Are You Troubled ENOUGH ?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Maybe or maybe not. This shows growth rate is still positive thru to 2100 so is the 'rapid decline' starting sometime after 2100???
https://www.worldometers.info

Totally agree about the use of resources!

Yes, the curve is still increasing, but the slope is decreasing. That's why I was specific to say the "rate" of increase has been decreasing for decades (which it has). Whether you pick the low end of the models, or the upper ends, we are within sight of the end of population growth, and then into rapid decline. The year 2100 is the blink of an eye from a species level, and the lower end of the UN models put the turning point closer to 2050.

As you say (or agree) the real point is resource over-use by us. Population growth is not the major problem facing this planet. It is a problem, of course, but one with a solution well in hand. The REAL problem is first-world consumption of resources. This problem continues to grow, with no bending of the curve in sight.

If we are to have an honest discussion about "are you troubled enough?" we need to focus on the real problem. But that's hard. It means looking at us. It's easier to point over there and condemn those others who are still having large families. The real problem is us.

Someone mentioned that one of the best answers is to not have kids. This is absolutely true if you live in one of the rich countries. But almost every rich country is already near, or below, replacement birth rates, so we're already doing this.


ADD: GordMay just posted a corroborating item over on his Science & Tech thread: https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3238459

[HeinSdL]

The Guardian again!


https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-50-says-oxfam


There you have the problem, we can see a decline in world population, get rid of 75% of all humans on earth even, but as long as the 1% richest continue to consume as they do now the problem remains... unchanged.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Good thought. Along the same lines, I was always a bit inspired by Mahatma Gandhi's act of spinning a little bit of cotton every day. His rationale was that if everyone did that, there would be no shortage of cloth.

My own homage to that action is that whenever we are out for a walk, I try to pick up at least one piece of litter. Like Gandhi's, maybe it's just a token act, but again the idea is that if everyone picked up one piece of trash that wasn't theirs, parks would be clean in short order, and people would be more mindful of not littering.

"Be the change you want to see" - M Gandhi.

Saving the world one piece of litter at a time? Comparing yourself to Gandhi? Self righteous much? Don't think that you and your stock portfolio are complicit in the ills of this world?
Makes me want to barf.

[Yihang]

Everyone allowed to have two kids now in China. Yay for human rights. I guess two is still an infringement. Everyone should have as many kids as they want right?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Yihang

Everyone allowed to have two kids now in China. Yay for human rights. I guess two is still an infringement. Everyone should have as many kids as they want right?

Even at 2, that's below replacement rates. But China is facing a hard crash in the near future. India will soon overtake China for #1 population.

The fact is, you don't have to coerce most people into not having lots of children. Large families are an evolutionary and social strategy when child mortality is high and more hands = more wealth. When child mortality drops and wealth comes less from manual labour and more from mental labour, large families become a liability, so birth rates go down. If you want to accelerate that, give women real power over the bodies through education and law.

Here's an article which cites a paper published in The Lancet:

World population in 2100 could be 2 billion below UN projections, new study says

Originally Posted by HeinSdL

The Guardian again!

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-50-says-oxfam

There you have the problem, we can see a decline in world population, get rid of 75% of all humans on earth even, but as long as the 1% richest continue to consume as they do now the problem remains... unchanged.

Exactly. That's my point. Focusing on population is a deflection. WE are the real problem.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Saving the world one piece of litter at a time? Comparing yourself to Gandhi? Self righteous much? Don't think that you and your stock portfolio are complicit in the ills of this world?
Makes me want to barf.

Opinions are like a$$h0les. Everyone's got one.

Stay away from the 5G, m'kay?

[CaptWho]

Originally Posted by Tonali99

What?? Truth in hollywood!
I know, and they should have listened to the kids (Steve McQueen) in the blob too.

Think about it. Obviously you don't get it.

[Tonali99]

Originally Posted by CaptWho

Think about it. Obviously you don't get it.

You think on it. We were speaking about movies. Hollywood movies.
Where nobody listens to scientists or children when disaster is about to strike.
Get it now?

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes, the curve is still increasing, but the slope is decreasing. That's why I was specific to say the "rate" of increase has been decreasing for decades (which it has). Whether you pick the low end of the models, or the upper ends, we are within sight of the end of population growth, and then into rapid decline. The year 2100 is the blink of an eye from a species level, and the lower end of the UN models put the turning point closer to 2050.
...............

I keep hearing this claim about a soon approaching rapid decline but I have yet to see anything concrete about the cause of the decline. I understand there could well be unpredictable external elements (natural causes if you will - environmental decline, pandemics et al) but as these are by nature unpredictable, it seems a stretch to put it into a timeline.

If one is relying on humans making the decision to de-populate like you stated upthread

The fact is, you don't have to coerce most people into not having lots of children. Large families are an evolutionary and social strategy when child mortality is high and more hands = more wealth. When child mortality drops and wealth comes less from manual labour and more from mental labour, large families become a liability, so birth rates go down. If you want to accelerate that, give women real power over the bodies through education and law.

