population decline

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

With all of the talk of incentivizing people to have more kids, where has it been established that we need that? We are moving more and more to technology replacing the need for many careers, so a gradual decline (or less growth) might be what we need.

Not to mention that we fail as a country to fully care for our youth today. Healthcare and schools are overall inadequate. Before we start to encourage more kids, why don’t we figure out the care part first. And yes that probably means the well-off taxpayers need to put in more to make it happen.  Which means we won’t do anything because enough loud taxpayers won’t. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Nice Guy Eddie

[bonnieblue 542]

Although cost, time, support etc. are significant factors, I would assume the main thing that birthrate hinges on is the combination of 1) access to birth control and 2) opportunity/education for women. A lot (but of course, not all) of women hate pregnancy (myself included) and don’t want their lives to consist of nothing beyond having/raising children. 0-2 can be doable to have well-balanced lives, but once you get into the 3+ range, the woman is likely going to need to sacrifice a lot of her life to make this happen. My grandmother was a super cool lady - combat nurse and avid sailor. She had 8 children, but didn’t have access to birth control or many options outside of wife/mother after the war ended. She would have much preferred living in the world today and only having 0-1 children.

[YGIFS 19450]

46 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

With all of the talk of incentivizing people to have more kids, where has it been established that we need that? We are moving more and more to technology replacing the need for many careers, so a gradual decline (or less growth) might be what we need.

Not to mention that we fail as a country to fully care for our youth today. Healthcare and schools are overall inadequate. Before we start to encourage more kids, why don’t we figure out the care part first. And yes that probably means the well-off taxpayers need to put in more to make it happen.  Which means we won’t do anything because enough loud taxpayers won’t. 

Because certain people are frightened there won't be enough new people that look/worship/vote like them and instead another set of new people whom are "different."  

I don't know that this is the right term but it seems to me like most of this falls under "Population Policy."  And not in a bad way like 1-child in China or Final Solution in Germany.  But Western and most Asiatic nations are contemplating everything from tax incentives, child care, pre-K, parental leave from work, public early education, abortion, birth control, adoption policies, work/life balance, technology replacements, geography, immigration, anti-immigration, shifting of resources, etc.  It's all window dressing for the simple truth---90% of this is being decided by men and only 10% by women.  That is a recipe for fucking disaster.  And one we deserve.  

[CooterBrown 18012]

The biggest issue with a shrinking population is that we need a complete sea change with how we approach our economy and personal financial security. Unless we can rid ourselves of the “fuck you, I got mine” mindset, a shrinking population is bad news for societal stability. As long as corporations run the country, and corporations are driven by quarterly returns, shit ain’t changing.

[KYHorn 17060]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

With all of the talk of incentivizing people to have more kids, where has it been established that we need that? We are moving more and more to technology replacing the need for many careers, so a gradual decline (or less growth) might be what we need.

Not to mention that we fail as a country to fully care for our youth today. Healthcare and schools are overall inadequate. Before we start to encourage more kids, why don’t we figure out the care part first. And yes that probably means the well-off taxpayers need to put in more to make it happen.  Which means we won’t do anything because enough loud taxpayers won’t. 

 

3 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Because certain people are frightened there won't be enough new people that look/worship/vote like them and instead another set of new people whom are "different."  

I don't know that this is the right term but it seems to me like most of this falls under "Population Policy."  And not in a bad way like 1-child in China or Final Solution in Germany.  But Western and most Asiatic nations are contemplating everything from tax incentives, child care, pre-K, parental leave from work, public early education, abortion, birth control, adoption policies, work/life balance, technology replacements, geography, immigration, anti-immigration, shifting of resources, etc.  It's all window dressing for the simple truth---90% of this is being decided by men and only 10% by women.  That is a recipe for fucking disaster.  And one we deserve.  

To address aspects of both comments: women in western countries generally say they want more children than they end up actually having and they end up regretting it. So, even outside of issues related to the impact of lower birthrates, the current policies and systems are preventing women from doing what they say they'd like to do. 

I also don't think it's fair to characterize people who are concerned with lower birthrates as being motivated by fear of immigration. There are certainly some, but, as Cooter said, these types of shifts create instability that can dramatically affect peoples' livelihoods- and not just the wealthy and stockholders. Teachers will almost certainly be some of the first impacted by declining populations. I generally agree that we can adjust to these changes through improved efficiency, but the more gradual we can make it, the better. As others have said, the world population will start to decline and while we may be able to temporarily fix our issues with immigration, that will only lead to greater inequality with the countries they are emigrating from. 

