How would you raise population growth?

[Junghalli]

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).

Incidentally does anybody else think that might be an interesting fictional scenario?

A world trapped between the Charybdis of mass starvation and the Scylla of an emerging authoritarian-technocratic dictatorship dedicated to doing "whatever is necessary" to solve the problem and fuck anybody who gets in the way.

[Rabid]

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".

Well, in the First World, you'll probably see some sort of rationing, and the rise of new form of culture, like growing algae and plankton in salt-water vats, fed with organic wastes ; Or, on the protein side, the culture of "shit-eating" insectoids and the like. All of that possibly Genetically Modified.
Disgusting by today's standard, but having the benefit of nourishing us while aiding us disposing of our waste and recycling them.

The First World will survive, no matter what. It's just that we will have to change our habits. That's all. With the right propaganda, there will be no major problem. Heck, you could even turn this into a trend and make people think it's cool ! Like, how many people find tofu so awesome, when it's just fermented soybean ?! (And I have to say that I find tofu delicious, so...)

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?)

It's coming right from my ass, but I think this will be relatively sudden, as in the time of a decade or two, starting progressively with bad harvest, worst each year for five or six years, and then a snowball effect as things worsen and people try to "better" things, but screwing things up horribly.
Remember the "worldwide" Hunger Riots we had some times ago ? Expect seeing this more and more, until a handful of states just disintegrate over this issue.

About fishing, well... First thing, Japan will not be happy, and... well, they may be part of the problem here. Don't know much about the issue, but what I know is that currently, aquaculture will not be the solution. Why ? Because to nourish these fish, we are obliged in most case to feed them with... other fish. Yes. Fished in the ocean.
If you can find a fish that can be fed with algae, and create a process by which you can cultivate said algae by recycling human and animal turd, well, you just solved a major issue ; you should go patent it as soon as you can !

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).

Incidentally does anybody else think that might be an interesting fictional scenario?

A world trapped between the Charybdis of mass starvation and the Scylla of an emerging authoritarian-technocratic dictatorship dedicated to doing "whatever is necessary" to solve the problem and fuck anybody who gets in the way.

Tinfoil Hat Brigade, at your service.
Spoiler

Just type "New World Order" into Google, and enjoy the madness. In short, people think that the so-called "New World Order" has as a mission to reduce the World's population to around 3 billions people, and that they will do whatever is necessary in order to do this. The best thing is, they are "actually" stirred by trans-dimensional-alien entities that are in fact the humans from the far-future, which are most commonly know as The Greys.
If you want some additional madness, type "Codex Alimentarius". Long story short : to reach their goal of depopulating they Earth, they want to induce mass starvation. Oh, and they also want to taint our precious bodily fluids with mandatory drugs.

I love the NWO-Conspiration nutters. They produce so much fun to read, it should be criminal.

[Hamstray]

The other obvious solution to increase population growth in a first world country (as opposed to immigration) is this:
annex landmass

[Thanas]

What? This isn't risk. What is there to annex?

[Hamstray]

Sorry, i thought this was a hypothetical discussion. I guess that colonizing mars is out of question then.

[Sea Skimmer]

Sorry, i thought this was a hypothetical discussion. I guess that colonizing mars is out of question then.

How would that change anything? Who would want to raise kids on a barren rock with no breathable air who wouldn't do it on earth in the first place?

[madd0ct0r]

it's ok. we only need to develop the mass rocket transitry systems to ship 4 billion people across the void, and then terraform the rock once we get there.

It's SO much easier then just getting our act together down here.

[someone_else]

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.

You don't say why we should suddenly start doing the Right Thing either.
Especially when that goes against the market logic. High carbon emissions, deforestation, environmental destruction and overfishing were profitable things last time I checked.
The only way what you say could happen is a world government imposing its will, or if the UN suddenly starts to show some balls (that isn't going to happen).

Japan is already on a good track, as is most of the EU. The USA is the real trouble in climate emissions.

There are also China and India, and all three together make up around 45% of greenhouse emissions.
Anyway, how do you explain articles like this? or this or this?
It doesn't seem that they are really doing anything serious on that front.

Well, in the First World, you'll probably see some sort of rationing, and the rise of new form of culture, like growing algae and plankton in salt-water vats, fed with organic wastes ; Or, on the protein side, the culture of "shit-eating" insectoids and the like. All of that possibly Genetically Modified.

I think that we would be lucky to nick cattle and eat only chicken/turkey meat. The point is that if people die massively, strain from ecosystem and economy is removed.
That means that after a "bleak decade" where rationing is the norm, we could have more wastage and crazy consumist madness in First World countries due to massively dropping food prices (since lots of people died and freed what little still usable land they had for us) and raw material prices.

