Do we need a sudden, massive population drop?

[Lallapalalable]

Ive been pondering this for about as long as Ive been aware of its inevitability. Several reasons why this is actually somewhat "attractive" include food scarcity, overpopulation, the over production of manufactured goods that, in the process of making them, cause environmental harm (human and nonhuman), and the violence that acompanies the previous three. If certain events occur that would push this into a reality, and to combat them would be ultimately futile, would it make more sense to just let it happen versus putting energy and money into something that is just going to happen anyway with the added benefit of reducing some of the pressures overpopulation places on us? Bear in mind, Im not referring to genocide but natural disasters here.

I like to think of forest fires as a crude example of why this might/should happen, as, despite the fact that the whole forest burns to the ground, hibernating seeds and organisms that were once struggling to compete now have the opportunity to increase their presence and quality. Its a disaster, but not a total one, and in some cases is necessary for the natural cycle.

Just a thought. Mind I dont fantasize all day about millions to billions of people dying horrifically, but my lack of unconditional human empathy allows me to see even the good in massive scale disasters. Ill elaborate a little more, but for now I wanted to get the idea down.

 

[TheGreekDollmaker]

Frankly,yes i think we really need to drop a few billions of people off the face of the earth.

7 Billion people all wanting a family,a home and a income plus all that food and water, is simply not possible.

There arent enough resources to sastane (Sorry for spelling that wrong) all those people.

The obvious plan is birth control with the use of condom or whatever science will offer us in the future (like a device that enables only a certain amount of poeple to reproduce,through i am dwelving into a 1984's future).

Anything else in my mind would propably be classified as Genocide so lets just leave it at that.

 

[Doc.]

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1707&hilit=overpopulation&start=0

here is an old topic for overpopulation, I couldn't read more than two or three pages of it since it's just WolfAU and Gilliel fighting so you might want to skip some of that.

edited.

 

[Unwardil]

This is why nature is crap.

What kind of system is one where the population must be culled by 90% every given cycle in order to be sustainable.

No, a sudden massive population drop is not necessary, what is necessary is that more people start employing that massive pre-frontal cortex in the pursuit of beating nature at it's own game.

Edit: The good thing about my way of looking at the problem from my perspective is that even if I'm wrong and it's impossible, the massive population reduction will just happen due to natural processes anyway, but at least we'll have tried to do better.

 

[Predanator]

This is why nature is crap.
what is necessary is that more people start employing that massive pre-frontal cortex in the pursuit of beating nature at it's own game.

My massive pre-frontal cortex says this is incorrect. People must preserve nature either by living within its systems or by removing themselves from nature. Beating nature leads to extinction.

Colonizing other planets, living in subterranean cities, or living with the great Lando Calrissian in the sky :lol: are much better options than human and non-human extinction events.

 

[Unwardil]

Well, when I say beating nature at it's own game, those are the kinds of things I'm referring to, or contraception or genetically engineered food grown in vertical farms, huge water desalinization facilities and generally taking control of all the things that natural processes are in control of at the moment. You know, solutions instead of mass culling.

 

[Lallapalalable]

The obvious plan is birth control with the use of condom or whatever science will offer us in the future (like a device that enables only a certain amount of poeple to reproduce,through i am dwelving into a 1984's future).

This is being tried, in africa and elsewhere, and is simply not working. Yeah, developed nations are doing this, and some are flat out banning having more than one kid (china). Even that is not working, as china's main export is extra babies. The thing about birth control is that everyone needs to participate, and that aint gonna happen because sex is just too irresistable and access to contraception is too limited in the third world. You can airlift as many condoms as you want, but people living in horrendous conditions are going to try to squeeze every last bit of pleasure they can out of what little they have, and condoms take just enough out of sex that not using them seems better at the moment. Worse yet, I imagine certain religious doctrines prevailent in the third world would ban contraception, so, again, it just isnt a feasable approach.

 

[Unwardil]

So... Condoms, not feasible, but... H-Bombs would be, theoretically acceptable? Obviously, I'm putting words in your mouth, but exactly how do we go about deciding who gets culled and who lives?

Also, what's wrong with helping countries to industrialize?

 

[Lallapalalable]

You know, solutions instead of mass culling.

Thats all well and good, if that was the main issue (distribution of supplies and contraception). I already laid my case on contraception, and as for bigger and better infrastructure, there will still come a time when even that will not be enough. You find a way to feed 20000 people off of one acre of land? Awesome! Unfortunately, this will give us a margin and well think "Hey, we can now get even BIGGER! Yay!" and so we develop and develop and reproduce until we are literally maxed out of land (not even a local square mile available for recreation :cry: ). Then what do we do? Perhaps by then contraception will no longer be a taboo to certain cultures, and we can sustain that. Thats a big if, though. Of course that's favorable, but if we again reach our population maximum, it would have just delayed the inevitable.

