Global Population Growth

[Norade]

This is brought about due to reading the recent stories about topsoil and the farmer's plight in India.

I know it sounds cold, but would anybody here honestly feel that bad if we stopped supplying places like Africa and India with aid and allowed them to sink or swim entirely on their own, when we know that in many cases they would fail and many would die? Is it ethical to say that we have a duty to stop those populations from growing by any means possible? I mean the rest of the world, for all of its faults, is at least having a sustainable birth rate and we're slowly seeing the need to change lifestyles.

I'm not meaning to say we should actively kill them, but the world can't support this population and, through no fault of their own, these populations can be reduced with little effort because they're too fragile to survive without our aid.

Does this just make me a monster, or is it viable if we had enough will to act?

[Stark]

I guess it makes the most sense to go after the highest per-capita user of resources first.

Oops, that's America!

[Kuroji]

A legitimate point, actually. Just cutting off aid to a couple places isn't sufficient (and arguably is worse than bombing the people we were giving aid to); belt tightening should start at home. Of course you run into the same problem of who will and will not go along with it... political will at home is one thing, but globally?

[Havok]

Maybe we should have just let the Jews sink or swim on their own with the Nazis? That whole war thing was a pretty big drain on resources. Shit in the process, we would have gotten rid of a whole lot more of the European population. Maybe we should some how sterilize the people of China? They are the fastest growing population. If they stopped breeding and all died out, that would be like a billion less people to use up our resources. Wait guys, hold on. Is that a good idea or am I just morally bankrupt?

A monster? No. Only because you are too stupid to truly be a monster. It makes you an idiot and a douchbag among other things.

[Norade]

Well, I would tend to agree with that, even as a Canadian and a part of the problem. The issue is we won't cull ourselves and we can effect a cull of the nations I mentioned by the simply means of cutting off aid. Assuming a 50% die off that will reduce our population by 1 billion or about 1/6th of our current level. With the rest of our populations growing far more slowly this should give more time for the west to get alternative energy in place.

Am I confident that even if we do this we will change enough to not cause our of demise? NO! Does it at least give some of us a chance? Yes.

Do mind that I do understand what I'm saying and don't take it lightly. I also agree with belt tightening at home, I don't need cheap junk food and a million electronics to survive. I already don't drive, and while there is little I can do on my budget to make my house greener I run as many power saving appliances as I can and, for both cost and green reasons, I do what I can to keep energy and water usage down.

EDIT: Havok, I would have suggest cutting off China too if it would work.

[Havok]

That what would work.... white right thinking nations would prevail? I suppose you want to cut off any kind of aide or support to Mexico and Central and South America too?

[Norade]

That what would work.... white right thinking nations would prevail? I suppose you want to cut off any kind of aide or support to Mexico and Central and South America too?

Honestly, I'd support cutting off all aid to any nation until our own shit is dealt with at home. We give away aid when people in our own nation are, by our standards, in bad shape. I'd also support cuts to military spending and massive reform to how governments spend in general. I know it sounds cruel, but in what way did Canada contribute to the plight of third world nations? What is our responsibility to them when we're facing issues of our own and running out of time?

[Stark]

Well I heard we were 'industrial slaves' to China or something; damn free market. If only wages and cost of living in developed nations wasn't higher?

[Stark]

Honestly, I'd support cutting off all aid to any nation until our own shit is dealt with at home. We give away aid when people in our own nation are, by our standards, in bad shape. I'd also support cuts to military spending and massive reform to how governments spend in general. I know it sounds cruel, but in what way did Canada contribute to the plight of third world nations? What is our responsibility to them when we're facing issues of our own and running out of time?

So we should kill brown people because they're breeding too damn fast, but Canada using way more resources per person means it's not your fault?

At least you could blame globalisation or something.

[Duckie]

Norade's point about 'giving away aid when the country is in trouble' is bullshit- Canada currently gives 0.28% of its GDP as foreign aid, which, while 2.8x higher than the US's (the lowest aid percentage, naturally), is nowhere near the nationcrushingly burdenous percentages found in economic shitholes that throw money away while their citizens starve in the streets (eg Denmark, 1.0%).