, Well I just don't see this happening. Yes, I get there is most likely to be a plateau and quite possibility a shallow decline but not a rapid decline.

The drive to reproduce seems to very strong and my simple brain can't see why this would suddenly turn off even with strong(ish) economic incentives to gather more wealth by having to share it with less people - unless that is code for mass conflicts / wars etc.

[barnakiel]

It is the same like with any other animals. Rodents are a great example. They will multiply until they out-grow the food supply. And then the numbers will drop from thousands to hundreds, year-to-year.


It is sad that humans, with our big and otherwise practical brains, cannot see we are behaving like rodents and heading for rodents' fate.


Having more kids in situation when we do not have more work is quite a recipe for a bad brew. Imho.



b.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I keep hearing this claim about a soon approaching rapid decline but I have yet to see anything concrete about the cause of the decline. I understand there could well be unpredictable external elements (natural causes if you will - environmental decline, pandemics et al) but as these are by nature unpredictable, it seems a stretch to put it into a timeline.

I'm not sure I can fully address "the cause," but the fact is all around you. Almost all developed countries are at, or even below, replacement rates right now. A quick search reveals Australia's local birth rate has been below replacement since 1976. The same goes for Canada, and most other developed nations. The only way we grow these days is through immigration.

The article I cited states: "By century's end, 183 of 195 countries – barring an influx of immigrants -– will have fallen below the replacement threshold needed to maintain population levels, an international team of researchers reported in The Lancet."

Once rates fall below replacement, total population must decrease rapidly. Again, as the article states: "More than 20 countries – including Japan, Spain, Italy, Thailand, Portugal, South Korea and Poland – will see their numbers diminish by at least half. China's will fall nearly that much, from 1.4 billion people today to 730 million in 80 years."

Originally Posted by Wotname

If one is relying on humans making the decision to de-populate like you stated upthread , Well I just don't see this happening. Yes, I get there is most likely to be a plateau and quite possibility a shallow decline but not a rapid decline.

Well, perhaps we disagree on what rapid means. A loss of 700 million people in China over 80 years seems very rapid to me (and to professional demographers).

As for humans making the decision, again, you don't have to take my word (or anyone's word) for it. The evidence is all around you. Here's Australia's fertility rate over the last 75 years. Most developed nations look very similar.

The cause gets us deep into human psychology, but the evidence is clear. Fertility rates decline as societies become more wealthy and better educated. Empowering women accelerates this trend.

Originally Posted by Wotname

The drive to reproduce seems to very strong and my simple brain can't see why this would suddenly turn off even with strong(ish) economic incentives to gather more wealth by having to share it with less people - unless that is code for mass conflicts / wars etc.

It's not about switching the drive to reproduce off. People are still having children, just at a much lower rate. Although it is an interesting question. The declining fertility rates suggest that an increasing number of women are foregoing having any children at all. Drawing on Australian info:

The Australian Bureau of Statistics says that sometime in the next decade, the number of couples without children will overtake the number of couples with.

[toda]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Barny old boy, you got to stop reading that crap, a fair bit of it is fake news written by folk who have a vested interest in making your life miserable. If you can do something about it do, otherwise as the great Ronny said, don't worry, be happy.

Seems to me that your approach is not unlike that of a skipper who chooses to ignore a crew member reporting water in the bilge... "just let the pumps do their job... besides, it could just be a small leak in the water tank... " Choosing to willfully ignore and discount alarms because they do not suit your own world view is, while common, truly distressing to those of us who strive to cease destroying our only home.

[seaquest7]

Doesn't it seem odd that "Fake news" wasn't in the mainstream of discussion before our current administration came to power? Now our current administration discounts everything thing that he doesn't like as "fake news" (which as we all know can even be something he said earlier.) It seems many like-minded people have jumped on the band wagon and those national news organizations they used to accept as trustworthy have all become "fake news" (except one who blindly supports the narcissistic sociopath.) Do you really believe that just because a news outlet doesn't say what you want to hear, that it means it isn't real?

[barnakiel]

Imho, not sustainable :


https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2...ID-800x498.png


I understand others will say sustainable. I respect people and views. I have mine too.



barnakiel

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by seaquest7

Doesn't it seem odd that "Fake news" wasn't in the mainstream of discussion before our current administration came to power? Now our current administration discounts everything thing that he doesn't like as "fake news" (which as we all know can even be something he said earlier.) It seems many like-minded people have jumped on the band wagon and those national news organizations they used to accept as trustworthy have all become "fake news" (except one who blindly supports the narcissistic sociopath.) Do you really believe that just because a news outlet doesn't say what you want to hear, that it means it isn't real?

Without making the thread another political place, you can test your hypothesis by checking timing coincidence with any tool, e.g. google trends:


https://trends.google.com/trends/exp...&q=fake%20news


The answer is clear, but does not require going into detail here.


barnakiel