How would you raise population growth?

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by madd0ct0r »

@ Alrlyium - Hear Hear!

Thanas, the difference between you and him is that he is considering problem on a global scale, whereas you seem to be more concerned with your tax burden.

How long is your one earner going to have to support 4-5 people?

1 year?, 5 years? indefinitely?

Well, the latter is clearly wrong, these old people are dying and there are less young people to replace them. Do you think these young people will have even less children themselves to support them? leading to the population reducing by 75% each two generations? cos that's a crock of shit.

So, how many years will the situation in Germany last? (Hint, ask Alyrium nicely. He understands these things. I think it may even be his job ;) )


And as for immigration not being a useful way of maintaining a population... Germany has done it in the past, and done it within 5 years of being genocidally institutionally racist. There were problems with the GuestArbiter, but to say it can't be done? phah.

in 2050, the population across Europe will be very similar. Turkey will be a full member, Egypt will be lobbying for allied status and many people will be looking at the map of the old roman empire and rubbing their chins.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Thanas »

madd0ct0r wrote:@ Alrlyium - Hear Hear!

Thanas, the difference between you and him is that he is considering problem on a global scale, whereas you seem to be more concerned with your tax burden.
Strawman and gloriously missing the point.
cos that's a crock of shit.
How so?
So, how many years will the situation in Germany last? (Hint, ask Alyrium nicely. He understands these things. I think it may even be his job ;) )
If so, he is outrageously bad at it, for there is no realistic way to impose birth control on that scale. No way. HINT: Understanding that part is my job.
And as for immigration not being a useful way of maintaining a population... Germany has done it in the past, and done it within 5 years of being genocidally institutionally racist.
Are you just demented or plain trolling?
There were problems with the GuestArbiter, but to say it can't be done? phah.
Yeah, because that worked out so well for society...oh wait, it did not. And immigration is not a solution, btw. In fact, immigration adds to the problem because you now have more people earning their keep and getting children instead of starving to death etc.

BTW, immigration is not a valve you can just turn on and off that magically produces great results.
in 2050, the population across Europe will be very similar. Turkey will be a full member, Egypt will be lobbying for allied status and many people will be looking at the map of the old roman empire and rubbing their chins.
Bull.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by madd0ct0r »

No, I genuinely think you and Alyrium are looking at different scales.

you are primarily concerned about you, your country and the immediate area about. The Toad Master is considering the global population. The social effect of German birthrates is rather different for the one then the other.

Alyrium is a bio researcher with a speciality in animal populations. You want somebody to guess-timate how the demographic graph in Germany will change he's a pretty good person to ask. (It gets complicated unless you are assuming everything else stays equal eg retirement age, life expectancy and immigration rate. In this case, you seem to be)


Would you not describe Nazi Germany as 'genocidally institutionally racist' ? and yet post war, with massive population shortages they turned to the Turks to help rebuild their country.
Is today's Germany worse off for that? I don't think it has worse integration problems then the UK, and I'd call that pretty successful. Sure my point is wrapped up in hyperbole, but I don't think either the UK or Germany is worse off for mass immigration.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

If so, he is outrageously bad at it, for there is no realistic way to impose birth control on that scale. No way. HINT: Understanding that part is my job.
Gee. I never claimed you could actually get people to go along with it. Only that you need to get growth rate rate under control. You have a few options for that. The first option is cap and trade. Another is environmentally inducing a demographic shift through economics. The third is an increase in death rate.

1) Cap and trade wont work in a democracy, but it also takes less time than option 2, and has attenuated side effects compared to options 2 and 3. You can also never get anyone to go along with it without having a peasant uprising on your hands. More's the pity. Thankfully, I have never claimed that humanity as a whole was smarter than a petri-dish full of bacteria. Oh wait, just the opposite. I have claimed that we are in fact that stupid when it comes to reproduction.