[CHIEF 5087]

I remembered this thread from last year in CYHMWT. It was LTBear asking about having kids or not. Several of the posters in this thread, commented on that one too. Posters telling why they decided to have kids or not. I thought I would add a link, here, if anyone wants to see the mindset of people who wanted kids, and those that did not:

CHIEF

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

7 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Because certain people are frightened there won't be enough new people that look/worship/vote like them and instead another set of new people whom are "different."  

I don't know that this is the right term but it seems to me like most of this falls under "Population Policy."  And not in a bad way like 1-child in China or Final Solution in Germany.  But Western and most Asiatic nations are contemplating everything from tax incentives, child care, pre-K, parental leave from work, public early education, abortion, birth control, adoption policies, work/life balance, technology replacements, geography, immigration, anti-immigration, shifting of resources, etc.  It's all window dressing for the simple truth---90% of this is being decided by men and only 10% by women.  That is a recipe for fucking disaster.  And one we deserve.  

You are literally just beating the shit out of a straw man here. Nobody is saying women should be forced to breed, lose access to birth control and nobody is worried about lack of white babies. It’s beyond obvious that in 500 years we will all be mixed race- and truly that might be a couple hundred years. Nothing done on population right now is going to affect me and mine. It would be a couple hundred years before it happens in America. 
we will use immigration to prop up our decline if birth rates in America. Our rates aren’t scary bad like China or Russia. We will easily be able to supplement. Of course- this will further destabilize countries where those people are coming from which is a net loss to humanity- but hey- America will be ok. 

[YGIFS 19450]

"Nobody is saying women be forced to carry babies to term"?  That's what "breed" means, you know.  We can dress it up however you want.  Nobody is saying women should be forced to lose access to birth control?  Nobody is worries about lack of white procreation?  Are you out of your fucking mind?  You're one of the smartest people I know.  A perfunctory review of basic mainstream news headlines.  Women must carry babies to term.  Women are about to be stripped of birth control rights.  People are concerned with the proliferation of brown babies.  This is not political hyperbole.  This has already happened.  This is the final solution to the stupid question.  

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

Yale prof.  Japan’s solution? Mass seppuku. 
 

Quote

His pronouncements could hardly sound more drastic.

In interviews and public appearances, Yusuke Narita, an assistant professor of economics at Yale, has taken on the question of how to deal with the burdens of Japan’s rapidly aging society.

“I feel like the only solution is pretty clear,” he said during one online news program in late 2021. “In the end, isn’t it mass suicide and mass ‘seppuku’ of the elderly?” Seppuku is an act of ritual disembowelment that was a code among dishonored samurai in the 19th century.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/12/world/asia/japan-elderly-mass-suicide.html
 

 

[YGIFS 19450]

mass ritual disembowelment of the elderly in Japan?  Seems a tad extreme.  I got a solution that doesn't even include swords.

Note to self:  Secure franchise rights to Golden Corral in Tokyo.

[mchookem 16336]

On 2/9/2023 at 4:06 PM, crash_davis said:

Got damned Gen Z male orcas! When will they every fucking leave the house?

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/09/1155460644/killer-whale-moms-are-still-supporting-their-adult-sons-and-its-costing-them?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

And here's the striking thing — since K35 was born two decades ago, his mom has never had another calf. Contrast that with other females in the population.

"Some whales started reproducing at the same age around the same time," says Weiss, "and they had daughters. And they've produced three or four offspring."

ANIMALS

Mysterious Type Of Killer Whale, Sought After For Years, Found In Southern Ocean

It's not just K16. In a paper out this week in the journal Current Biology, Weiss and his colleagues looked back across four decades of life history records of Southern Resident killer whales in the Pacific Northwest. The trend was clear:

"Killer whale mothers pay a really huge cost to take care of their sons," says Weiss. That cost is that they have fewer offspring. "And they do this throughout their son's life and never really stop paying that cost to keep their sons alive."

In fact, when a mom dies, her son usually perishes within a year or two. "We think that is largely because they're seeing a huge reduction in the amount of food they get," explains Weiss.

Weiss can't think of another animal that makes this never-ending investment when it has the option of reproducing multiple times. So why would these orca moms sacrifice so much for their sons? Weiss argues the potential payoff is huge.