Also, if we want to support people better, you'd think western countries who net-import and hog resources would be first to go, and redistribute the 3,000+ calories they get to survival budgets for third worlders. You'd also probably want, you know, birth control pushing rather than genocide. If the population held standard and the average consumption in food of a first worlder given to all non-first worlders, the average citizen would eat about 1.5 times better than a current average world citizen. Granted, first worlders would eat much worse than they currently do since they'd be the ones being redistributed against, but they'd do no worse than average.

[Norade]

What would others suggest as a way to swiftly and realistically lower the population before we're even more screwed than we already are? The world can't support its current population let alone the, what 9 billion we'll be at before I'd expect to be dead and gone.

Well I heard we were 'industrial slaves' to China or something; damn free market. If only wages and cost of living in developed nations wasn't higher?

Currently, I know we're reliant on China for a ton of things, but I'd support building more industry at home and paying more for what we get. I'd gladly live a mode modest life if it meant my kids and their generation wouldn't be fucked. However I'm realistic enough to know that it won't happen in time to solve anything.

Honestly, I'd support cutting off all aid to any nation until our own shit is dealt with at home. We give away aid when people in our own nation are, by our standards, in bad shape. I'd also support cuts to military spending and massive reform to how governments spend in general. I know it sounds cruel, but in what way did Canada contribute to the plight of third world nations? What is our responsibility to them when we're facing issues of our own and running out of time?

So we should kill brown people because they're breeding too damn fast, but Canada using way more resources per person means it's not your fault?

At least you could blame globalisation or something.

Of course that's all an issue and if I could stop that somehow it became within my means. Besides, isn't it in our nature to want to survive even if it is at somebody's expense?

Norade's point about 'giving away aid when the country is in trouble' is bullshit- Canada currently gives 0.28% of its GDP as foreign aid, which, while 2.8x higher than the US's (the lowest aid percentage, naturally), is nowhere near the nationcrushingly burdenous percentages found in economic shitholes that throw money away while their citizens starve in the streets (eg Denmark, 1.0%).

Thanks for bring up the numbers, it should be obvious that I haven't put a great deal of thought into this. While I should know better, I'm just throwing out an idea here.

[Duckie]

The world can't support its current population? That's news to me, in a way. The main problem of the future is what environmentalists (non-pop ones) fear: continued exponential increase. The current way we live isn't sustainable, but gradual population reduction and movement towards sustainable methods is possible- we are not about 6 minutes to doomsday and only ethnic cleansing will save us all, no matter what doomsday peak fad of the week SDN's alarm brigade keeps shouting about.

Some other facts about global food intake: the average american would be well above what's recommended for a healthy diet as far as food calories go even if they took a 33% hit on their food intake. Let's naively assume all of the western world eats like america (close, ish, if not as extreme- the average westerner still eats far above 2000 or even 2500 calories a day). This 33%, if equitably distributed, would literally mean that no human being on earth would ever drop below basal metabolic rate intentionally, from naive math.

Further, you hadn't put a lot of thought into this? Your first instinct upon learning "Great problems ahead" was "Kill all the brown people"? That's... not necessarily racism. You might just instinctively hate poor people instead.

[Norade]

The world can't support its current population? That's news to me. The main problem of the future is what environmentalists (non-pop ones) fear: continued exponential increase. The current way we live isn't sustainable, but gradual population reduction and movement towards sustainable methods is possible- we are not about 6 minutes to doomsday and only ethnic cleansing will save us all, no matter what doomsday peak fad of the week SDN's alarm brigade keeps shouting about.

Further, you hadn't put a lot of thought into this? Your first instinct upon learning "Great problems ahead" was "Kill all the brown people"? That's... not necessarily racism. You might just instinctively hate poor people instead.

My first instinct is to go with the solution that might actually get some backing. Look at the way the west views the nations I mentioned, most people would as soon let them starve than look at them. If it were any other way would we need TV ads asking private citizens to help them?

Now assuming, as you say that we have enough time to fix things then of course I wouldn't suggest this. I'd much rather see those nations reach a level when children don't die at birth and they can survive on a sustainable population. At the same time the rest of the world would reduce consumption. I however don't think that either of these things will ever happen simply due to the blindness of government and the fact that we all know that nobody with the power to make it happen in the first world cares enough to make it happen.