2)Economically Induced Demographic Shift. The only way this works is by injecting resources into the third world and bringing them up to first and second world standards. This however has side effects. The first is that it will take decades. These were decades we had back in 1972. We dont have them anymore. This opportunity is squandered. It also increases the global per-capita resource consumption rate, so we would need a population in 2050 significantly lower than we have now. Why? Because our current rate of food production is not sustainable, and meeting the higher demand that all of these people with >2000 calorie per day diets who want more meat will be impossible. The other problem is that it cannot be done through the Free Market, because all that does is increase GINI at the same time as GDP is increased, leading to increased variance in resource availability, and thus higher birth rates. GINI needs to be low while the economy grows. As a result, this requires western government subsidized microloans, huge western government paid for infrastructure projects, that sort of thing. In other words: You will never get anyone willing to pay for this. Sorry. As for birth control like condoms etc... there is far too much co-linearity in the study designs so far. It is all correlation, with poor statistical controls. You dont know whether condom use causes lower birth rates in and of themselves, or if other demographic and economic factors cause people to use condoms (which is my position).

3) Do I even need to go into why decreasing the death rate is undesirable?

Do you have options better than these? Because as I see it... the things that will work for solving the problem cannot be implemented.

And I still don't get a meaningful critique from you.
How so?
Because real populations don't work like that.

Population Biology 101.

Population demographers use birth rate per 1000 people, or 100000 people to get their numbers. They take number of births, divide by that number, then they subtract the per capita death rate and add the resulting number to 1 to get r, which then gets multiplied by the population to get a projection for the next year. r can be raised to the power of t in order to project multiple years into the future. The problem with this is that a certain percentage of your population is post-reproductive old people. As they age and die, with fewer coming up to replace them in the age structure, your birth rate per capita increases even if the total number of births is held constant.

That is the reason why demographers assume stable age structures, because if they dont, the math becomes much much more difficult.

What needs to be done is a partitioning of the age structure, and then iterate the equation from year to year as the demographics shift. This means the construction of a Life Table, which takes a loooong ass time to build. No one does this.

Alyrium is a bio researcher with a speciality in animal populations. You want somebody to guess-timate how the demographic graph in Germany will change he's a pretty good person to ask. (It gets complicated unless you are assuming everything else stays equal eg retirement age, life expectancy and immigration rate. In this case, you seem to be)
I would be a good person to ask. I wonder if there is a data-set with age-specific mortality and birth rates for germany... and by age specific I mean from of life to year of life... hmm, I bet actuaries may have that.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by K. A. Pital »

Kane Starkiller wrote:Yes immigration is source of people but that is not a permanent or optimal solution. True stability can only come from a roughly replacement level fertility. If countries are striving to be food and energy sufficient how can becoming dependent on importing human beings be good?
In the current system that is a moral necessity, because the First World greatly outstrips the Third World in development. Immigration solves several problems - First World under-replacement and picks some people out of Third World poverty as well. Isn't it good?
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Thanas »

madd0ct0r wrote:No, I genuinely think you and Alyrium are looking at different scales.

you are primarily concerned about you, your country and the immediate area about. The Toad Master is considering the global population. The social effect of German birthrates is rather different for the one then the other.
Actually, I am concerned about the EU in General. Without the EU up and running, the first world is screwed, as it would be without the USA.
Would you not describe Nazi Germany as 'genocidally institutionally racist' ? and yet post war, with massive population shortages they turned to the Turks to help rebuild their country.
No, this only really started upswing during the Wirtschaftswunder, which is generally seen as the end of rebuilding.
Is today's Germany worse off for that? I don't think it has worse integration problems then the UK, and I'd call that pretty successful. Sure my point is wrapped up in hyperbole, but I don't think either the UK or Germany is worse off for mass immigration.
Germany has actually done very badly in integration overall.


But even leaving that aside, the immigration was largely unskilled labor, something Germany does not need. So immigration will not be able to solve the issues that are already troubling the economy - the lack of highly-skilled labor.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by mr friendly guy »

Singular Intellect wrote:Based on current projections of technological progress and development as I've been reading it, it seems that energy production, food & water concerns will be addressed faster than our population growth can keep up with. It's a fact our planet is provided with ten thousand times greater the amount of energy we currently need from the sun, our planet has an enormous supplies of water and there are still massive amounts of land we can expand into.

That said, these aren't small problems and we need technology to more efficiently extract and manage our resources. The thing is our technology is advancing very rapidly and continuing to do so. Given the undisrupted exponential trends of technological progress that has weathered all human history (including depressions, recessions, world wars, etc), we will overcome these problems.