"K35 is now one of our biggest males in the population," says Weiss. "He's grown big and healthy and looks good."

That means he's ready to become a father.

"Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the next few calves that get popped out in the population are his," says Weiss.

The result is that his mom would become a grandmother multiple times over. Her genes would end up in a bunch of calves. And because they'll be born into other pods, she wouldn't have to spend any effort raising them.

"It's an amazing piece of work," says Eve Jourdain, the director of the Norwegian Orca Survey. Jourdain, who wasn't involved in the study, is hoping to conduct a similar research project in Norway.

"There could be direct comparisons possible across populations," says Jourdain. "And only then can we start getting a better understanding of how important it is for the conservation of those different populations."

It's worth mentioning that this strategy of moms investing so much in their sons has a dark side. Southern Resident killer whales like K16 and K35 are in trouble. In recent years, the population has cratered to just 73 animals. And what these orcas really need right now is more reproductive females.

"That's how you keep a population of slow-breeding animals going," says Weiss. "So investing in sons for a population like ours that is so stressed is really not ideal."

Weiss worries that this maternal strategy, which served this population so well in the past, could raise their risk of extinction — that the kind of lifelong bonds he's seen between K16 and her son may tether these creatures to an uncertain fate.

Quote

 

These two have an extremely close social relationship," says Michael Weiss, the research director at the Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington.

...Weiss has observed the mom and son pair spending a lot of time close together, touching and floating at the surface — and sharing salmon.

 

 

[YGIFS 19450]

Your mom shares her salmon.

[Don Johnson 4753]

On 2/11/2023 at 5:42 PM, YGIFS said:

"Nobody is saying women be forced to carry babies to term"?  That's what "breed" means, you know.  We can dress it up however you want.  Nobody is saying women should be forced to lose access to birth control?  Nobody is worries about lack of white procreation?  Are you out of your fucking mind?  You're one of the smartest people I know.  A perfunctory review of basic mainstream news headlines.  Women must carry babies to term.  Women are about to be stripped of birth control rights.  People are concerned with the proliferation of brown babies.  This is not political hyperbole.  This has already happened.  This is the final solution to the stupid question.  

Regardless of your stance on abortion, those who wish to outlaw it are not motivated by population concerns.  And certainly not motivated by controlling the proliferation of brown babies as only 1/3 abortions are white.

[Biff Tannen 45685]

On 2/11/2023 at 5:39 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

. Nothing done on population right now is going to affect me and mine.

This is where I get lost. You seem very concerned about population after saying this sentence. Shouldn’t it not matter to you?

Edited February 15, 2023 by Biff Tannen
Double negative? Double negative.

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

19 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is where I get lost. You seem very concerned about population after saying this sentence. Shouldn’t it not matter to you?

I’m 45. This stuff will play out over generations and I will be long since dead (what I was responding to with figs going bat shit crazy off the reservation with his nonsense about white supremacy (I guess?) or whatever else he was going on about in a completely non responsive way to any conversation being had here. In that sense none of it matters in that I won’t live to see any of it through. The idea I would  care about what color babies are being born in America (if she exists) 100-500 years from now is absurd. 
that doesn’t mean I’m enough of a nihilist that I’m rooting for the extinction of our species however. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Wulaw Horn

[crash_davis 23113]

Japan is proper fucked. Astounding that in a country of 125 million people, there was only 799,728 births last year. HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!!

 

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/02/28/national/japan-record-low-births/

Japan posted the fewest births in its recorded history last year, continuing a seven-year decline that further aggravates the challenges of its rapidly aging society.

The number of newborns fell to 799,728 in 2022, down 5.1% from a year earlier, to lowest since it began record-keeping in 1899, according to data Japan’s health ministry released Tuesday. The number of deaths rose 8.9% to 1.58 million for the same period, it said.

The lack of births means Japan will have a smaller workforce and fewer taxpayers to sustain the world’s third-largest economy in the years to come. The rising cost of caring for its elderly citizens, who make up a higher proportion of the population than in any other country, is draining the nation’s coffers, helping make it the world’s most indebted country.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

5 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Japan is proper fucked. Astounding that in a country of 125 million people, there was only 799,728 births last year. HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!!

 

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/02/28/national/japan-record-low-births/

Japan posted the fewest births in its recorded history last year, continuing a seven-year decline that further aggravates the challenges of its rapidly aging society.