[Tritonic]

Assuming a 50% die off that will reduce our population by 1 billion or about 1/6th of our current level. With the rest of our populations growing far more slowly this should give more time for the west to get alternative energy in place.

Why do you think whether there are X or Y million Africans thousands of miles away from you is a determining factor in your country's development of alternative energy? It is almost as unrelated as the number of sparrows in Guatemala. I suppose you could say that atmospheric pollutants are carried globally, but, among other points able to be made here, they emit almost none per capita when nearly none of them can afford cars or power plants.

Some things will significantly affect the development of alternative energy. In modern-year dollars, solar cells cost $30 a watt for the early semiconductors in 1974, $10 a watt in 1979, $5 a watt in 1990, and now in 2010 are approaching $1 a watt (though all those figures should be multiplied by several times if considering the low capacity factor). It is not quite Moore's Law progress, unlike computer semiconductor processing performance, but it is a very clear trend making the next couple decades potentially quite interesting, as companies would never spend much money to save the environment but would do so if they literally became more profitable than coal power plants.

Yet "shutting off aid" is not one of those things.

At the same time the rest of the world would reduce consumption.

Suit yourself. While fossil fuels are admittedly a dead end, I'll be rooting for more wealth and overall other energy production up to the point of being able to afford colonizing the rest of the solar system and beyond. You can never have too many nukes and robots. I'd be disappointed if humans didn't manage to reach consumption of more than the present equivalent of 0.01 trillionths of the sun's power generation.

The world can't support its current population

The funny thing is you're in Canada, which is largely a giant frozen expanse and definitely not too crowded unless people choose to concentrate. The effect on you of differing population in a place like Africa is very, very indirect and limited at most.

[Norade]

Assuming a 50% die off that will reduce our population by 1 billion or about 1/6th of our current level. With the rest of our populations growing far more slowly this should give more time for the west to get alternative energy in place.

Why do you think whether there are X or Y million Africans thousands of miles away from you is a determining factor in your country's development of alternative energy? It is almost as unrelated as the number of sparrows in Guatemala. I suppose you could say that atmospheric pollutants are carried globally, but, among other points able to be made here, they emit almost none per capita when nearly none of them can afford cars or power plants.

Some things will significantly affect the development of alternative energy. In modern-year dollars, solar cells cost $30 a watt for the early semiconductors in 1974, $10 a watt in 1979, $5 a watt in 1990, and now in 2010 are approaching $1 a watt (though all those figures should be multiplied by several times if considering the low capacity factor). It is not quite Moore's Law progress, unlike computer semiconductor processing performance, but it is a very clear trend making the next couple decades potentially quite interesting, as companies would never spend much money to save the environment but would do so if they literally became more profitable than coal power plants.

Yet "shutting off aid" is not one of those things.

At the same time the rest of the world would reduce consumption.

Suit yourself. While fossil fuels are admittedly a dead end, I'll be rooting for more wealth and overall other energy production up to the point of being able to afford colonizing the rest of the solar system and beyond. You can never have too many nukes and robots. I'd be disappointed if humans didn't manage to reach consumption of more than the present equivalent of 0.01 trillionths of the sun's power generation.

The world can't support its current population

The funny thing is you're in Canada, which is largely a giant frozen expanse and definitely not too crowded unless people choose to concentrate. The effect on you of differing population in a place like Africa is very, very indirect and limited at most.

You of course make good points, my only real counter is that what would happen if Africa ever got anywhere near our standards of living? Would it even matter how much we cut back if India, and Africa stepped up and started to consume at even 25% of our rate? (I'd mention China but I doubt we could stop them even if we had the political will to. Though they may stop themselves when economic growth starts to hit normal levels.)

[Havok]

My first instinct is to go with the solution that might actually get some backing. Look at the way the west views the nations I mentioned, most people would as soon let them starve than look at them. If it were any other way would we need TV ads asking private citizens to help them?