For example, solar power technology is an exponentially growing technology. In roughly fourteen years, it could meet the entire planet's energy demands, including projections for energy consumption at that time. Sounds absolutely batshit crazy I'm sure (and expect to be called so), but then I'm sure it sounds nuts that portable phone technology would go from thousands of very expensive, unreliable, bulky systems to billions of very cheap, reliable and tiny systems. The current developments in just solar power technology alone (never mind other areas) is simply quite amazing.
Do you have any links or sources for these projections of technological progress. You have mentioned solar in 14 years might be able to supply most of our power. I am interested in various ways, tech etc which can stave of the "resource crunch." Any links would be appreciated.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by mr friendly guy »

Kane Starkiller wrote:Yes immigration is source of people but that is not a permanent or optimal solution.
How long does this solution have to last for? Europe currently is having a problem with illegal immigrants. In the hypothetical as per the OP you want to increase population it seems immigration might last for a looong time, ie you have plenty of time to implement another solution for population. Do you need a permanent solution right now? If yes, then why?

Also how do you define optimal, since as far as I can tell, either solution (immigration or increasing fertility rate) works for the purpose of increasing population.

True stability can only come from a roughly replacement level fertility.
Since you are using stability from a mathematical sense I am going to say your analysis seems confine to only one country. If other countries a, b, c etc have above replacement level fertility, then another country X can still maintain stable population from luring immigrants from those other countries. I am not saying its necessarily a good thing, however your conclusion is incorrect because you fail to consider other countries, which seems to be a theme with you in this thread.

If countries are striving to be food and energy sufficient how can becoming dependent on importing human beings be good?
1. A lot of major economies are not energy sufficient in the sense they import high amounts. Lets take the three biggest, USA, China, Japan etc. All importers of energy.

2. Importing human beings in this thread is either talking about using it to increase the population as per the OP (which will be bad in the sense of food and energy sufficiency) or in reference to your points about maintaining the population (in which case if its just to maintain population it shouldn't make much difference in terms of food and energy sufficiency assuming immigrants eventually have similar levels of standard of living as the native population).
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
User avatar
Singular Intellect
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2392
Joined: 2006-09-19 03:12pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Singular Intellect »

mr friendly guy wrote:Do you have any links or sources for these projections of technological progress. You have mentioned solar in 14 years might be able to supply most of our power. I am interested in various ways, tech etc which can stave of the "resource crunch." Any links would be appreciated.
Here's a video that can start you off: Futurist Interview

If you have the patience to watch that through, afterwards I'd highly recommend you doing your own research into things like solar power generation, exponential technological progress, exponential curves, computer science, Moore's Law, etc.

Here's a couple of links on progress with solar power technology:

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

That's the kind if trends we're seeing across all information fields. Medice and biology have only recently entered the information age, and that's why (even here on SDN) you'll notice how quickly things are advancing.

Even in this day in age, humanity isn't short of doomsayers and predictions of the coming 'end days'. Not to suggest there isn't serious issues at hand or that anyone can guarantee a optimistic future, but it's hardly as dark as some might lead you to believe.
"Now let us be clear, my friends. The fruits of our science that you receive and the many millions of benefits that justify them, are a gift. Be grateful. Or be silent." -Modified Quote
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Thanas »

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Do you have options better than these? Because as I see it... the things that will work for solving the problem cannot be implemented.

And I still don't get a meaningful critique from you.
You earlier yourself gave the impression that there were possible solutions, most of which are not feasible in a democracy. In case you were just here to gloom and doom, what is the point of that one?
Because real populations don't work like that.

Population Biology 101.

Population demographers use birth rate per 1000 people, or 100000 people to get their numbers. They take number of births, divide by that number, then they subtract the per capita death rate and add the resulting number to 1 to get r, which then gets multiplied by the population to get a projection for the next year. r can be raised to the power of t in order to project multiple years into the future. The problem with this is that a certain percentage of your population is post-reproductive old people. As they age and die, with fewer coming up to replace them in the age structure, your birth rate per capita increases even if the total number of births is held constant.
Problem - Germany's population is actually decreasins, especially the population of those that work for their living. Also, both the birthrate and the total number of births is falling. We are already lacking a skilled workforce in some areas and this is projected to only get harder.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Problem - Germany's population is actually decreasins, especially the population of those that work for their living. Also, both the birthrate and the total number of births is falling. We are already lacking a skilled workforce in some areas and this is projected to only get harder.
I will chalk this up to a language/communication issue.

