Population Question
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am
Re: Population Question
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1601
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Population Question
If you want to slow population growth, you need first and foremost to reduce income inequality. There is a hard inverse relationship between wealth and fertility. When people have financial security and opportunity, they naturally choose to have fewer children. If they are desperately poor, having more children does not change their situation. If they are reasonably well off, they will consider the impact of more births on their situation and control their own rates of birth, for the most part.
Global gdp is about 80 trillion. You can see from the graph that birth rates become perfectly controlled at about 10,000 income. So, there is enough wealth spread about the world for everyone to get that if they got an even share. But, even narrowing the gap between rich and poor would help. If everyone made at least 5,000, we would not have a population problem, and one could argue that a lot of other problems would be partly solved, too.
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am
Re: Population Question
My wife and I had superior intelligence (she's gone now), and we never had an urge to have children, even before we started making money. Of course we were a data point of one, but it just makes me wonder whether it is more adequate money or brains that limits the urge for progeny.
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am
Re: Population Question
I'll just segue a little here, since I am running off, that I calculated the resources and pollution my wife and I would use up and create over three generations against couples with two and three kids respectively, with the kids of parents following suit. We would have used up resources and polluted 1/16th as much as the couple with two, and I/22nd as much as the couple with three.
It's fascinating to me that we hear so much about the value of recycling, not letting our cars idle to warm them up, and such, but nothing about the value to the environment of limiting kids. My wife and I could drive Hummers and be way kinder to the environment than the "responsible" young couple next door, who drive an electric car but pop out kids.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15147
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Population Question
I see it as almost inevitable. The most likely other possibility is extinction and, barring cosmic events, the wealthiest appear to be too insulated for the latter.
The formation of the solar system and the journey of life on Earth appear to be equivalent. Each started out as chaotic and relatively homogeneous, evenly spread about, with loose structures. Gradually, certain bodies became larger and organised, and these grew to be planets and exoplanets, which smashed against each other countless times, resulting in either obliteration of both, or the larger body consuming the material of the smaller one.
The larger bodies kept growing until they "cleared their space" - removing all material from their orbits. This is what we are doing, creating dense cities that desertify the surrounding areas.
Much less likely is that the world will continue roughly as is to 2100.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7147
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Population Question
The West controls the message, as it controls the world.Haicoway wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 11:33 am It is obvious to me in reading what scientists are saying about water tables disappearing and such, that overpopulation is a serious problem. People say “they” will do something about it, but two billion people are already living and dying in squalor with little or no potable water.
Just looking around – OMG! Newark, New Jersey! Washington, DC! In the early 1960s I used to drive from New York to LA on a two-lane road, and sometimes worry about getting to the next gas station in time.
Yet, I have not heard a single commentator even mention overpopulation as a factor in climate change and other environmental issues. We are just told to make sure our five kids recycle their water bottles.
I haven’t read everything, of course, and there are a lot of smart, educated people on this forum. Is there any credible evidence that the population level today and going forward as predicted is not a problem?
What the West is bad at advertising is the fact that each Westerner consumes enough for several others in the third world. Not only is the West consuming more and destroying the local environment but is chiefly responsible to the the destruction of the ecosystems in the rest of the world.
It's no wonder that aquifers in the rainforests are being drained. The West has grubbed up the natural environments to plant rubber trees, palm oil trees, beef cattle ranches for McDonald's etc, etc, etc.
By all means do not have any more children, since each child in the North America does more damage to the world than any child anywhere else in the world. And the economic demands that are made by each new baby in the West cause the third world to suffer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _Data).svg
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7984
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Population Question
While your graph may be perfectly accurate, it's findings can be completely explained by education of women (since education correlates with income).chewybrian wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 6:41 am
If you want to slow population growth, you need first and foremost to reduce income inequality. There is a hard inverse relationship between wealth and fertility. When people have financial security and opportunity, they naturally choose to have fewer children. If they are desperately poor, having more children does not change their situation. If they are reasonably well off, they will consider the impact of more births on their situation and control their own rates of birth, for the most part.
Global gdp is about 80 trillion. You can see from the graph that birth rates become perfectly controlled at about 10,000 income. So, there is enough wealth spread about the world for everyone to get that if they got an even share. But, even narrowing the gap between rich and poor would help. If everyone made at least 5,000, we would not have a population problem, and one could argue that a lot of other problems would be partly solved, too.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1601
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Population Question
It seems a very remote possibility that the bulk of the birth rate can be explained by accidents caused by a poor understanding of the birds and bees. Access to birth control would explain much more than a lack of understanding, I would think. I doubt that many women in poor countries don't know about birth control, but they might not be able to afford it.LuckyR wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 1:27 amWhile your graph may be perfectly accurate, it's findings can be completely explained by education of women (since education correlates with income).chewybrian wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 6:41 am
If you want to slow population growth, you need first and foremost to reduce income inequality. There is a hard inverse relationship between wealth and fertility. When people have financial security and opportunity, they naturally choose to have fewer children. If they are desperately poor, having more children does not change their situation. If they are reasonably well off, they will consider the impact of more births on their situation and control their own rates of birth, for the most part.