The number of newborns fell to 799,728 in 2022, down 5.1% from a year earlier, to lowest since it began record-keeping in 1899, according to data Japan’s health ministry released Tuesday. The number of deaths rose 8.9% to 1.58 million for the same period, it said.

The lack of births means Japan will have a smaller workforce and fewer taxpayers to sustain the world’s third-largest economy in the years to come. The rising cost of caring for its elderly citizens, who make up a higher proportion of the population than in any other country, is draining the nation’s coffers, helping make it the world’s most indebted country.

IIRC, their cases began climbing in late 2021 to 2022 (don't know how much the Olympics played a part in that). Speculating, but perhaps some folks were opting to use family planning due to the uncertainties?

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

2 hours ago, crash_davis said:

The number of newborns fell to 799,728 in 2022, down 5.1% from a year earlier, to lowest since it began record-keeping in 1899, according to data Japan’s health ministry released Tuesday. The number of deaths rose 8.9% to 1.58 million for the same period, it said.

if you're going to do it, this is the right way to do it though.  If you're only going to get 800k, you better hope 1.6MM olds die off that don't need care from the yoots.

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

On 2/8/2023 at 4:50 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

My suspicion is that the world could sustain and thrive, easily, with a population of 50B. You don't have to worry about it.  Peak population is going to hit around 2050 or so in the world (it's already hit for almost every native population in the first world and most of the second world- though some countries might grow larger due to net migration increase) and then it's all a downhill slide from there. Of all the things you worry about ending the world this is the one that's most likely. It will be over hundreds of years, but It's going to be a real (and I think unsolvable) motherfucker. 

 

ok, you have gone off the deep end here. This is absolute insanity.

 

Do you really want your kids to grow up in a world that is basically a giant feedlot?

 

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

On 2/9/2023 at 9:01 AM, Wulaw Horn said:

OK, my numbers are a bit dated apparently should have fact checked that a little better, 1 family unit per acre vs 48 people per acre doesn't really make a big difference in the overriding point, the point remains this- this planet is essentially empty my man.  You've lived in Alaska- you know that.  Drive anywhere in the midwest or mountain states or Canada or anything like that and its nothing but empty and land stretching on and on without any real sign of significant population.  You could give every family unit (average 9.9 people per household worldwide)  in the world an acre in America (2.4B acres) and have half of America left over.  I think that's probably where that Texas stat went so badly- it was family units I probably heard. 

 

 

Its not fucking empty.

A acre does not support shit.

A family unit per acre = mass starvation (assuming you survive the cholera). Scratch that. A family unit per acre = mass dying of lack of water.

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

44 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Its not fucking empty.

A acre does not support shit.

A family unit per acre = mass starvation (assuming you survive the cholera). Scratch that. A family unit per acre = mass dying of lack of water.

That was assuming everyone lives in Texas, and that number was wrong. 
Using the right numbers- how everything plays out:  if every human being on earth lived in North America the population density would be equal to about 880 people per square mile- the same as the country of Japan in general. 
there would not be another lining human being to wander Australia, Europe, Asia, Central or South America. Yeah dude- 50B wouldn’t be a feed lot. But like I said- that’s not going to happen. We are cresting in overall population in the next 20 years if we haven’t crested already. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by Wulaw Horn

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

You are saying that cresting is a bad thing. You throw out some insane number that the earth could support 50b based on:

 

nobody lives in the interior of canada

we could fit everyone in N. America hypothetically

you drive across the country with your top down and see open spaces.

 

I say 8 billion is too many. My evidence is: pollution, starvation, crashing fisheries, global warming, lack of clean water, lack of clean air, on and on and on.

 

If a declining population, which would alleviate all those problems, means economic hard times and a lack operas and restaurants, oh well. Maybe some economists need to get their shit together and figure out an alternative to an economy that depends on increasing population and consumption.

 

Declining population?

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Following WWII there were around 2.5 billion people on the planet.

China had around 570 million which has grown to 1.4 Billion, India had ~376 million which has grown to almost equal China. The U.S. has grown from around 158 million to 336 million.

High Plains Drifter's comments about economists and the reliance on birthing consumers is spot on.

[crash_davis 23113]

[gmr548 16580]

You are saying that cresting is a bad thing. You throw out some insane number that the earth could support 50b based on:
 
nobody lives in the interior of canada
we could fit everyone in N. America hypothetically
you drive across the country with your top down and see open spaces.
 
I say 8 billion is too many. My evidence is: pollution, starvation, crashing fisheries, global warming, lack of clean water, lack of clean air, on and on and on.
 