In the case of an aging population, IF you hold total births constant, you will detect a dropping birth rate, because of a greater percent of your female population not having kids because they dont have any oocytes left in their ovaries--depending on the magnitude of the drop of course. You can also have a drop in real number of births for the same reason. The point is, this happens when age structures shift. Your birth rate was huge (relatively) recently. It dropping is not a shock, as the individuals born prior begin to age.

The problem is, you have an economy built on a larger population. There will be some problems. Your economy will get over them, and the fallout will be much much less than the long term fallout actual population growth.

Your population is basically going to do this:

Image

Bear in mind, the image is a convenience, I just needed something that approximated a lagged logistic growth curve. The point is, as your age structure shifts, your population will drop, then stabilize... or keep growing again, either way.
You earlier yourself gave the impression that there were possible solutions, most of which are not feasible in a democracy. In case you were just here to gloom and doom, what is the point of that one?
Sometimes, doom and gloom is perfectly valid. Unless you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend the proverbial mountain-sized asteroid is not heading for earth.

Honestly, the agricultural reforms can be implemented in a functioning democracy. The problem is, those are much more rare than nominal democracies.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

In the case of an aging population, IF you hold total births constant, you will detect a dropping birth rate, because of a greater percent of your female population not having kids because they dont have any oocytes left in their ovaries--depending on the magnitude of the drop of course.
Clarification. I have not slept.

If you hold total births constant, you will detect a drop in birth rate per female, because the number of reproductive age individuals is not what you are dividing births by, but total population size.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
someone_else
Jedi Knight
Posts: 854
Joined: 2010-02-24 05:32am

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by someone_else »

Singular Intellect wrote:Based on current projections of technological progress and development as I've been reading it, it seems that energy production, food & water concerns will be addressed faster than our population growth can keep up with.
This is a common fallacy I usually hammer my head on when talking with Fusion Power worshippers. :banghead:

The amount of power generated is more or less irrelevant, since having a high tech robotic fusion-powered tractor is kinda irrelevant if the crops don't have decent soil to grow on. The same as a high-tech robotic fusion-powered fishing boat is totally irrelevant if fish population is dropping.

Energy sources will easily grow with the demand (and failing that you can always cut the wastes to get a fat 40-50% of wasted energy back), but here the problem is food and water sources, that aren't produced by pure energy and rely on biological cycles that we are shitting over since industrial revolution. Tech should be used to save such cycles from doom, not produce more "energy".

Things like this another article on the same, scare me a little about the future.
Alyrium wrote:Honestly, the agricultural reforms can be implemented in a functioning democracy. The problem is, those are much more rare than nominal democracies.
Well, that assumes that in such democracy the people know of such problem and know what the solution would be.
I know very little people that know of this (even in a vaslty more simplified version than yours), and even less that don't handwave it away by praising TechGod or fairies that something unspecified happens and we are all saved.
I'm nobody. Nobody at all. But the secrets of the universe don't mind. They reveal themselves to nobodies who care.
--
Stereotypical spacecraft are pressurized.
Less realistic spacecraft are pressurized to hold breathing atmosphere.
Realistic spacecraft are pressurized because they are flying propellant tanks. -Isaac Kuo

--
Good art has function as well as form. I hesitate to spend more than $50 on decorations of any kind unless they can be used to pummel an intruder into submission. -Sriad
Samuel
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4750
Joined: 2008-10-23 11:36am

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Samuel »

The amount of power generated is more or less irrelevant, since having a high tech robotic fusion-powered tractor is kinda irrelevant if the crops don't have decent soil to grow on. The same as a high-tech robotic fusion-powered fishing boat is totally irrelevant if fish population is dropping.
Actually you don't need soil, just the minerals inside the soil. We can crack it out of rocks if power is cheap enough and grow food hydroponically. I don't think we can do that cheaply yet and I don't know if we could do it cost effectively for the people who will be having food problems.
User avatar
Kane Starkiller
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1510
Joined: 2005-01-21 01:39pm

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Kane Starkiller »

Alyrium Denryle wrote:That is not how it works. It would work that way if humans were semelperous organisms with complete turnover per generation, but we are not. Here is the proper equation, and results.

