There’s no “Population Bomb”
Our earth is finite. Resources limited. In the arena of public discourse there are those who blame any and all things except overpopulation for the problems of the day and push the idea of overpopulation to the side.
The fact is that most problems today in the areas of the environment, reduced resource availability, water supply issues, pollution, and so forth derive from higher demand from our ever-increasing world population. But those denying the role of over demand put the blame on things like “income inequality”. To them, the solution is income redistribution and increased production, rather than anything associated with population.
Today, countries and even states in the Us are fighting over water resources, and it’s just the beginning. Countries like China and India build more and more coal fired generating plants due to the demands of their burgeoning populations for electricity, and carbon footprints be damned.
Sustainable production of resources requires a lon and hard look at controlling demand based on controlling population. To do otherwise is to bury one’s head in the sand. Wealth redistribution and implementation of other PC programs won’t cut it.
The fact is that most problems today in the areas of the environment, reduced resource availability, water supply issues, pollution, and so forth derive from higher demand from our ever-increasing world population. But those denying the role of over demand put the blame on things like “income inequality”. To them, the solution is income redistribution and increased production, rather than anything associated with population.
Today, countries and even states in the Us are fighting over water resources, and it’s just the beginning. Countries like China and India build more and more coal fired generating plants due to the demands of their burgeoning populations for electricity, and carbon footprints be damned.
Sustainable production of resources requires a lon and hard look at controlling demand based on controlling population. To do otherwise is to bury one’s head in the sand. Wealth redistribution and implementation of other PC programs won’t cut it.
I respect the right of every person to choose their course in life provided that course doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same. I respect and appreciate the fact that you are willing to advocate for a course you believe in without resorting to coercion. Thank you. I wish more people were as tolerant and thoughtful and you are a credit to the Gulch and humanity itself.
So I’ll leave it there. I believe that open discussions where widely differing views can be expressed are healthy and positive. I therefore thank you for you expressing your thoughts on the subject. Regards
And, in a word, yes, I am asking people to see the signs and make lifestyle changes that might forestall various potential crises in the future, including having fewer children - voluntarily.!While the things that are coming at humanity may not fully affect us immediately, they will indeed affect future generations. I propose we act as much as we can now, while we are able to still impact these coming problems.
Below are links to two videos. One is a presentation by Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, and often referred to as “The Gumball Video”. Mr. Beck’s primary subject is immigration and its effect on the United States. I have included 2 videos by Mr. Beck, as there is some different information in each.
I have also included a video by Hans Rosling, a Swedish specialist in world population. I believe he is overly optimistic in saying that world population will never be more than 11 Billion. He says we will reach that 11 Billion number in 2100 or there abouts. Contrast this with a link to a United Nations study from 1996 stating that we won’t reach 11 Billion until 2200.
I have also included a link to a video titled “World population growth 1800 to2100”. This video has no narration, but shows an expanding graph of world population from 1800 to 2100. It’s worth the ten minutes it takes to watch.
Finally, i believe we as a species is placing too much faith in technology to save the day. There are some things technology can do, and some it can’t. Moore’s Law is nearing its limit, and whether calculated with a computer, a quantum computer or an abacus, the finite nature of the world’s resources are the same.
I recall that some years ago (not many) someone suggested that we solve our population problem by colonizing the moon, Mars, and other planets or moons. The problem with this is that the 5+Billion people on earth earning less than the average worker in Mexico (see The Gumball Video), add about 80 to 84 million new people each year. Stabilizing the earth’s population through space colonization would mean sending millions to these new locations. EVERY YEAR!! Really? No.
As noted above, tech can do some things and not others. One thing it cannot do is increase the world’s resources. While deposits of some raw materials are abundant, others, even today, are not. As an example, I have provided links to two other videos. One is from USA Today, and one is by National Geographic. Both address the issue of water resources in the United States, specifically the western states dependent on the Colorado River, and other River systems along the West coast.
These videos examine the problems these areas already have today, such as the fact that there has been a 20 year drought in the region, that farmers, not just there, but in other parts of the country - like Kansas, Florida, and others - are pumping billions of gallons of the “fossil” groundwater from aquifers that cannot be recharged, and that Lake Meade’s water level has dropped by 128 feet just during the last 10 years or so. It’s only 200 feet or so from being unusable as a water source.