Besides, nature commits mass cullings all the time, and it usually works out for the surviving population quite favorably, as well as other species.

So... Condoms, not feasible, but... H-Bombs would be, theoretically acceptable? Obviously, I'm putting words in your mouth, but exactly how do we go about deciding who gets culled and who lives?

Also, what's wrong with helping countries to industrialize?

I never presented that we actually go ahead and commit this ourselves, but if a natural course of events (within and without our practices) were to cause such a scenario, should we just allow it to happen (as in justify it as necessary), especially if our interference would do nothing to counter it. I believe such a situation is near inevitable at some point in the future, and we may even face it during our lifetimes.

And I am merely stating that right now the third world is where most of the effects are being seen, while not because of overpopulation per se, but it is a pantomime of what the situation will look like. More people than resources, so it pretty much illustrates what I am going at.

And Im not talking about not allowing/helping the third world to develop or industrialize. I was saying that simply industrializing wont really make a world of difference in this issue except maybe in the timeline. China and India are second and first world, depending on the region, and they have overpopulation issues even.

I dunno, this is getting a bit long, so Ill leave it at that and if theres anything else Ill get to it later.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

exactly how do we go about deciding who gets culled and who lives?

Ah, there's the rub. Obviously, the well meaning intellectuals will need to live so that they can order society!

It's easy to advocate mass murder/sterilization if you consider yourself exempt.

 

[Unwardil]

Besides, nature commits mass cullings all the time, and it usually works out for the surviving population quite favorably, as well as other species.

Except, obviously, when it causes mass extinction which happens in say, Oh, 99.9% of species?

I never presented that we actually go ahead and commit this ourselves, but if a natural course of events (within and without our practices) were to cause such a scenario, should we just allow it to happen (as in justify it as necessary), especially if our interference would do nothing to counter it. I believe such a situation is near inevitable at some point in the future, and we may even face it during our lifetimes.

And I'm saying if we sit back and just let it happen without doing absolutely everything in our power to prevent it, it will signify a massive backsliding of morality and progress. I don't think it's acceptable to allow people to die simply because they are too ignorant to save themselves. It shocks me that capitalism hasn't clued into the fact that several billions of people represent several billions of potential customers and that if only they had enough wealth to employ rich services, it would make everybody richer, because it's so fucking obvious.

Why aren't energy companies donating a good percentage of their earnings into industrializing African countries. They have so very very much to gain by doing so and almost nothing to lose. It's like opium, only in addition to being addictive, it actually increases the quality of life rather than decreasing it.

Boggles my mind, and of course, it's been shown that as a population becomes more technologically advanced, birth rates drop all by themselves without the need for regulation.


As to the problem of food production per hectare of land, build up and build down. The world isn't 2 dimensional and you can always build up, even if you have to build all the way to the moon and to the asteroid belt and to europa and to alpha centaury, you're never going to run out of up to build into.

Edit: Even if something is inevitable, that's no reason not to fight against it. The very act of being alive is to rail against the inevitability of death. If death is the inevitable end, why bother to fight it?

 

[UrbanMasque]

exactly how do we go about deciding who gets culled and who lives?

Ah, there's the rub. Obviously, the well meaning intellectuals will need to live so that they can order society!

It's easy to advocate mass murder/sterilization if you consider yourself exempt.

There are LARGE amounts of people who think that the world is over populated and that this dilemma needs to be resolved soon - I propose these people volunteer themselves as martyrs for this cause.

 

[Lallapalalable]

It's easy to advocate mass murder/sterilization if you consider yourself exempt.

whether or not its advocated at all, it may still very well be a necessity. Its just if nothing happens at all the aftermath may be far, far worse than what would help us avoid it.

ie, on the subject of H-bombs: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were considered favorable over invading, as they (possibly) avoided a larger number of casualties, civilian and uniformed. It doesn't excuse the act, but it was deemed more humane than the alternative.

Still, Im not saying we should actively engage in the process, but if it occurs naturally or as the side effect of our own actions, it would ultimately be a positive thing (although I believe it would be considered a tragedy from a historical standpoint in terms of lives lost)

 

[Lallapalalable]

Besides, nature commits mass cullings all the time, and it usually works out for the surviving population quite favorably, as well as other species.

Except, obviously, when it causes mass extinction which happens in say, Oh, 99.9% of species?

Im not talking about mass extinction, but a significant drop in the population of a given species. For instance, a certain population of elk in Yellowstone was placed under the protected species list, and as a result the population exploded due to lack of hunting. They quickly depleted all of their resources and began to starve. One of the solutions was to allow hunting to continue once more, and the population soon returned to a stable level. Its nature, you cant have too many of one species running around, because they all need the same limited resources that can only sustain a given population.