Nt=No((1+(g))^t)

I will assume stable age structure as well as constant birth/death rates (which are not true, but I dont have Matlab handy)

Nt=population at time t, No=initial population size, t is number of years, and g is the population growth rate per annum.

You get with an initial population of 81.9 million...

81.9(1-.00061)^75)=78.2 million.

Now, this is where the assumptions made for this math become very very important. Germany has an aging population. That growth rate will not remain constant for 75 years, right now, you just have a shit load of dying old people. Once the old people who were born between 1945 and 1960 start to die off in earnest, the age structure changes and so does the population growth rate.

By your own metrics there is absolutely no reason to be worried about germany, as in 75 years, you wont have a massive population decline, but a modest one, especially once you consider the increased life expectancy of people born yesterday compared to the ones born back in like 1954. But again, I dont have Matlab handy.
Wait did you just plug the current yearly change of German population and assume that it will remain constant for the next 75 years? It took until now for the low fertility to propagate through the population. The yearly decline will increase each year as the older more populous generations die off and are not replaced by the younger smaller generations.
It is very simple, if the current population has a fertility of 1.4 then for each 2 people 1.4 people are born. In 75 years when the roughly entire current population is dead it will be replaced by a population that cannot be more than 1.4/2.1 in size.
Go to the census.gov and look at the projection for Germany. In 2050 it is projected to have 73 million people. That is in 40 years. This is in agreement with my rough 55 million estimate within 75 years.
Even if Germany increases its fertility rate to 2 and keeps it that way its population will still decline from 82 million because its younger generation contracted because of decades of below replacement fertility.
Number of children aged 0-4 in Germany:
Image
Even if people aged 0-15 decided to have 2 children when they grow up the total number of their children still won't exceed the number of children during the 80s because they themselves have shrunk.
On the other hand if they too will have a fertility of 1.4 population will continue to dramatically fall in a negative feedback loop.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Did you use the same shitty math you used before to generate those figures? Yes. The population problem in Africa is huge, but not the resource consumption problem. Not yet. If you look at per capita resource utilization (You can use per capita GDP, PPP method for this) you will see that the amount consumed by the third world per capita is much the fuck lower than the first world.

Population itself is not the problem. Population+resource consumption is. If we were all Darwinian Demons that were able to pump out offspring from the moment of our birth with no limiting resources, there would not be a problem.

To put this in perspective: Those two countries are at odds over Nile useage. Well guess what, water rights will always be an issue. Always. What matters is how degraded the river system is--like whether or not it reaches the ocean. Many American rivers no longer do. The entire Colorado River Basin in the southwest no longer has an estuary at the end.

Our first world living standards are such that the energy and resource requirements are already so high as to be completely unsustainable. The third world will get there as they advance as their population grows AND so does their per capita resource consumption.
"Shitty math" accusation from someone who simply took the current population growth of Germany and plugged it into the formula without realizing it won't stay constant.
But no I didn't use any math simply taken the projections given on census.gov international database I already linked to in my first post in this thread.
And since you recognize that Third World is the main problem then the Third World needs to bear the brunt of reforms. That means bringing their fertility down to 1.5 or so for a time not pressuring an already children poor First World to an even lower fertility.
US population currently grows mainly because if immigration and higher fertility rate of recent immigrants.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Because: Per Capita Resource Consumption Is Too High. Are you blind? Or are you just one of those fucktards who will never say that the first/second world needs to sacrifice anything, putting all the blame on the third world?
Why should First/Second world sacrifice anything in the terms of population growth? Its population is already dropping and if it isn't it's due to immigration from the Third World. Third World is the source of population growth therefore it's up to the Third World to stabilize its population.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:We. Humanity, fucktard.

And at the same time your population is dropping, your standard of living and thus your per capita resource consumption will be increasing.
No it won't because each new generation will be smaller than the previous one and thus carry a heavy burden of caring for elders. Stable population is much better. Again even if the fertility were to jump to 2 today population of Second World would still only stabilize at a significantly lower level than today because of several decades of below replacement fertility. And Second World (and pretty much First World) still has plenty of space.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:No. You should all have fewer children. Right now, the problems come from the developed nations because we consume to fucking much and our population needs to drop. In Africa, they have too many people and cant support them economically, and as they develop, they will begin to consume too fucking much. Therefore their population needs to drop.