Right, because as a private citizen, I know exactly where to send money to when I want to help out people in need, in a country I have never been to. I'll just note my check 'To food in Africa' and mail it to Ethiopia. I'm sure it will get to where it needs to go right?

Man, if only there were some way to let a really large audience of people know, all at once, how they can help if they wanted to. Gosh, I hope they invent something like that one day.

Maybe after all the colored folk are dead, we can work on that.

Fucking idiot.

[Tritonic]

You of course make good points, my only real counter is that what would happen if Africa ever got anywhere near our standards of living? Would it even matter how much we cut back if India, and Africa stepped up and started to consume at even 25% of our rate? (I'd mention China but I doubt we could stop them even if we had the political will to. Though they may stop themselves when economic growth starts to hit normal levels.)

Well, I'm pretty sure that world oil prices would skyrocket to a level unaffordable even to the hypothetical new wealthier Africans if they were starting to use petroleum at rate comparable to Americans or Canadians (big increase in demand, limited increase if any in supply). So therefore the very situation in which they got near our standards of living would presume a system predominantly differently based. Maybe it is the 2050s, and everybody is using solar power which progress made cheaper than its fossil fuel competition? There could be more CO2 emissions if coal was temporarily around longer, but, without aiming to get into a long debate, whatever you may think of the consequences or be concerned from an environmental perspective like arctic regions or coastlands, our distant evolutionary ancestors survived far higher levels, like the thousands of ppm instead of hundreds of ppm when giant vegetation roamed by dinosaurs covered much of the earth. Anyway, ethically, almost whatever the consequences, I believe fundamentally nobody should be in poverty to the degree we can help avoid it, and I certainly can't blame those in third-world countries for wanting to reach our standards of living.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I know it sounds cold, but would anybody here honestly feel that bad if we stopped supplying places like Africa and India with aid and allowed them to sink or swim entirely on their own, when we know that in many cases they would fail and many would die? Is it ethical to say that we have a duty to stop those populations from growing by any means possible? I mean the rest of the world, for all of its faults, is at least having a sustainable birth rate and we're slowly seeing the need to change lifestyles.

Because the rest of the world is more prosperous; prosperity and lower population growth tend to go hand in hand. The worse things get, the more children they'll have in hopes that at least some will survive. There's also the fact that the West is if anything encouraging them to breed, with such things as the crusade against condoms and abortion; perhaps we should stop doing that before we starve them for having too many children like we have been trying to manipulate them into doing.

[Norade]

My first instinct is to go with the solution that might actually get some backing. Look at the way the west views the nations I mentioned, most people would as soon let them starve than look at them. If it were any other way would we need TV ads asking private citizens to help them?

Right, because as a private citizen, I know exactly where to send money to when I want to help out people in need, in a country I have never been to. I'll just note my check 'To food in Africa' and mail it to Ethiopia. I'm sure it will get to where it needs to go right?

Man, if only there were some way to let a really large audience of people know, all at once, how they can help if they wanted to. Gosh, I hope they invent something like that one day.

Maybe after all the colored folk are dead, we can work on that.

Fucking idiot.

Though it does go against my previous idea of nations sending aid, after seeing the numbers I have to ask, why wouldn't the government step up and take up that cause if it was really that important an issue? Could it be that nobody important enough to really change anything cares enough to give more than a token amount?

You're also assuming that I hate some races more than others, or hate poor people. That simply isn't true. I stated this as an option when I thought that it would be impossible to reverse the trend without drastic options and picked it due to the fact that getting support for it would be easy. I already conceded that there is no need and that it would be ideal to get them to a level where they can sustain themselves in a way that doesn't fuck the world.

I know it sounds cold, but would anybody here honestly feel that bad if we stopped supplying places like Africa and India with aid and allowed them to sink or swim entirely on their own, when we know that in many cases they would fail and many would die? Is it ethical to say that we have a duty to stop those populations from growing by any means possible? I mean the rest of the world, for all of its faults, is at least having a sustainable birth rate and we're slowly seeing the need to change lifestyles.

