starship earth

Unrestrained procreation is fine enough when the abundance of nature sates our needs. But ultimately the resources are limited, and a balance must be struck or our species dies out.
Are we cancer on the face of earth, growing growing growing until we kill the host?

Originally posted by apathist
Unrestrained procreation is fine enough when the abundance of nature sates our needs. But ultimately the resources are limited, and a balance must be struck or our species dies out.
Are we cancer on the face of earth, growing growing growing until we kill the host?

We are more like a disease that a species has. It typically does not kill the whole species because of the dependency. We will not go extinct due to resource mismanagement. We might not all get as rich as Americans. I actually doubt we will see significant population decline due to resource mismanagement either. The fact is that the resources we are mismanaging are mostly luxuries or in abundance. All we really need to survive is food, and there is no shortage of that or places to grow it. The problem is not the food or the land but how it is managed politically. We are wreaking havoc on nature but the vast majority of nature is not essential to us. It is a 'nice to have' certainly, but it doesn't affect our livelihood.

Now since you always complain that I do not give highly detailed explanations for my comments, which of the above would you like me to expand on in more detail? See if you can ask before calling me a troll.

Originally posted by apathist
Unrestrained procreation is fine enough when the abundance of nature sates our needs. But ultimately the resources are limited, and a balance must be struck or our species dies out.
Are we cancer on the face of earth, growing growing growing until we kill the host?

The world's population growth has been slowing for a while and is expected to continue to slow until population hits around 10 billion people where it will likely stabilize. The few places in the world where you still have significant population growth are all fairly poor and as the standard of living increases in those areas their populations will stabilize as they have in the West. Meanwhile continued technological development means that we (can) utilize our resources ever more efficiently.

Originally posted by twhitehead...
Now since you always complain that I do not give highly detailed explanations for my comments, which of the above would you like me to expand on in more detail? See if you can ask before calling me a troll.

You're not a troll. I appreciate that you've considered my complaints, and accept your rebuke.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The world's population growth has been slowing for a while and is expected to continue to slow until population hits around 10 billion people where it will likely stabilize. The few places in the world where you still have significant population growth are all fairly poor and as the standard of living increases in those areas their populations will stabili ...[text shortened]... continued technological development means that we (can) utilize our resources ever more efficiently.

I'm aware that the growth rate slows for the first world. "Stabilize" implies the birth rate stops exceeding the death rate, and I wonder why you expect that to happen. On a star-ship, we have to require stabilization of population.

Originally posted by apathist
You're not a troll. I appreciate that you've considered my complaints, and accept your rebuke.

Thank you. And I am genuinely willing to go into more detail on any of my points should you be interested.

Originally posted by twhitehead
...We will not go extinct due to resource mismanagement. ...

Non-renewable resources run out. Polluted air and water become poison. Unfair distribution leads to wwIII. We all die one way or the other. Unless what now?

Originally posted by apathist
I'm aware that the growth rate slows for the first world. "Stabilize" implies the birth rate stops exceeding the death rate, and I wonder why you expect that to happen. On a star-ship, we have to require stabilization of population.

Most of the world is already reproducing at below replacement. At the current point in time, birth rates still exceed death rates even in countries where such 'below replacement' statistics exist because increased health has delayed death.
The only significant exception is Africa where birthrates are still high and there is no clear indication as to when that will change. High birthrates tend to encourage poverty and war which in turn keep birthrates high.
If, however, Africa follows the rest of the world, then in a hundred years or so if we haven't solved ageing, the world population will start to decline quite dramatically. This may be a good thing for a while, but at some point humanity will have to decide what to do about it. Baby factories perhaps?

Originally posted by apathist
Non-renewable resources run out.

Sure. But as I said, the vast majority of those are luxuries not essentials so we won't die, we will just have to live with less. The reality is though that there aren't that many non-renewables that are even essential for a particular lifestyle. There are usually replacements.

And the other reality is that the vast majority of the worlds population doesn't have those luxuries anyway. In fact if Trump ruins america, then problem solved.

Fossil fuels for example should not be allowed to run out because the the environmental damage they cause is a problem long before they are exhausted. Luckily wind and solar and other renewables are now cheaper anyway.

Almost all minerals can be found in easy to get places and hard to get places. When we run out of easy places then we ether start using a different mineral or go for the hard to get places. A surprising number of them are recyclable. Iron for example is extensively recycled.

Polluted air and water become poison.
True, but that is not permanent. Turn off the coal plants and the air will clear in days. Water takes longer depending on where we are talking about.

Unfair distribution leads to wwIII.
Now thats another topic. Unfair distribution has been the cause of more deaths than all wars put together and has happened regardless of actual available global supplies.

We all die one way or the other. Unless what now?
Unless we find a cure for ageing, yes, we all die. But apart from nukes, war never kills everyone. One side wins and lives to fight another day. Nukes yes, they worry me - especially with Trumps finger on the button. I just have to hope that it was Trump supporters that designed the system then I can be safe in the knowledge that the button doesn't actually work.

Originally posted by apathist
I'm aware that the growth rate slows for the first world. "Stabilize" implies the birth rate stops exceeding the death rate, and I wonder why you expect that to happen. On a star-ship, we have to require stabilization of population.

Regardless of why it happened - it has happened in about 80% of the world. So I expect it to happen because it has.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Most of the world is already reproducing at below replacement. ...

Can you support that.

Originally posted by apathist
Can you support that.

I suggest starting here:
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/

Originally posted by twhitehead...I just have to hope that it was Trump supporters that designed the system then I can be safe in the knowledge that the button doesn't actually work.

I'm having trouble accepting your optimism, but Iove that you showed some humor.

Trump? Witness the beginning of the end, right here now. I try to imagine a fly on the wall, and puke. Royals vs serfs hasn't ended yet.

Originally posted by apathist
I'm having trouble accepting your optimism, but Iove that you showed some humor.

Trump? Witness the beginning of the end, right here now. I try to imagine a fly on the wall, and puke. Royals vs serfs hasn't ended yet.

There are lots of problems on planet Earth for mankind - out of control population growth isn't one of them.

Originally posted by apathist
Royals vs serfs hasn't ended yet.

I am well aware of that. I am also aware of the fundamental problem with that endless war. Serfs are typically uneducated, and otherwise disadvantaged. That isn't always the case. The French revolution and other similar revolutions took place when there were highly intelligent well educated people in the disadvantaged section that wanted change. The problem with the Trump revolution is it appears that the disaffected people are divided. There are those that wan't change but are stupid and chose Trump and there are those that want change but are further to the left and thus went for Bernie. This division reduced the power of those that want change. Those that don't want change saw the opportunity and used divide and conquer.

The other major problem with revolution is it is extremely difficult to effect major change quickly without disrupting the economy or worse (civil war) and if your desire for change is driven by economic considerations, you need to be really desperate to make things much worse before they get better.