Have you not been reading what I post, or do you just break your nose with your own knee-jerk reactions to what I write.

Population and consumption are global problems. Everyone needs to consume and reproduce less. The population of the world is already over what it can sustain indefinitely, but right now, that is because developed nations take too much from it. As time passes, the third world will catch up, themselves becoming first and second world countries and the problem will get worse.

Dost thou comprehend?
I would like some hard evidence that population specifically of First and Second World is above what can be sustained as well as some numbers on what exactly is the sustainable population. You continuously evade the fact that for much of First and all of Second World fertility was much lower than replacement for some time which will cause a large drop in population. It's the First/Second world which can feed itself and its population is stagnating or dropping. It's the Third World which is starving and its population is exploding. Your solution is to cut First world fertility even further thus decreasing the percentage of educated technologically advanced societies in the world which will make it even more difficult for the rich to help the poor whose number will explode. And all that based on vague doomsaying about unsustainability for which you provided no hard evidence.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:No, moron, you can neither read nor do basic algebra. .6-.8 PER PERSON, which brings fertility to 1.2 to 1.4 combined with mechanisms to increase life expectancy and increase the economic productivity of the old

In other words, slow, easily managed population declines world-wide. Remember, humans dont breed like mayflies.
I misread that although fertility is given per woman them being the only ones that can bear children. Which is still too low.
But if the forces of evil should rise again, to cast a shadow on the heart of the city.
Call me. -Batman
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Thanas »

Alyrium, yes, there may be a language issue here. However - as Kane so aptly noted, it is not a slow decline in the case of Germany or the other western nations. It will be a decline to below half the population in 100 years, if the problem is not stopped - and it will keep dropping. This, coupled with ageing, will put more and more on the backs of the young ones, who not only will have to pay outrageous taxes to keep the old fed and in good health, but it will aslo prevent them from having more children - if career opportunities beckon in about any field and if you have to pay high taxes, then people do not tend to get many children. In short, there is the very real danger of a downward spiral of which the nation will not recover.

Also, seeing how much more efficient the First world gets each and every day, I am not sure if we do need a population decline. We already consume less than we did a few years ago and with the advent of renewable energy sources etc. this is only going to drop further.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Simon_Jester »

Thanas wrote:Alyrium, yes, there may be a language issue here. However - as Kane so aptly noted, it is not a slow decline in the case of Germany or the other western nations. It will be a decline to below half the population in 100 years, if the problem is not stopped - and it will keep dropping. This, coupled with ageing, will put more and more on the backs of the young ones, who not only will have to pay outrageous taxes to keep the old fed and in good health, but it will aslo prevent them from having more children - if career opportunities beckon in about any field and if you have to pay high taxes, then people do not tend to get many children. In short, there is the very real danger of a downward spiral of which the nation will not recover.

Also, seeing how much more efficient the First world gets each and every day, I am not sure if we do need a population decline. We already consume less than we did a few years ago and with the advent of renewable energy sources etc. this is only going to drop further.
The critical parameter for Alyrium, I think, is food. We can miniaturize our way around metal shortages, we can generate more power, but we can't readily fake our way out of planetary carrying capacity, not at a cost-per-calorie that makes life in Third World countries survivable.

So essentially, he's asking: which would you rather have, massive famines, or several generations of overburdened workers who wind up throwing a large fraction of GDP into supporting their elders?
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Thanas »

I do not think this is an either or. Besides, there is no impetus for change in the First world. Who cares about Africa? Not many people do.

Besides, the problem is that in order to stop global population growth, we will need to enact the most cruelest program in the history of the world, including mass forced sterilization and killings in the third world as it is there that population growth will be happening. It does not matter if the birthrate shrinks in first world nations if it heavily is outweighed by third world nations and their birhtrate, assuming the First world consumes less meat etc.

