoughts on population limits.

I am interested in hearing a good argument on population limits, because I am going to posting a good deal of evidence regarding the oppisite when I get the time.

There has been many statements from Mike, et al modern day malthusists regarding the upper limit of population support.

It has been stated matter of factly that the optimal population for the planet is around 2 billion.

No supporting evidence given.

It has alos been stated that the upper limit of the planet is 12 billion people or half of what it is today and will reach that level. (WHO thinks 9 billion)

No supporting evidence given.

Then there is assuimption, completely lgoical, that if we are above the population that is good, than depopulating is better.

No comments from the peanut gallery about using nukes or weapons of mass destructions through starvation. (although I migth advocate joviliy which is missed by most people, I don't advocate mass murder war with people who have not attacked the USA)

Now in case you don't know what a malthusesist is, its some that beleives the world isd going to starve itself to death. We have surpassed all the chaos points with no masss world starvation so far, and our food supplies have only increased fort the 200 and more years of such predictions.

Here is what I consider to be a cogent stance for a valid malthuesist argument.

A) an explanatation why the dire predictions of malthuesists proved wrong, namely the factors
B) what your current predictions take into account these faults and appropriately integrated into your global model.
C) What new factors could make your predictions fruitless , so to speak
D) whats your margin for error
E) Information regarding food supply production capacity and the rate of increase, as well as the other possible ckoke points like storage, shipping and distribution from RERPUTIBLE SOURCES.

If you can make an agrument on thse lines you stand a chance.

Why I think that malthusesits are wrong.
captialism. People need food, and are willing to do things for it. So people wiull want t omake profit from it. SO they will simpy anticipate demand and make plans to satisfy it. if you look at the past 100 years the countires that have problems meeting food demands are countries that embraced communism/socialism, or have poor property rights and a corrupt governemnt. If we want to stop globabl hunger, we need to reform globabl economies rather than stop pewople from reproducing. thats where the biog gains in reducing hunger will be made.

there is allot of unused land in this world. ALLOT of it. You can cross the cmany parts of the US and not see a single sole outside a gas station.

Given lots of land, increased demand, capital markets, I see world hunger being satiatied.

Well I think that the Earth could support a very large population(20bil+) IMO. But the question is would the Earth survive with those large populations. Meaning the effects of pollution and global warming and over farming.


(edit)
http://newton.physics.wwu.edu:8082/jste ... trick.html

found this after my post. It says that the Earth is already 20% overpopulated.

Like how going over 60 MPH would kill you..........

As we get bigger and bigger, some entepreneur will discover a cheap method
to desalinize seawater, and a cheap method of cloning cow muscle......

can we say beef at a pound a nickel?

MKSheppard wrote:Like how going over 60 MPH would kill you..........

As we get bigger and bigger, some entepreneur will discover a cheap method
to desalinize seawater, and a cheap method of cloning cow muscle......

can we say beef at a pound a nickel?

Why a pound a nickel when hungry people will be willing to pay as much as they can to eat,...THATS capitalism folks, it works but it has an ugly side to it.

Stravo wrote: Why a pound a nickel when hungry people will be willing to pay as much as they can to eat,...THATS capitalism folks, it works but it has an ugly side to it.

Well, yeah, but that's why Wong is full of crap on the population limit.

Modern Captialism and Scientific research keeps raising the amount
of food a single farmer can produce......

Methinks these "population limits" he likes to throw about are based
on a PREINDUSTRIAL Agarian economy, like the kind the environuts
at Greenpeace would love to take us back to.

MKSheppard wrote:
Well, yeah, but that's why Wong is full of crap on the population limit.

Modern Captialism and Scientific research keeps raising the amount
of food a single farmer can produce......

Methinks these "population limits" he likes to throw about are based
on a PREINDUSTRIAL Agarian economy, like the kind the environuts
at Greenpeace would love to take us back to.

But the rate at which the pop. is growing will the advances keep. And if Africa continues its fall into anarchy they will not be able to produce their own food and the humanitarians in the west will send food. Can the West feed the world? I wouldn't bet on it. We may produce the bulk of the worlds food but we couldn't feed everyone.

Mr. B wrote: But the rate at which the pop. is growing will the advances keep. And if Africa continues its fall into anarchy they will not be able to produce their own food and the humanitarians in the west will send food. Can the West feed the world? I wouldn't bet on it. We may produce the bulk of the worlds food but we couldn't feed everyone.

Screw Africa. Let them kill each other off, and then recolonize the place.

The survivors will live in paradise compared to what they're living in now.

MKSheppard wrote:
Screw Africa. Let them kill each other off, and then recolonize the place.

The survivors will live in paradise compared to what they're living in now.

I agree that Africa is a shithole and they should solve their own problems but there are those who feel that they should help everyone in the world regardless of their own safety.
Which is something you will never see MR. B doing.

So what if the Earth can support huge numbers. Is that what you really want?
From a practical point of view how long do you want to wait in line at McDonalds or sit in traffic? Im not being silly. During the Dot Com boom population in the Bay Area grew a great deal. It got so bad that going out started to be a nightmare.


Here are some of my basic thoughts:

1) Women will decide the ultimate population level. If you want to reduce population growth, the key is to raising the standard of women. Women
in developed countries on average only give birth to replacement levels of
children. Meaning 2 kids. 1 for each parent.