Global gdp is about 80 trillion. You can see from the graph that birth rates become perfectly controlled at about 10,000 income. So, there is enough wealth spread about the world for everyone to get that if they got an even share. But, even narrowing the gap between rich and poor would help. If everyone made at least 5,000, we would not have a population problem, and one could argue that a lot of other problems would be partly solved, too.
I believe the bulk of the population problem it is explained by rational behavior of people who understand their situation and the consequences of their actions. If very poor women have many children, they may have therein a small safety net for themselves in their old age. And, their poor situation is not that different with one child or five. But the women with resources surely see that their financial and life situation is greatly impacted by births, through the costs and time required to care for the children, and the missed opportunities to become educated or go to work.
Do you seriously believe that education or lack of it is the primary driver in the sense of understanding? Or do you mean that education leads to economic opportunities, in which case we might be on the same page?
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am
Re: Population Question
My wife and I decided against progeny mainly because we would rather be millionaires than bothering with budgeting, coupons and sales. I also had an identification with the elegance of not being part of the problem, even symbolically. I recognized the problem in the 1960s.
Populations are self-regulating, and if human brains are not so inclined to help from a sense of elegance or altruism for humankind, then dry spigots and microorganisms are up to the job.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7984
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Population Question
Yes.chewybrian wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 8:20 amIt seems a very remote possibility that the bulk of the birth rate can be explained by accidents caused by a poor understanding of the birds and bees. Access to birth control would explain much more than a lack of understanding, I would think. I doubt that many women in poor countries don't know about birth control, but they might not be able to afford it.
I believe the bulk of the population problem it is explained by rational behavior of people who understand their situation and the consequences of their actions. If very poor women have many children, they may have therein a small safety net for themselves in their old age. And, their poor situation is not that different with one child or five. But the women with resources surely see that their financial and life situation is greatly impacted by births, through the costs and time required to care for the children, and the missed opportunities to become educated or go to work.
Do you seriously believe that education or lack of it is the primary driver in the sense of understanding? Or do you mean that education leads to economic opportunities, in which case we might be on the same page?
It doesn't go from education on how reproduction works to deciding to use Birth Control.
Rather it goes from education to increased income earning potential to the decision to get careers off the ground (delaying childbirth) which equals less kids.
Funny how the identical effect doesn't impact male education anywhere near as much.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Population Question
I think that about covers it. We reproduce for emotional, cultural and biological reasons, things that are not subject to intellectual persuasion. So our own over-populatiuon will kill us (and a lot of other living things too) because we are not capable of controlling it.Haicoway wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 9:52 am People have children for a myriad of reasons, including good feeling neurochemicals, social convention, intimations of immortality, unconditional love, economic (in cases with poor people), birth control paucity or mismanagement, going with the flow, etcetera. There are many fewer reasons not to have kids. The tragedy of the commons prevents sacrificing for no mathematical justification, and humans are programmed by evolution to recognize immediate threats and ignore gradual ones. Most are also selfish, self-absorbed, and inconsiderate.
...
"Who cares, wins"
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7984
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Population Question
Population growth is essentially an Asia problem, though it is projected to become an Africa problem in the futurePattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 21st, 2020, 12:02 pmI think that about covers it. We reproduce for emotional, cultural and biological reasons, things that are not subject to intellectual persuasion. So our own over-populatiuon will kill us (and a lot of other living things too) because we are not capable of controlling it.Haicoway wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 9:52 am People have children for a myriad of reasons, including good feeling neurochemicals, social convention, intimations of immortality, unconditional love, economic (in cases with poor people), birth control paucity or mismanagement, going with the flow, etcetera. There are many fewer reasons not to have kids. The tragedy of the commons prevents sacrificing for no mathematical justification, and humans are programmed by evolution to recognize immediate threats and ignore gradual ones. Most are also selfish, self-absorbed, and inconsiderate.
...
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content ... strong.png
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Population Question
Sadly the problem is not just numerical. It's the amount that each human consumes that causes the problems. And it isn't Asia or Africa who is the prime offender. E.g. ~330m Americans hugely out-consume ~1.25 billion Africans.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am
Re: Population Question
You are right, the situation isn't amenable to intellectual persuasion. It is a very unique animal. Even most smart people can't look at it objectively. I am almost finished reading "This Will Make You Smarter," edited by John Brockman. He summoned two- or three-hundred of the world's most influential thinkers (I'd have to individually count them) to write a short essay on what each felt to be an important concept that wasn't recognized or understood by most people. Issues like unfounded fears of vaccines were mentioned, but there was not one mention of the population problem.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7984
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Population Question
Two things:Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2020, 11:00 amSadly the problem is not just numerical. It's the amount that each human consumes that causes the problems. And it isn't Asia or Africa who is the prime offender. E.g. ~330m Americans hugely out-consume ~1.25 billion Africans.
The curves for everywhere not Asia and Africa are essentially flat or trending downwards. If you want to be more accurate and call this a consumerism problem (as opposed to a population problem) that is a different yet important one.
I agree with the OP about the problem of numbers, though. To be specific Asian and African numbers as I pointed out. What do you think is going to happen when these crazy Asian and African numbers move to First and Second World status, respectively?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023