World population is growing 20 million people every 3 months

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

An interesting stat to consider. The population of Australia being added to the world every 100 days. This planet is screwed.

They, "the experts" and "Sources Say", have been telling us that the planet is screwed since the Bogus "Population Bomb" book back in the 70s. The doom and gloomers always have doom and gloom to sale, that's what they do. What next...the earth is running out Tacos?

It's Bogus Folks.
Technology has solved every Panic Crises the Doom and Groomers can dream up...so why do they have any credibility left? Because fear sells.

I'll be taking THIRD DAY back to Mexico soon, so the Taco problem will be covered! You guys can panic about the fake news all you want.

Sounds like the Progressives are about to go on a Eugenics Path again to weed out the inferiors and less desirables....we have seen how that works out.

[kalbahnov]

Originally Posted by AiniA

Sometimes it is good to temper real life experience with some research. I found a very interesting site with historical data.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility/

.

It’s good to look at data but another thing entirely to understand what it’s telling you. On that I think we are all speculating.

My own opinion is that, while there is a superficial correlation between development and a lowering of the birth rate, that’s not so much about rising wealth but as about the increased competitive pressures of more advanced economies which give rise to late marriage, broken families and all the familiar elements of modern life.

Not to oversimplify. There are many factors to this, from the amount that must be invested in any given child to ensure their success in life to the fundamental historical shift from children being a source of wealth (more hands on the farm) to being a cost (more tuitions). But no matter how you look at it, it’s not because we’re so happy, but because the burden of competing in a first world economy is so high, that the birth rate has fallen.

I think it’s sad that we look at this devastation and say, “behold, it is good”, because it seems to let us off the Malthusian hook.

But I think the sadder thing is, we’re almost certainly still on that hook anyway. At some point in the not very distant future, when the robots have taken over and competitive pressures have normalized to historical levels, I suspect that the birth rate in advanced economies will go up again.

Hopefully, by then, we’ll have colonized space and the problem can be dealt with in a non-tragic way.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

They, "the experts" and "Sources Say", have been telling us that the planet is screwed since the Bogus "Population Bomb" book back in the 70s. The doom and gloomers always have doom and gloom to sale, that's what they do. What next...the earth is running out Tacos?

It's Bogus Folks.
Technology has solved every Panic Crises the Doom and Groomers can dream up...so why do they have any credibility left? Because fear sells.

I'll be taking THIRD DAY back to Mexico soon, so the Taco problem will be covered! You guys can panic about the fake news all you want.

Sounds like the Progressives are about to go on a Eugenics Path again to weed out the inferiors and less desirables....we have seen how that works out.

No not running out of tacos. Just running low on something much more important "SALSA" Is the next casulty.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Navicula

Now Mother Nature really controls the planet and she sees us humans as a virus

Did you speak to her personally about that?
Where did you meet her? What does she look like?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Sounds like the Progressives are about to go on a Eugenics Path again to weed out the inferiors and less desirables....we have seen how that works out.

Yep, they're realising that the CAGW bandwagon is running out of steam (and money), so now it's on to "the next big scare"™

[StuM]

Originally Posted by kalbahnov

My own opinion is that, while there is a superficial correlation between development and a lowering of the birth rate, that’s not so much about rising wealth but as about the increased competitive pressures of more advanced economies which give rise to late marriage, broken families and all the familiar elements of modern life.

I agree that t's not wealth per se, but it's not "late marriage, broken families and all the familiar elements of modern life". That is very much a first world problem.

The lower birth rates with development are more about the improved health, living conditions and access to education that come with development.

The big boom in population comes when improved maternal and child health care result in lower maternal and infant mortality before better education and improved quality of life catch up. We've seen it happen time after time in different countries and even in different regions within a country.

Improved maternal/child health is always invariably a first step in the development process. We've seen a huge early emphasis placed on it by just about every aid agency in the world.

The problem is that it takes at least one full generation, if not two or three, for those other lifestyle improvements to be reflected in the desire/need for smaller families so mortality goes down but conception rates don't and you get a huge bulge in the demographics.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

Here is the data trap associated with assuming population growth will decrease because this trend has been seen in places like Europe. . .

On the contrary, I think it's by now well proven, that people across all cultural lines, tend to behave the same and want broadly the same things, as they progress through different stages of development.

Very high birth rates occur in undeveloped rural populations who are on the borderline of the money economy, provided there is enough food and stability for lots of children to survive. It makes sense for such people to have lots of children, because that supplies labor to the family, and the means of support for the parents in their old age.