Please note that neither of these videos mention population growth, except perhaps obliquely.
I do not believe in forcing anyone to do anything, and I support Galt’s idea of living for yourself. But we do not live in a Galtian vacuum, and population growth and resource scarcity will certainly be something we should pay attention to, and do what we can to impact them.
Roy Beck, NumbersUSA
https://youtu.be/VSKNvvhKazM
https://youtu.be/muw22wTePqQ
Hans Rosling - world population
https://youtu.be/2LyzBoHo5EI
World population growth 1800 to2100
https://youtu.be/neAzeAAq0hc
The water crisis - National Geographic
https://youtu.be/3VyfN30XzDM
Pumped dry - The global crisis of vanishing groundwater - USA Today
https://youtu.be/RjsThobgq7Q
United Nations population study
https://www.un.org/press/en/1998/1998...
You're asking people to make conscious lifestyle choices based on things that won't affect them or their children (except the absence of such) or even your children's children - and all based off some future event. The choice to have children and how to provide for them is very much a philosophical/religious decision. It goes right to the heart of one's fundamental beliefs about life, its purpose, how one pursues happiness, etc.
Today the world population adds about 84 million, births over deaths, each year. The world seems to be able to absorb this increase at the present for a time. But unless this number can be reduced, population will at some point increase exponentially, and natural limits will come into play. I believe it best to try to raise awareness and do something now while we can, rather than wait until a major portion of the human population is starving to death, even if that time is 200 years away.
Contrary to that, educating people about overpopulation can see the seeds of understanding and action. You do that by telling them the truth - and it is especially important to do so because the world’s population is increasing at an ever increasing rate due to people living longer because of better nutrition and advances in healthcare - ie, we have and are removing the natural forces that naturally control population.
I strongly recommend the “Gumball Video” at NumbersUSA.com, or you can find it on YouTube.
We can get to “citizen legislators” by instituting Term Limits for both Representatives and Senators. One six-year term for Senators, (repeal the 17th Amendment and return selection of Senators to the legislatures of the several states.) and three terms for Representatives.
It's a far more complex issue than strict government coercion. On the one end you have China with its direct and explicit policies enforcing population control - and destroying their future in the process. On the other end you have the socialist tax policies which make it economically prohibitive to have a large family due to the high cost of living. That's certainly what has happened in the EU which has to supplement its populace with immigrants just to keep it stable. To a lesser degree the United States is starting to fall into the same malaise as in the past few years our birth rate has fallen below replacement.
The thing that makes me shake my head is that all of the redistribution schemes fail when population drops like that because the country inevitably ends up with more takers than producers. And its so transparently obvious that is what is going to happen. The obliviousness of progressives/socialists makes me cringe.
In order for a nation to give, they have to "have" something in the first place. (The US has perverted that by taking advantage of the strength and ubiquity of our currency to give away money we don't have in exchange for taxes on future production.) The problem with socialist nations is that they only survive as long as their producers can out-produce the inevitable rise in spending. So giving money as welfare to other countries hastens their own demise regardless what the other country does with the aid.
The second is the very Europeans who claim to want to "help" yet put trade embargoes on African products. Take cacao for example. The raw cacao beans are grown almost exclusively in Africa. They require a tropical climate. But Europe prohibits importing refined cocoa products from African nations. Those refineries could be generating thousands of jobs for Africans. It's disgusting - and racist.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimat...
We, do we live in a collective?
Western countries are limiting their populations.
"the world is going to collapse into war, poverty, and disaster" What if Atlas/the producers keeps it going?
Ideology/size of government/extent of government intervention etc makes no difference?
No, international wealth redistribution/socialism etc, i.e. it's one/more countries providing welfare to other countries! The receiving country's ideology has got nothing to do with it.
Would the population of Africa have increased from 74 mil in 1820 to a projected 1449 mil[1] in 2030, if they hadn't received outside help i.e. health care, utilization of resources etc?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimat...
Would the population of Africa have increased from 74 mil in 1820 to a projected 1449 mil[1] in 2030, if they hadn't received outside help i.e. health care, utilization of resources etc?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimat...
That's the real problem: how do you motivate people about a hypothetical problem which doesn't apply to them or anyone they know? How do you ask someone to mortgage their present for the possibility that someone hundreds of years in the future (even assuming your timeline is accurate) will thank you - posthumously? Good luck...
Load more comments...