If a declining population, which would alleviate all those problems, means economic hard times and a lack operas and restaurants, oh well. Maybe some economists need to get their shit together and figure out an alternative to an economy that depends on increasing population and consumption.
 
Declining population?

Earth can support more then 8 billion humans. It can’t support the current population at the current level of resource consumption. Those are not mutually exclusive.

50 billion is you getting trolled

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

I bet we see some immigration plans in Japan that are really unpopular soon.  They’ll try to fix it with guest worker stuff at first but they’ll get to citizenship for a lot of folk the locals consider undesirable.  

[WBT 20572]

So wiki tells me the fire horse is an every 60 year thing.  So in 2026 there will be no births at all?

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

13 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Earth can support more then 8 billion humans. It can’t support the current population at the current level of resource consumption. Those are not mutually exclusive.

50 billion is you getting trolled

I’m not talking about tomorrow- I’m talking about 500 years down the road which is how long it would take to get there if it was going that direction (it’s not). Malthus is wringer than any human being in history and people want to continue to buy into his nonsense. Or Ehrlich’s or any of the other doom and gloomers. Humans are a very creative species and will adapt with their world and transform it where necessary to fit their needs, wants and desires. 

[Left Coast 863]

13 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I bet we see some immigration plans in Japan that are really unpopular soon.  They’ll try to fix it with guest worker stuff at first but they’ll get to citizenship for a lot of folk the locals consider undesirable.  

I think they are going to go the robot/technology route before going to immigration. It’s hard to emphasize enough just how insular Japanese society is.

[956 Worldwide 34715]

On 3/3/2023 at 6:57 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

Following WWII there were around 2.5 billion people on the planet.

China had around 570 million which has grown to 1.4 Billion, India had ~376 million which has grown to almost equal China. The U.S. has grown from around 158 million to 336 million.

High Plains Drifter's comments about economists and the reliance on birthing consumers is spot on.

From a long-term sustainability standpoint having fewer people isn’t a bad thing at all. From a short-term (historical short term) perspective it will cause all sorts of bad times for the people who are already here and need someone to wipe their asses and keep the lights on for them in their dotage. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

On 3/2/2023 at 4:02 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

That was assuming everyone lives in Texas, and that number was wrong. 
Using the right numbers- how everything plays out:  if every human being on earth lived in North America the population density would be equal to about 880 people per square mile- the same as the country of Japan in general. 
there would not be another lining human being to wander Australia, Europe, Asia, Central or South America. Yeah dude- 50B wouldn’t be a feed lot. But like I said- that’s not going to happen. We are cresting in overall population in the next 20 years if we haven’t crested already. 

TIL every square inch of dry land is equally able to produce food, water, other resources as every other square inch of dry land.

Good to know.

[Brisketexan 105140]

23 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Humans are a very creative species and will adapt with their world and transform it where necessary to fit their needs, wants and desires. 

Maybe.....and at the expense of every other species that shares the planet.  When you take into account the idea that maybe we should share the planet with our fellow life forms, and not simply consume the planet, the ability/proprietary of massive population expansion doesn't really check out.

We should be able to occupy an earth that ALSO has on it things like forests, and monkeys, and fish, and birds, and everything else.  Otherwise, yeah, your vision is damn close to Coruscant.  Which -- and I am perfectly comfortable making this value judgment -- is a shitty vision.  I don't want my descendants to live in that world.  I don't want my descendants to not know what a natural landscape looks like, to not know what a wild animal is.  Our greatest challenge in the long-term future shouldn't be "how do we support massive continued expansion where we consume every square inch of land," but rather "how do we find a way to support a reasonable population while living in some sort of ecological balance."  In short, if we destroy the things we love about planet earth, what's the fucking point?  We are natural beings, we are designed to live on a natural planet.  I don't mean we have to wander the savannah and spear our food, but even people who live in cities inherently yearn for green spaces and fresh air.

[dcbc 14484]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Otherwise, yeah, your vision is damn close to Coruscant. 

Nerd

 

/sadly, I got the reference

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

5 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

TIL every square inch of dry land is equally able to produce food, water, other resources as every other square inch of dry land.

Good to know.

That's right. Because all of human history shows us that we need more and more land to produce less and less food with our technological advances.  And when we work the land we make it less likely to grow stuff.  