I am not going to be in favor of a technocratic solution that essentially makes us look worse than the Nazis.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Vehrec
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2204
Joined: 2006-04-22 12:29pm
Location: The Ohio State University
Contact:

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Vehrec »

Then what solution ARE you in favor of? If you accept that current agricultural levels are unsustainable, what can be done? How are you going to look like the good guy if the problem really is an issue of having too many people with too little food? Any solution in a situation where resources are fixed is going to involve someone getting hurt.
ImageCommander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)
User avatar
Rabid
Jedi Knight
Posts: 891
Joined: 2010-09-18 05:20pm
Location: The Land Of Cheese

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Rabid »

So, to summarize :

General trends (pulled out of my ass if you ask) :

First world : If without immigration, almost exponentially shrinking (the population grow older, and women have less child) ; and continually reducing its environmental footprint per Capita.
Second World : Demographic transition almost ended, and in a population stabilization phase. Also, stabilization of the environmental footprint per Capita (still augmenting, but really smoothly, and will begin to diminish in one or two decades as the per Capita income increase and the country gain a First World standing)
Third World : Beginning or middle of the demographic transition, leading to an exponential increase in population with an highly and rapidly augmenting per Capita environmental footprint, leading to a rapidly unsustainable pressure put on the environment leading to a rapid collapse of agricultural yields if nothing is done, leading to famine, leading to chaos and Society's collapse in the concerned country – A downward spiral.


Ethic solution :

Rise the whole world as rapidly as possible to a First World living standing via a massive world “reconstruction” fueled by First World technical expertise, First and Second World money, and while trying to comfort the Third World to think that, no, definitively no, we aren't going to colonize them again, just that we are acting selfishly in order for them not to screw our planet, and that they should just shut the f*ck up and do what we tell them to do.
Oh, and while we are at it, pass something to the effect of a “Two Child Policy” in the Third World countries, and enforce that no sex selection is to be done (that could result in a destabilization of the Sex-Ratio that would fuel civil unrest and things like that, like in India).

There is no need to mass sterilize population or to "increase the death rate". Just enforce the child restriction, and ensure that every women be either sterilized after the birth of her second child if she try to have a third (if it is just a non-desired pregnancy - to be proven by the court -, leave her ovaries alone) and enforce the termination of any third fetus. The limit is set to two living child, not two pregnancy.
This policy, in order to ensure that the Third World don't screech "Hypocrisy !" is to be generalized to the World's Population as a whole, until the Human population drop back to 4 Billion (two child per women isn't the natural replacement rate, because it does not take into account those that could and will die before producing one or two descendant).


Such solution will be really hard to accomplish (if not impossible), and an optimal solution would be to put in a place some sort of World Government, or a 'Global Reconstruction and Wealth Redistribution Commissariat', but this is highly unlikely. Instead, it would be “possible” to help the African Union and other regional States association to build themselves as equals of the European Union, in order for them to promote and ensure some sort of sustainable Good Governance. And for them to efficiently do what the fuck we tell them to do.


I want to hope we'll reach one day a solution like this, but the most likely outcome will more probably look like :

The First World will become more and more sustained by machines and robots as the population grow older, with some immigration coming from Second World countries not yet passed to a First World living standard and injecting some fresh blood in the system ; while the peoples in all the failed states of the Third World will continue to breed, like the human mind dictate, until there isn't enough food to feed everyone, leading to further instabilities, societies collapsing, war-lord rising and launching Djihad and fatwa and what-else on them-dirty First and Second Worlder. There will be waves of illegal immigrant flooding First and Second World country in their attempt to flee from a certain doom, fueling tensions between states.
Expect some sort of “world war”, where the First World will steamroll the Third World, but will be then paralyzed in a giant occupational clusterfuck that will make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a walk in the park, destabilizing the First World countries, and sending them in their own downward spiral... In the end, it will likely come down to Us First-Worlders obliged to take actions making the Nazis looking almost human.


I hate myself for this, I hate Doom-and-Gloom, but sometime I doubt that we could ever find a peaceful outcome for this crisis, unless some miracle.


Bah... Either way, by 2150, the dust will have settled, and the problem will have found a solution, whatever it is ; be it our total and utter extinction, or a peaceful and thriving global human society, slowly but surely colonizing the solar system and using its resources to further fuel the progresses of Mankind. Or more likely something between that.