And I'm saying if we sit back and just let it happen without doing absolutely everything in our power to prevent it, it will signify a massive backsliding of morality and progress...

Edit: Even if something is inevitable, that's no reason not to fight against it. The very act of being alive is to rail against the inevitability of death. If death is the inevitable end, why bother to fight it?

Maybe, but as I said it will be an incident with no means to combat, and despite any effort made, it will happen. Sure, we can go and try, and maybe even save a small portion, but in the end it will just be a massive waste of energy and resources (the very resources we would be fighting for, ima). So, in the best (perhaps only) interests for the survival of the remainder, it would be more reasonable to just let it happen. Hell, we may not even HAVE the resources to combat it, so trying to stop it may not even be a choice. Bear in mind it will be a very different social and political environment than today.

 

[Eidolon]

The solution isn't culling, its prevention.

Contraceptives will help yes, but there is much more to it than that. We need to get rid of this idea that most societies have about having kids, in that a family should consist of 3,4 or even 15 kids! 1-2 kids is more than plenty, 15 is a joke. Its mostly religious reason for people having so many kids, be it catholics believing "every sperm is sacred" or muslims just fucking like there weren't 70+ virgins waiting for them, or random idiots just idiotically fucking and getting pregnant just because they are too fucking stupid to do otherwise.

Abortion would help too. If you don't have the means, the want or the will to raise a child, then get an abortion. Don't burden it on others by putting up for adoption. I know alot of groups say that there are many people who would want the kid and raise it, but there are alot of kids out there already who will never be adopted and adding more to the system is not going to help. Not every fetus needs to, or should be born if it is not wanted.

I guess the ultimate and best answer would be education. Educate the people better about what kind of harm having a dozen kids will have on both them and the planet, and maybe they will rethink the whole "kids are a miracle" thing.

Just my answers. I really have no idea what else could work.

 

[Unwardil]

The difference... Ok, ONE OF the differences between humans and elks is that if a human is in need of something, we have the ability not only to reason that we need it, but to actively see to it's production. Elks are unable to do both.

So, if a person requires more food, we have the ability to go out and MAKE that food, to devote our time an energy to that goal, whereas an elk can only SEARCH for that food. If none is to be found, it is SOL. Not so with people. Only when it proves impossible to actually create said food are we S.O.L. but I for one would not be quick to discount human ingenuity.

 

[Lallapalalable]

The difference... Ok, ONE OF the differences between humans and elks is that if a human is in need of something, we have the ability not only to reason that we need it, but to actively see to it's production. Elks are unable to do both.

So, if a person requires more food, we have the ability to go out and MAKE that food, to devote our time an energy to that goal, whereas an elk can only SEARCH for that food. If none is to be found, it is SOL. Not so with people. Only when it proves impossible to actually create said food are we S.O.L. but I for one would not be quick to discount human ingenuity.

Okay, point taken, and I was just using that as an illustrative point.

But, as I said, that would just be delaying the event, and with a potentially larger population of the future more will die. I take into consideration your point that you can always build up, but there is a limit to that as well, regarding resources to do that. there is only so much matter on earth. Given that, again it will just delay it. I do agree with you, however, that if we develop interplanetary development, it could very well solve this issue. One problem, however, is do we have enough time for that?

 

[Lallapalalable]

Eidolon, you do make a very good point. I do, however, display my lack of hope that this will work, just as you pointed to the catholic and muslim family habits. Unfortunately, until those beliefs are crossed over from, this is just wishfull thinking.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

This UN population projection from Wikipedia predicts global population could double to 14B in 90 years. The graph looks fishy to me, but at least it adds some quantitative measures to the issue. Note that the UN's red "high estimate" is actually lower than one would expect from extrapolating the current curve. The red curve continues to climb at 2055, but at a lower rate. Where did they get that from?

World population doubled from 3B in 1960 to 6B in 2000. If this rate remains steady it still underestimates world population growth because birth rates, according to the chart itself, are accelerating. Therefore the Earth could be looking at 12B by 2040 and 36B by 2100, which is nearly twice the UN's "high" estimate of 14B.

Then there are the dramatic drops in the the gold and green lines that represent the UN's middle and low estimates. Could these drops represent anything but a mid-21st century disaster? :idea:

In addition to these woes, family planning volunteerism is unfairly subjected to religious over-regulation. This article at http://www.population-security.org/issue_s.htm explains the little-known and under-appreciated role of the Catholic church in shaping the UN World Health Organization's quarter-century non-response to third world family planning.

Something is going to have to take care of over-population for us, and it looks like it'll be arriving in 2-3 decades and it's not going to be saying "please" and "thank-you."

 

[Eidolon]

Then there are the dramatic drops in the the gold and green lines that represent the UN's middle and low estimates. Could these drops represent anything but a mid-21st century disaster? :idea:

Possibly accounting for World War III?

Its going to happen eventually.