Because the rest of the world is more prosperous; prosperity and lower population growth tend to go hand in hand. The worse things get, the more children they'll have in hopes that at least some will survive. There's also the fact that the West is if anything encouraging them to breed, with such things as the crusade against condoms and abortion; perhaps we should stop doing that before we starve them for having too many children like we have been trying to manipulate them into doing.

Where did I say I agreed with not sending birth control to Africa? Honestly that is one of the worst crimes against humanity going on today that I can think of and as we all know those that are doing it will never properly get what's coming to them for it.

You of course make good points, my only real counter is that what would happen if Africa ever got anywhere near our standards of living? Would it even matter how much we cut back if India, and Africa stepped up and started to consume at even 25% of our rate? (I'd mention China but I doubt we could stop them even if we had the political will to. Though they may stop themselves when economic growth starts to hit normal levels.)

Well, I'm pretty sure that world oil prices would skyrocket to a level unaffordable even to the hypothetical new wealthier Africans if they were starting to use petroleum at rate comparable to Americans or Canadians (big increase in demand, limited increase if any in supply). So therefore the very situation in which they got near our standards of living would presume a system predominantly differently based. Maybe it is the 2050s, and everybody is using solar power which progress made cheaper than its fossil fuel competition? There could be more CO2 emissions, but, without aiming to get into a long debate, whatever you may think of the consequences or be concerned from an environmental perspective, our distant evolutionary ancestors survived far higher levels.

Another good point, but it leaves me to beg the question. What hope is there for the people of Africa without the means to bring themselves into the modern world? Western nations aren't going to go green anytime soon and we're in the best position to do so, what makes you think Africa will go solar/wind/nuclear by 2050? If anything we'll be there and prices for coal and gas will drop and they'll use that until it's gone.

[Tritonic]

Another good point, but it leaves me to beg the question. What hope is there for the people of Africa without the means to bring themselves into the modern world? Western nations aren't going to go green anytime soon and we're in the best position to do so, what makes you think Africa will go solar/wind/nuclear by 2050? If anything we'll be there and prices for coal and gas will drop and they'll use that until it's gone.

Well they will go with whatever is cheapest at the future time. My suspicion as previously argued is that solar power may actually eventually drop below the cost of coal for electricity generation if its decreasing price trend of prior decades just continues a bit longer. Especially given its high mass to energy content ratio for shipping costs, coal isn't as heavily of an internationally traded commodity as, say, oil, so the local cost of coal in the future will probably be about as high as now (or higher) even if some distant regions of the world started using it less.

Although admittedly they mostly use fossil fuels now, like every other country, in some ways their lack of infrastructure actually helps slant them potentially later a bit more towards renewables, as they don't have a huge existing fossil fuel infrastructure built up.

For instance, right now even, there are small solar panels in some African villages for recharging the occasional indoor light or cell phone (less rare than automobiles or modern roads in many areas), since it costs less to produce a few watts from such than building a whole fossil-fueled power plant nearby and its associated grid would cost, especially when much local infrastructure to supply the later with constant new supplies of fuel doesn't exist.

With that said, to be honest, I don't really have high hopes for most of Africa, short of the Singularity (though I wish them the best), because there has mostly been notable lack of progress there for the past several decades. The world's largest two countries (China and India), plus even places like Brazil, show enormous growth in countless indicators from food calorie production per capita, to education levels, to industrial capabilities, to income in general. But most of Africa is the dominant top exception.

Even forty years like now to 2050 is a long time with a lot of potential in historical terms, though. Forty years was the difference between 1899 and 1939 in Western countries. Maybe Africa will get lucky, like a future cure for AIDs (afflicting literally tens of percent of the population in some countries and helping hurt their economy in addition to mortality) and a better, more efficient government gaining power over much of the continent? Who knows?

[Mayabird]

The rich can afford to cut back (some people may claim otherwise but they are stupid and I can tell stories) and there needs to be a lot of money invested in birth control in poorer countries. China got its population growth under control with the one child policy (people bemoaned it as draconian, and maybe it was, but it freaking worked) and without an exploding population to feed and house and so forth they can actually work on improving the general lot instead of just making do.