TL;DR :I think we should come out of this crisis not by renouncing to our commonly accepted Ethic, but precisely by generalizing it to the whole world by any mean necessary. It will be harder, but it will also be the Good Thing To Dotm
Last edited by Rabid on 2010-12-05 12:04pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Thanas »

Vehrec wrote:Then what solution ARE you in favor of? If you accept that current agricultural levels are unsustainable, what can be done? How are you going to look like the good guy if the problem really is an issue of having too many people with too little food? Any solution in a situation where resources are fixed is going to involve someone getting hurt.
Use technological advances as much as possible and try and get the other states organized, while making sure the first world meets its goals in climate emissions. Help with raising global food production. Ensure the protection of the environment. That is about as much as any first world politician can do. Invading state x in Africa is not going to accomplish anything.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Rabid
Jedi Knight
Posts: 891
Joined: 2010-09-18 05:20pm
Location: The Land Of Cheese

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Rabid »

^This.

This is the safest bet, and the one with the best chance of success. And it happen that it is the one we could begin to do tomorrow with EVERYBODY being happy about it (I don't count the Libertarian assholes and other scumbag with the same egoist and short-sighted mentality).

I'd put my money on this one. In fact, I think I'd use what political power I can gather as a Citizen of a First World Nation in order to make it a reality.
... And other politicians will do the same calculation. Pro-Environment policies generate high-value jobs, economic growth, and better condition of living. This is a Win-Win situation.

Today, it's the safest way.
User avatar
someone_else
Jedi Knight
Posts: 854
Joined: 2010-02-24 05:32am

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by someone_else »

Thanas wrote:Use technological advances as much as possible and try and get the other states organized, while making sure the first world meets its goals in climate emissions. Help with raising global food production. Ensure the protection of the environment.
No less handwaving than Alyrium's technocratic proposals. I have to admit his own have more charm, though. :P
I'd like to know how you are going to get the statement in bold.
Rabid wrote:Bah... Either way, by 2150, the dust will have settled, and the problem will have found a solution, whatever it is
The solution if we don't do a fuck is simple, someone will have to kill the stronger third world nations and some second world contries whan they will attack us over food and water supplies we will jealously guard for ourselves (and on some other assets like mines and oil drills). And we will have even the most ancient reason to not feel so bad about it: "they started it". Optionally they may be fundamentalists, and in that case it will be even easier to justify.

If we manage to keep them off our lawn for long enough, mass famines will do all the dirty work of genociding them for us.

Now, since that's more or less what will happen unless Jesus Christ becomes the next US president, I'd like to know how you think this food production problem is going to hammer us in the face. Since that's what will make the difference between "Thirld World gone", "everyone back to stone age" and "complete extinction".

Will this be a gradual decrease in food production or will it snap at some point and suddenly drop by a high amount per year?
(especially fishing, if we extinguish the fish we eat what the hell will happen, and on what timescale?)
I'm nobody. Nobody at all. But the secrets of the universe don't mind. They reveal themselves to nobodies who care.
--
Stereotypical spacecraft are pressurized.
Less realistic spacecraft are pressurized to hold breathing atmosphere.
Realistic spacecraft are pressurized because they are flying propellant tanks. -Isaac Kuo

--
Good art has function as well as form. I hesitate to spend more than $50 on decorations of any kind unless they can be used to pummel an intruder into submission. -Sriad
Junghalli
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5001
Joined: 2004-12-21 10:06pm
Location: Berkeley, California (USA)

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Junghalli »

Thanas wrote:I am not going to be in favor of a technocratic solution that essentially makes us look worse than the Nazis.
And even if such a thing were the right thing to do, how is it to be implemented? Who is going to create this world-state that can implement the "necessary" reforms, many of which will probably be highly unpopular, and simply give the finger to negative public opinion?

Short of an act of alien space bats I'm hard-pressed to see how such a thing could emerge except perhaps out of the very sort of catastrophes it is intended to prevent (since you'd need things to get really bad before such a movement would start to look attractive to people).
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: How would you raise population growth?

Post by Thanas »

someone_else wrote:
Thanas wrote:Use technological advances as much as possible and try and get the other states organized, while making sure the first world meets its goals in climate emissions. Help with raising global food production. Ensure the protection of the environment.
No less handwaving than Alyrium's technocratic proposals.
How so? I do not advocate world government or so.
I have to admit his own have more charm, though. :P I'd like to know how you are going to get the statement in bold.
Japan is already on a good track, as is most of the EU. The USA is the real trouble in climate emissions.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Post Reply