People have been warning and writing about overpopulation for centuries and there is literally nobody more laughably wrong then them.  But, I suppose if we've reached the pinnacle of human ingenuity and achievement that's something we'd have to worry about (if we were actually going to grow the population of the earth which would probably make it better.  But worry not- population is in decline in most places now and will hit that tipping point in a couple years (or decades- I know it's projected out to be 2045 or 2050 right now but I bet it accelerates) and people in future generations can manage the decline and figure something out.  Which I'm sure they will.  We aren't in any danger from too many people. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

 

[DaysOff 7951]

99.9% of species on this rock have disappeared. Homo Sapiens think they're different because an invisible man watches over them, and everything will be all right. I give us another 200 years tops. We've come close to extinction numbers several times and lucked our way out.

[Biff Tannen 45685]

45 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

I give us another years tops

So I should spend all my savings on hookers and blow now?

[YGIFS 19450]

^

Yeah, what that guy said.  I have kids, but if you have some inside information---just let us know.  There's a guy whose head looks like somebody at work microwave'd spaghetti and left the orange-ish bowl to rot on the counter...and when he dies I'm gonna leave my wife and take up meth.  but if the world is truly ending...I'm gonna take up some much, much darker shit.  So let a brutha' know, bro! 

[Biff Tannen 45685]

2 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

There's a guy whose head looks like somebody at work microwave'd spaghetti and left the orange-ish bowl to rot on the counter...and when he dies I'm gonna leave my wife and take up meth.

[Brisketexan 105140]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

We aren't in any danger from too many people. 

WE may or may not be.

Every other living thing on this rock sure as shit is in such danger.

Earth is either a rock to be dominated and exploited by man, OR, it is a complex ecosystem of which man is and should be a part, acting wisely and in consideration of the other living beings that occupy it.  If you want to go theological, we can - if you believe in the divinity of creation, then you should also believe in the concept of stewardship.  Nevermind that it's also self-serving for us in the long run as a species (again, we are meant to live on a living planet with other life forms - it's both our biological and spiritual nature).

50 billion people using the entirety of the earth as either 1) an abode, 2) a pantry, or 3) a dump/sewer sounds like hell.  Actual hell.  If Yosemite or Big Bend is just a resource for us to someday use our great intellects to exploit and use to grow more food to support the next billion, then fuck that noise.  Maybe, just maybe, Big Bend is supposed to be....Big Bend.  Maybe, just maybe, not every single ounce of biological material in the ocean should be geared towards being food for man (which, with 50 billion mouths to feed, would almost certainly be the case).

Treating 50 billion humans on earth as a goal is a perfect encapsulation of the arrogance and hubris of man.  I am of and part of this earth, not above it.  Earth gave us life.  She can sure as fuck take it back, tomorrow (pandemic much?  Try one with a 95% fatality rate, as just one example, easily transmitted through a population that lives assholes to elbows worldwide).

[Biff Tannen 45685]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Treating 50 billion humans on earth as a goal is a perfect encapsulation of the arrogance and hubris of man.  I am of and part of this earth, not above it.  Earth gave us life.  She can sure as fuck take it back, tomorrow (pandemic much?  Try one with a 95% fatality rate, as just one example, easily transmitted through a population that lives assholes to elbows worldwide).

You're arguing with someone that is either a) a moron b) not arguing in good faith and/or c) both.  But keep trying, by all means.

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

WE may or may not be.

Every other living thing on this rock sure as shit is in such danger.

Earth is either a rock to be dominated and exploited by man, OR, it is a complex ecosystem of which man is and should be a part, acting wisely and in consideration of the other living beings that occupy it.  If you want to go theological, we can - if you believe in the divinity of creation, then you should also believe in the concept of stewardship.  Nevermind that it's also self-serving for us in the long run as a species (again, we are meant to live on a living planet with other life forms - it's both our biological and spiritual nature).

50 billion people using the entirety of the earth as either 1) an abode, 2) a pantry, or 3) a dump/sewer sounds like hell.  Actual hell.  If Yosemite or Big Bend is just a resource for us to someday use our great intellects to exploit and use to grow more food to support the next billion, then fuck that noise.  Maybe, just maybe, Big Bend is supposed to be....Big Bend.  Maybe, just maybe, not every single ounce of biological material in the ocean should be geared towards being food for man (which, with 50 billion mouths to feed, would almost certainly be the case).