Although I'd wait Alyrium's say or whoever has the skill to eyeball how the food production will decrease to say anything with any degree of certainty.

The other obvious solution to increase population growth in a first world country (as opposed to immigration) is this: annex landmass

Uhm, annexing new uncolonized land would be a good idea. There is no more free land though, and anything done in space won't pay for itself (i.e. noone will colonize anything).
The only way is depopulating a patch of land and then claiming it as your own.
Either genocide or start to remove the minorities in your nation out of sheer racism.
Or kill people that are "wrong" for whatever eugenetics program you have in mind.
Insert the usual nazi-like regime.

[Thanas]

You don't say why we should suddenly start doing the Right Thing either.
Especially when that goes against the market logic. High carbon emissions, deforestation, environmental destruction and overfishing were profitable things last time I checked.
The only way what you say could happen is a world government imposing its will, or if the UN suddenly starts to show some balls (that isn't going to happen).

No, I was talking about single countries doing it. I have no illusions as to world governemnt and I'll thank you not to assume things not in my posts.

It doesn't seem that they are really doing anything serious on that front.

Depends. Germany, Sweden and the UK are all going to meet their climate goals, which is the best one can hope for.

[Lusankya]

Anyway, how do you explain articles like this? or this or this?
It doesn't seem that they are really doing anything serious on that front.

What's to explain? Developed nations want to make everyone cut emissions. Developing nations want developed nations to shoulder more of the burden and cut more emissions while the developing nations have their quotas take the form of as a decrease in fossil fuel consumption relative to GDP growth, rather than absolute drops. Westerners then get all pissy, because Westerners are too precious to have their CO2 emissions cut any further, and besides, all those stinky third worlders are used to shitting in the dark anyway. Hilariously, the people who like to criticise developing nations for increasing their carbon emissions are often the very same people who like to criticise North Korea for not doing enough to bring its people out of poverty.

Anyway, China is trying to tackle the issue of global warming. The government recently revised its renewable energy targets upwards. By 2020, China aims to have 15-20% of its total energy production from renewables. Also, China is unlikely to become as large a consumer of fossil fuels as many western countries. Aside from things like high population density, which decreases the need for cars, some cultural factors come into play: for example, many Chinese dislike turning the heater on in winter, even when it's freaking cold and the heater is right there. They just layer up instead.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Sorry, i thought this was a hypothetical discussion. I guess that colonizing mars is out of question then.

According to my "history of space" lecturer, you can't annex landmass on Mars anyway, something about you not being able to own celetial bodies under international law

[Junghalli]

What's to explain? Developed nations want to make everyone cut emissions. Developing nations want developed nations to shoulder more of the burden and cut more emissions while the developing nations have their quotas take the form of as a decrease in fossil fuel consumption relative to GDP growth, rather than absolute drops. Westerners then get all pissy, because Westerners are too precious to have their CO2 emissions cut any further, and besides, all those stinky third worlders are used to shitting in the dark anyway.

I can sort of see why developing nations might resent attempts to make them conform to emission limitation standards and such. Developed nations get developed and then turn around to the guys trying to catch up with them using the same kind of technologies and strategies they did and righteously berate them for being environmentally insensitive. Gee, I didn't see you so worried about your carbon emissions back when you were in our place, but now that you've got electricity and hot and cold running water for everyone you turn around and expect everybody following you to go take the high road instead. You conveniently got to shit up the environment with abandon when you were developing because nobody really knew or gave a shit about that back then, but now when you turn around and smugly lecture us on how we're building too many coal-burning power plants or whatever we're supposed to smile and nod. Take your awesome self-righteous hypocrisy and shove it up your well-fed ass.

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with this perspective, but I can see how people would feel this way.

[Lusankya]

I'm not even sure if developing nations are actually using the same strategies as the western countries: in China, at least, they're focussing more heavily on renewable energy sources and nuclear as they develop than the west did when they were developing theirs. I'd like to say that in the rural areas, they're also more likely to use solar power for water heating than people are in the west, due to solar heating being pretty much the cheapest way to get hot water to poor areas, but I don't really have any statistics on that. That would affect carbon emissions too, even if it didn't get counted on the "percentage of electricity from renewable resources" chart.