The same paradigm simply makes no sense when people move to the city and fully join the money economy. City dwellers with education and jobs and expensive living space simply don't have 8 kids except in the rarest of cases, because it makes no sense. In that setting, the kids don't provide profitable labor at 6 years old, on the contrary, they have to be educated and raised and invested in, and you have to pay for the square meters of living space for them to grow up in. So the child, as an economic thing, flips right around backwards from being an asset, to a big liability, so you don't have more than you need for love, continuation of the family line, etc. This is not a culture-specific phenomenon.


Development and urbanization are trends which cross all cultural lines, so you can be absolutely sure that the Sudanese, say, when they reach the level of development which China has today, when they are all in the money economy and mostly living in cities, will no longer be having 8 children per family. China -- again! -- shows how explosively fast this can happen. Since 2000 -- only 17 years! -- China has gone from a deeply rural, primitive society, with only 36% of people living in cities, to an urban one, with nearly 60% (!) in cities. We can be absolutely sure that the same thing will happen in Africa -- not as fast of course, but it will happen. And when it does, the birth rate will fall off a cliff.


Resources are not the source of wealth. We consume as much of them as we can afford. Americans consume lot of them just because we can, not because we have to. If resources get scarce, prices for them go up, and we adapt and consume less of them. Fresh water is one resource which cannot be replaced with something else, and which may become a problem in coming decades. But this is also a problem which is entirely solvable, just like food has become a non-issue (I mean, producing enough of it; getting it to everyone is a different question) despite the limited supply of farmland.

No one is going to be killing each other over resources, at least not on any global scale. We have markets and prices to sort out access to resources, and the prices regulate how much of them we consume.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Population numbers are definitely a huge global problem. But data currently predicts a peaking sometime around the mid-century, followed by a decline. It’s not great, but at least it is a problem which appears to show some light at the end of the tunnel.

Population in itself is not the problem. The problem is resource use. Lots of people mean lots of resource use, but so does high intensity of resource use. If Americans (and all developed nations) want to worry about global problems we should look at our consumption of global resources. Our contribution to the global resource-(over)use problem shows no sign of slowing.

Most of the world dosent use toilet paper let alone drive cars or own refrigerators....we the smaller percentage use the majority of resources, the rest of the world wants to be like us, that's when that needing another four planets probably comes into play.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by StuM

Yep, they're realising that the CAGW bandwagon is running out of steam (and money), so now it's on to "the next big scare"™

Kinda funny how quiet it was about the ipcc summit last month in Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No one is going to be killing each other over resources, at least not on any global scale. We have markets and prices to sort out access to resources,

WHAT!!!!!!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Are you familiar with this substance called petroleum? Well let me tell you a story...you may need to sit down for this one.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by daletournier

Most of the world dosent use toilet paper let alone drive cars or own refrigerators....we the smaller percentage use the majority of resources, the rest of the world wants to be like us, that's when that needing another four planets probably comes into play.

I agree. Wealth in terms of access to greater resources and education and real power over one’s owe destiny correlate well with lower fertility rates and slower (or negative) population growth. Unfortunately this also correlates well with increased intensity of resource use — kinda stating the obvious I suppose. If we want First World fertility rates we’ll apparently get First World resource use of global resources.

So… where did those four extra Earths go?? I’m sure they’re around here somewhere

Dockhead, we’re already killing each other for resources. It’s not hard to argue that’s the only reason groups (packs, tribes, nations, allies) have ever killed other groups.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

WHAT!!!!!!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Are you familiar with this substance called petroleum? Well let me tell you a story...you may need to sit down for this one.

Was thinking along the same lines. People have been killing other people (in large numbers)over resources since time began, cant see that improving as resources such as oil are depleted.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by StuM

Yep, they're realising that the CAGW bandwagon is running out of steam (and money), so now it's on to "the next big scare"™

StuM, you don't believe in the UN's position on global warming? The jury is out for me, haven't read enough about it to really form an opinion.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

It's Bogus Folks.
Technology has solved every Panic Crises the Doom and Groomers can dream up...so why do they have any credibility left? Because fear sells.

So Rich, your solution is hide and rely on blind faith in technology to solve everything?

And you think it is perfectly sublime that the population of the planet has doubled in our lifetime?

I must admit that I would rather hope we could populate Mars and other planets with technology before we are forced to do so, but I believe a lower energy path will result first.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Kinda funny how quiet it was about the ipcc summit last month in Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.

That wasn't a summit, it was just another of their 6 monthly jaunts for the faithful to the various world tourist spots paid for by taxpayers.