Also as a side note people need to stop going on about Europe self-destructing because of its slight population declines right now. It's not like they're going extinct; there are still hundreds of millions, and they'll still have hundreds of millions of people even if their populations dropped by half. They're very quietly, peacefully, gently, and comfortably, the way we would rather have it happen instead of hurf hurf genocide, dropping the population to a more (and I hate saying this word because it's just become an empty buzzword) sustainable level and still maintaining scientific research and progress and so forth.

[Singular Intellect]

The problem I have with aiding poor nations like Africa is the issue of making the problem worse rather than addressing the root cause (lack of local resources, education, infrastructure, etc).

If you have a group of starving people, sending them aid like food creates a dangerous dependency while allowing those starving individuals to procreate and increase the number of mouths to feed when the previously smaller number couldn't even support themselves. To quote "Give a person a fish, you feed them for a day. Teach them to fish, you feed them for a livetime." This assumes of course there's enough fish in their area to begin with, otherwise you're fucked either way.

There's a huge difference between aiding a group who is normally self sufficient and/or quite capable of being self sufficient, and aiding one that doesn't demostrate this capacity.

I suppose for some it's a good feeling to feed those in need while they produce even more mouths to feed; however, I question the intelligent nature of such an endeavor when the sole result is severe dependency on outside aid to avoid a huge human starvation/disease disaster.

Maybe we can just cross our fingers and hope fuel to deliver all this aid doesn't face a curious shortage for some unforeseen reason, or if this does happen, aid will continue uninterrupted while those providing it willing take severe impacts to their own lifestyles and resources.

[Tritonic]

The problem I have with aiding poor nations like Africa is the issue of making the problem worse rather than addressing the root cause (lack of local resources, education, infrastructure, etc).

If you have a group of starving people, sending them aid like food creates a dangerous dependency while allowing those starving individuals to procreate and increase the number of mouths to feed when the previously smaller number couldn't even support themselves. To quote "Give a person a fish, you feed them for a day. Teach them to fish, you feed them for a livetime." This assumes of course there's enough fish in their area to begin with, otherwise you're fucked either way.

There is some truth in that, though such is not an argument against aid so much as the type of aid. For instance, direct food aid can even hurt local farming if it undercuts their prices, whereas an ideal would be aid which helps their productivity rise from such as the 1.5 tons per hectare of corn in sub-saharan Africa today towards the much greater 8.6 tons per hectare in North America (towards only 17% as much land having to be turned into farmland to supply a given amount of food, allowing more to be spared for nature reserves in the process).

There are arguments for supplying farming equipment, high-yield seeds, fertilizer (1 unit mass of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer producing literally around a dozen times its own mass in subsequent food, since it allows far more than its own mass in additional carbon fixation from the air, such as 4000 kg grain for 300 kg fertilizer input), micro-loans to farmers, etc, preferably more so than just food as a form of aid.

Well, the ideal long-term measure wouldn't even be shipping them fertilizer forever but helping them build infrastructure to make their own, like this, the same principle as the fertilizer synthesis via coal gasification common in China today but minus the unsustainable input:

In this instance SynGest Inc, a US company based in San Francisco, will use corn cobs and other related biomass in a gasification process to produce syn gas. The syn gas will be used as a source of hydrogen and the quantity of this gas will be optimised by use of the water gas shift reaction. The hydrogen will be used in a version of the Haber process to produce ammonia. <snip>

The new SynGest facility will be capable of processing 130,000t of corn cobs per year to manufacture 50,000t of bio-ammonia (150t per day), which is sufficient to fertilise 500,000 acres of farmland.

In that example, since 130k tons of corn cobs biomass waste produces 50k tons of ammonia with nitrogen from the atmosphere, which in turn allows like 600k tons of additional biomass to be produced (much of it edible food), the payback ratio is rather high. Of course, most fertilizer today is produced by using the non-renewable method of natural gas, though even there at least consumption is relatively low compared to gain, just 3% to 5% of world natural gas production being consumed by such. Another biomass gasification method for fertilizer production targets $300 per ton ammonia, the same as the existing market price, which would correspond to like a mere $25 per ton of biomass or food produced, not bad when a person eats a fraction of ton a year.

Direct food aid of course still has its purpose in states of acute emergency, just ideally a temporary rather than permanent system.