Now, certainly the increase in carbon emissions from developing countries is a concern - turns out the atmosphere doesn't care much about moral responsibility when deciding to count CO2 particles towards global emissions - but accusing developing countries of not giving a shit about global warming, when all they can realistically be accused of doing is putting the well-being of their own people first is not a helpful attitude.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not even sure if developing nations are actually using the same strategies as the western countries: in China, at least, they're focussing more heavily on renewable energy sources and nuclear as they develop than the west did when they were developing theirs. I'd like to say that in the rural areas, they're also more likely to use solar power for water heating than people are in the west, due to solar heating being pretty much the cheapest way to get hot water to poor areas, but I don't really have any statistics on that. That would affect carbon emissions too, even if it didn't get counted on the "percentage of electricity from renewable resources" chart.

The developing nations have to face the reality that oil and coal won't be as cheap for them in 2030 as they were for the US and Britain in 1930- and they're supporting bigger, denser populations than the now-developed nations did during their industrialization. That makes the consequences of industrial pollutants a lot worse: generating electricity for a billion Chinese people means ten times more coal smoke than generating it for a hundred million Americans, and China isn't bigger than the US by a large enough margin to get away with that easily.

[K. A. Pital]

China can rely on the Co-Prosperity Sphere Central Asian nations that are naturally pauperized after Soviet collapse and are being slowly drawn into the Chinese influence sphere to supply some of the energy (and thus take a part of the pollution burden), which would, actually, increase the territorial distribution of pollution substantially.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, but only to an extent; they're still trying to supply electricity to something like seven to ten times the US population of the early twentieth century, without control of seven to ten times its land area.

Moreover, there are questions beyond just coal-fired power plants. There's personal automobiles (which, in the form we know them today, will be prohibitively expensive because of fuel costs by the time the average Chinese citizen can afford one). There's heating- related to electrical power generation, but there are other sources such as natural gas to be considered. There's industry- China's rivers are already notoriously polluted, and the water demands of the industrial base for a billion people aren't going to go away.

The Chinese, and other developing nations, will inevitably confront environmental problems that Victorian Britain, Gilded Age America, and Stalinist Russia* could afford to ignore. The sheer size of their populations will force them to deal with these issues more thoroughly... but it will also give them incentives to do so regardless of pressure from the West.

People living in Beijing can't possibly like the fact that their city is swathed in horrible smog. The incentive for them to do something about it, by pioneering better fuel economy measures and the like, is there.

*To pick three arbitrary examples of now-developed nations during their industrialization phase

[Akhlut]

Now, certainly the increase in carbon emissions from developing countries is a concern - turns out the atmosphere doesn't care much about moral responsibility when deciding to count CO2 particles towards global emissions - but accusing developing countries of not giving a shit about global warming, when all they can realistically be accused of doing is putting the well-being of their own people first is not a helpful attitude.

The thing is that they're not putting the well-being of their people first, though. To use India and China as examples: what do they do when their own local climate change eliminates glacial melt as a water supply? A great portion of each of their populations gets the water they need to live from water fed from Himalayan glaciers.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is that they can't eliminate global warming by controlling emissions in their own country any more than we can. The problem requires a global effort, and it sets up one hell of a prisoner's dilemma.

The dilemma is bad enough in developed countries. In poorer countries, they're being asked to sacrifice getting electricity to their people by countries who already have it.

It's not that they don't have an incentive to do this, or that it wouldn't make sense for them to do it. It's that it's very easy to see why they don't, or are reluctant to agree to it. Especially when they see holdouts even in the developed nations who are pretending the problem will go away.

What good does it do India to scale back carbon emissions (accepting a handful of cars per thousand citizens and a shortage of rural electrification), if the US doesn't do the same? Their glacial runoff still evaporates, they still get hit almost as hard... but now they are poorer and less well equipped to deal with it.

As always with the prisoner's dilemma, if you want other people to cooperate you must first understand their perspective and why they fear that you might defect.

[D.Turtle]

Thats why (green) technology is the answer. It enables poorer country to modernize, industrialize, etc without increasing CO2 emissions to such a huge degree.

As an example, many poor countries use cell phones instead of land lines. Why? Because you need a lot less infrastructure to support cell phones in comparison to land lines. If wind, solar, etc. are advanced enough, the same can be done for electricity.

However, the third world does not have the capability to develop these technologies on their own. That is why it is important for first world countries to do so. In the end it will also profit the first world countries, as they will be in a position to help construct the infrastructure in third world countries.

If a country decides they don't give a fuck about green technologies, they will miss a humongous stream of revenue to support their economy. In the end, it will be the countries who don't want to do anything who will lose.

[Akhlut]

The problem is that they can't eliminate global warming by controlling emissions in their own country any more than we can. The problem requires a global effort, and it sets up one hell of a prisoner's dilemma.