2) I dont think we can grow for ever, but I also think we will reach an equilibrium before most people expect.

3) The problem of zero population growth is going to give our future decendants some real issues to tackle. How do you grow economies without
new workers? Can a country survive a shriking population? I think Japan
is facing this problem already.

4) Most social security systems work based on more young people than old. What is gonna happen when the age/sex pyramids of developed countries becomes more shaped like a tall rectangle?

This is one of the many problems out leaders don't want to talk about.
And it means people like me are going to get screwed over by the shortsightedness of our leaders.

TrailerParkJawa wrote: 4) Most social security systems work based on more young people than old. What is gonna happen when the age/sex pyramids of developed countries becomes more shaped like a tall rectangle?

What you are describing is a PONZI SCHEME. The Social Security System
is the greatest Ponzi Scheme ever devised by man, and it's 100% legal!

I have absolutely no trust in SS for my own retirement, and the members
of Congress don't use the same system us peons use. They use a completely
different system.

Perhaps they know something WE dont......HMMMMMM?

I know they dont use the same system we dont, that doesnt change the fact that soon there will be lots of old people with no money.

I think its downright criminial to use the excess Social Security receits for anything but social security.

Okay, Im gonna plead ignorance. What is a Ponzi scheme ?

TrailerParkJawa wrote: Okay, Im gonna plead ignorance. What is a Ponzi scheme ?

http://www.mark-knutson.com/

I don't think it will be much of a problem. The last few UN reports have predicted smaller population as third world nations become more affluent and approach replacement births only. The last report estimated that we would hit 9 billion by 2050 and might never hit 10, if I recall correctly. After that we could start losing population like some of the Developed World is, and reach an ideal level of population slowly, and perhaps without much in the way of draconian birth laws.

I did read an interesting story about this once, where they used the Muslim and Chinese views on boys versus girls to control population. the UN basically encouraged male births for a couple of decades through sex specific spermicide and abortion in some places, and shot the population to something like 98% male. The con is that women became a comodity, and were degraded worse than now, But when the 98% males started dying off it left little population, and since men are better for initial industrial work, heavy lifting and stuff, they became more affluent.

People are blowing the problem out of proportion. Some places of the world are already horribly overpopulation (relative to the food they produce), like India. The problem with starvation and such right now isn't food supply... it's distribution. Find a way to convince African warlords to let us feed their people, and everyone'll be nice and happy.

Go check it out: http://esa.un.org/unpp/ Just tell it to display the projected world population from 2000 to 2050, and be sure to check it to show all possible variants. It ranges from 13 billion (assuming a constant level of fertility) to 7.8 billion (assuming fertility rates drop as countries develop).

'Course, the real question is not if the numbers are too high... hell, if we get some sort of magic food-growing machine, we could support hundreds of billions of people. The question is whether or not we can produce enough for that number.

My Internet connection is acting wonky right now... methinks I'll keep an eye on this thread and see if I get possible projections for food production later.

Starvation in india? India is a net exporter of food. If ther is starvation in india it probably has something to do with thier still not completely dismantled cast system.

Now that is inhuman.

there is allot of unused land in this world. ALLOT of it. You can cross the cmany parts of the US and not see a single sole outside a gas station.

Given lots of land, increased demand, capital markets, I see world hunger being satiatied.

True, there is lots of land but can you prove that this land is arable. Canada has vast regions of land that is totaly useless for crops. You can have all the land you want but unless it can sustain crops then it is useless.

Next of Kin wrote:

there is allot of unused land in this world. ALLOT of it. You can cross the cmany parts of the US and not see a single sole outside a gas station.

Given lots of land, increased demand, capital markets, I see world hunger being satiatied.

True, there is lots of land but can you prove that this land is arable. Canada has vast regions of land that is totaly useless for crops. You can have all the land you want but unless it can sustain crops then it is useless.

American farms already produce far more than the market demands, resulting in disastrously low crop prices. We could grow a lot more, but there's no reason to do that right now.
There's also the little thing about Uncle Sam paying farmers not to farm. I forget if the purpose was to reduce erosion or to inflate crop prices. Either way, we have a bunch of unused capacity just sitting around.

Diamedes wrote:
I did read an interesting story about this once, where they used the Muslim and Chinese views on boys versus girls to control population. the UN basically encouraged male births for a couple of decades through sex specific spermicide and abortion in some places, and shot the population to something like 98% male. The con is that women became a comodity, and were degraded worse than now, But when the 98% males started dying off it left little population, and since men are better for initial industrial work, heavy lifting and stuff, they became more affluent.

I just can't help but get the feeling that there is something immoral to this. I know Wong is absolutely against abortion, and I consider myself to be lock-step with Wong (I have estimated that I have modified over 70% of my personal beliefs to coincide with Wong's)

Yeah, I don't agree with it either, it just always struck me as interesting. The side effects seemed to atrocious. The story was told through an official describing it to an American feminist. At the end of the story she's raped by one of her bodyguards, who kills the other five to get to her. Women were chained and treated even more like property.

Personally, I think development will eventually fix the problem. It is interesting though that China is essentially doing the same, where couples will determine sex through ultra-sound and then abort if it's female.

So after reviewing that no one disaggrees with the premise that the earth can support a substantially higher population that the malthuesist have conceeded defeat?