[Ypoknons]

Maybe we should some how sterilize the people of China? They are the fastest growing population.

Actually, we have low population growth - about 0.6%, depending on who you ask, but either way less than the world average. PRC one child policy, you know? In fact, in Hong Kong with no one child policy (although a lot of government promotion of 2 child families and a lot of soft factors) we have a tiny birth rate - we're at the bottom of the list. Extinction looms.

[Alyrium Denryle]

We had a thread with a similar motif not long ago. I will address matters here and plagiarize myself to safe time. Hope no one minds.

I know it sounds cold, but would anybody here honestly feel that bad if we stopped supplying places like Africa and India with aid and allowed them to sink or swim entirely on their own, when we know that in many cases they would fail and many would die? Is it ethical to say that we have a duty to stop those populations from growing by any means possible? I mean the rest of the world, for all of its faults, is at least having a sustainable birth rate and we're slowly seeing the need to change lifestyles.

I would argue that food aid (and economic growth without concurrent high income equality or a high per capita GDP) actually drives up birth rates as well as infant morality. The reason this happens is because females (of many species, humans included) use a sort of portfolio diversification model for their reproductive allocation. In unstable conditions they have a first kid and heavily invest. Then they have a second as an insurance policy in case the first one dies, and just in case they end up on the better side of a dice roll they get two kids. They do this again, and again throughout their reproductive lives, which in environments with high growth but low GDP is short (generation time is shorter too because they reproduce early). The growth gives her the excuse to keep doing this. If growth were stagnant, and GDP Low she would not have nearly as many kids because she would have worse odds of improving her condition and the cost of producing each marginal child increases.

In situations where there is high GDP, this is not the case to the same degree. Women can delay reproduction and have a few highly competitive offspring rather than having to cast lots with several children and hope one or two get through. This is the case regardless of growth, though lower growth prevents what I will call "diminishing returns" babies from being born.

Bear in mind, no one sits around and talks about their fitness like this. However they did evolve in order to go through cognitive processes which will lead them to these behavioral patterns.

So we need to do one of two things. Cut foreign aid completely and let their populations stabilize in misery, or we can invest a bit more in their economies and KEEP THE MONEY AND RESOURCES LOCAL GOD DAMN IT. The problem with using economic growth (I ran a multiple regression in a huge multi nation data set a while back, I will post the results if you all want me to) is that in poor nations what usually happens is that profits from an economic venture in the area are never seen by the locals. They get their dollar a day, their local resources are stripped, and the people really making money are in western countries. What needs to happen is that businesses be owned by the entire village and proceeds from those businesses (like a factory or something) be distributed among them equally. In other words, we need communism in these really really early stages of economic growth to keep income inequality and the instability it brings with it from driving up population growth.

I guess it makes the most sense to go after the highest per-capita user of resources first.

Oops, that's America!

Agreed. People in africa dont consume shit.

A legitimate point, actually. Just cutting off aid to a couple places isn't sufficient (and arguably is worse than bombing the people we were giving aid to); belt tightening should start at home. Of course you run into the same problem of who will and will not go along with it... political will at home is one thing, but globally?

That is what taxes on children gas and luxury goods are for.

The world can't support its current population? That's news to me, in a way.

Correct. Even if our population stays the same, modern agriculture is not sustainable. Eventually production will fall below what is necessary to keep 7 billion people alive.

So therefore the very situation in which they got near our standards of living would presume a system predominantly differently based. Maybe it is the 2050s, and everybody is using solar power which progress made cheaper than its fossil fuel competition?

Not just power idiot, but food production. Food production alone will keep this situation from happening.

There are arguments for supplying farming equipment, high-yield seeds, fertilizer (1 unit mass of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer producing literally around a dozen times its own mass in subsequent food, since it allows far more than its own mass in additional carbon fixation from the air, such as 4000 kg grain for 300 kg fertilizer input), micro-loans to farmers, etc, preferably more so than just food as a form of aid.

The problem with high yield farming methods is that they do not work in the long term. Carrying capacity goes up...temporarily. You dont want to see a graph where carrying capacity drops back below what it used to be when the numbers are measured in tens of millions.