The dilemma is bad enough in developed countries. In poorer countries, they're being asked to sacrifice getting electricity to their people by countries who already have it.

It's not that they don't have an incentive to do this, or that it wouldn't make sense for them to do it. It's that it's very easy to see why they don't, or are reluctant to agree to it. Especially when they see holdouts even in the developed nations who are pretending the problem will go away.

What good does it do India to scale back carbon emissions (accepting a handful of cars per thousand citizens and a shortage of rural electrification), if the US doesn't do the same? Their glacial runoff still evaporates, they still get hit almost as hard... but now they are poorer and less well equipped to deal with it.

As always with the prisoner's dilemma, if you want other people to cooperate you must first understand their perspective and why they fear that you might defect.

I understand that, it's just that they're still shooting themselves in the foot. I'd love for India and China to build themselves up dozens of high-quality nuclear plants (as in, things that aren't going to have a high chance of a meltdown and all the environmental problems associated there), as well as taking advantage of their copious coastlines and building tidal generators, and solar plants and wind turbines and all that sort of thing. Plus, this would be opportunity for the West in general to help them build it to show their willingness to help and not keep them in the dark ages.

[mr friendly guy]

I understand that, it's just that they're still shooting themselves in the foot. I'd love for India and China to build themselves up dozens of high-quality nuclear plants (as in, things that aren't going to have a high chance of a meltdown and all the environmental problems associated there), as well as taking advantage of their copious coastlines and building tidal generators, and solar plants and wind turbines and all that sort of thing. Plus, this would be opportunity for the West in general to help them build it to show their willingness to help and not keep them in the dark ages.

Er, China is investing heavily in renewables and nuclear.

Unfortunately they still rely heavily on coal because their population is so large, hence they have to try use "cleaner coal". Here are their plans in regards to this.

Have a look at their rankings in wind power and notice the rate they are increasing it.

The other thing China can do to combat climate change is to plant trees. Lots and lots of them.

Edit - China has a thriving solar and wind power industry. The American stimulus package to promote renewables for wind power went to Chinese manufacturers. Most of the solar panels available in my country are made in China by Chinese companies. What they will need the west to help with is nuclear and energy efficiency. I can't comment on the tidal power bit.

[Akhlut]

Ah, excellent; in this instance, I'm very glad to be proven wrong. It gives me some modicum of hope, especially if India decides to go in the same direction as China.

I just hope they dial up more nuke plants and less hydroelectric, due to the environmental problems associated with the latter.

[someone_else]

No, I was talking about single countries doing it.

Don't try to slip away. My point was why should first world nations decide to do that. Other than being the "best moral choice", there is no real reason to do that. Or not?

I think assuming moral politicians is much less realistic than assuming a world government.

Depends. Germany, Sweden and the UK are all going to meet their climate goals, which is the best one can hope for.

All three's emissions are kind of irrelevant for the world as a whole. That's around 3-4% of the total. Even if they cut them in half (not gonna happen) that's what, a 2% decrease?
It is good and I agree on that, but won't make any real difference in the end.
As others pointed out, if you want to stop global warming, you need either a world government, or an international organization with balls that enforces the rules on others.

According to my "history of space" lecturer, you can't annex landmass on Mars anyway, something about you not being able to own celetial bodies under international law

You sure? The Outer space treaty only bans existing nations from claiming new land IN SPAACE!! And it's just a treaty anyway. I doubt anyone will say anything at US or China (or a strong nation) if they do that.

Anyway, China is trying to tackle the issue of global warming.

I know. And they seem to be very engaged in it. Expand the same enthusiasm on all the world governments and you may hope to solve it before the killcount gets ludicrous.

[Thanas]

No, I was talking about single countries doing it.

Don't try to slip away. My point was why should first world nations decide to do that. Other than being the "best moral choice", there is no real reason to do that. Or not?

I think assuming moral politicians is much less realistic than assuming a world government.

Because it is the politically acceptable thing that caters both to the strong green wing in Europe without destroying the economy, and which for some nations might bring further profit (see - Germany's green tech industry is leading worldwide, so they stand to reason to promote it). For other nations like the UK it is simply a matter of spending some now instead of having to build a load of new anti-flooding measures etc.

As others pointed out, if you want to stop global warming, you need either a world government, or an international organization with balls that enforces the rules on others.

You misunderstand me. I am not aiming for a pie in the sky fantasy, I am aiming for what is possible. I do not think we can currently stop global warming, but we can try and mitigate the effects. What I outline above is as much as Europe will be willing to do and I can only hope the USA does even that much.