Treating 50 billion humans on earth as a goal is a perfect encapsulation of the arrogance and hubris of man.  I am of and part of this earth, not above it.  Earth gave us life.  She can sure as fuck take it back, tomorrow (pandemic much?  Try one with a 95% fatality rate, as just one example, easily transmitted through a population that lives assholes to elbows worldwide).

All that same shit was written by Malthus about if the earths population ever hit a billion or two man. Nothing new under the sun. Beside, as I’ve said many times, we’ve hit peak population or will shortly in our lifetimes so no worries dude. 

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

You're arguing with someone that is either a) a moron b) not arguing in good faith and/or c) both.  But keep trying, by all means.

The smart side of the argument is Malthus and Ehlrich. Totally. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

9 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

From a long-term sustainability standpoint having fewer people isn’t a bad thing at all. From a short-term (historical short term) perspective it will cause all sorts of bad times for the people who are already here and need someone to wipe their asses and keep the lights on for them in their dotage. 

No argument on the short-term. Just as daycare for children gets short shrift, so does elder care even now. People before profit would help our species, but that is not what we do.

[wild_turkey 3159]

All that same shit was written by Malthus about if the earths population ever hit a billion or two man. Nothing new under the sun. Beside, as I’ve said many times, we’ve hit peak population or will shortly in our lifetimes so no worries dude. 

Climate change has occurred in that time period. Humans have inflicted significant damage on this planet in that time period.

Are you merely arguing that the Earth is still here and we aren’t extinct yet?

[Brisketexan 105140]

Climate change has occurred in that time period. Humans have inflicted significant damage on this planet in that time period.

Are you merely arguing that the Earth is still here and we aren’t extinct yet?

That’s exactly what he’s arguing.

Nevermind that the proof is in: in just the past couple of centuries or so, humans have been a major cause of one of the largest extinction events on record and have altered the climate. And that’s just with 8 billion people.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

Ukraine already had a dangerously low birthrate before the war of 1.3 and was expected to lose 20% of the population by 2050.  War has accelerated that. People think the wartime birthrate may be as low as .55 --- 1/4 of the necessary 2.1 replacement rate.

Quote

"Ukraine had one of the lowest birth rates on the planet. And then a war broke out," explains Brienna Perelli-Harris, a professor of demography at the University of Southampton who studies fertility rates in Ukraine. She says Ukrainian demographers are projecting the fertility rate could fall as low as 0.55 in 2023, though official statistics are not available.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1155943055/ukraine-low-birth-rate-russia-war

 

(I'll note that I don't really understand what ".55 during war" means, since the birthrate number is a per-woman number over her whole life, not a time-period number.  I suspect it is a journalist trying to capture something a scientist is saying and not really getting it)

[bolverk 29672]

46 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Ukraine already had a dangerously low birthrate before the war of 1.3 and was expected to lose 20% of the population by 2050.  War has accelerated that. People think the wartime birthrate may be as low as .55 --- 1/4 of the necessary 2.1 replacement rate.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1155943055/ukraine-low-birth-rate-russia-war

 

(I'll note that I don't really understand what ".55 during war" means, since the birthrate number is a per-woman number over her whole life, not a time-period number.  I suspect it is a journalist trying to capture something a scientist is saying and not really getting it)

Your suspicion is correct. I'm hoping for a tremendous post-war baby boom for them after this nasty business is all said and done.

[Mullet Free 40]

On 3/2/2023 at 4:41 PM, High Plains Drifter said:

You are saying that cresting is a bad thing. You throw out some insane number that the earth could support 50b based on:

 

nobody lives in the interior of canada

we could fit everyone in N. America hypothetically

you drive across the country with your top down and see open spaces.

 

I say 8 billion is too many. My evidence is: pollution, starvation, crashing fisheries, global warming, lack of clean water, lack of clean air, on and on and on.

 

If a declining population, which would alleviate all those problems, means economic hard times and a lack operas and restaurants, oh well. Maybe some economists need to get their shit together and figure out an alternative to an economy that depends on increasing population and consumption.

 

Declining population?

 

20 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

The smart side of the argument is Malthus and Ehlrich. Totally. 

A lot of doomers in this thread. Same energy here. 

 

Will be just as wrong.

[DaysOff 7951]

Don't know which sock you are, but are you implying an anthropogenic climate change isn't happening? I also think the GT quote was about reaching the tipping point of the feedback loop of climate heating, which we probably have, so adaptation is our only option. Don't give a fuck if homo Sapiens adapt or not.