logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Exponential
JohnTaves
#1 Posted : Friday, October 11, 2013 10:49:07 AM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators, Approved
Joined: 7/14/2011(UTC)
Posts: 75

There is a bacteria in a beaker explanation that I thought Al Bartlett provided, but maybe it was Jack Alpert. In this demonstration the bacteria doubles every minute and after 59 minutes the beaker is finally half full. In the last minute it grows full. The point is to show how the exponential happens, and that we don't see the horror until it is too late.

My problem with this is that this model fails to make the point that we must conclude that this horror, the full beaker, has long since happened. Notice in this http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...%20Climate%20Change.pdf lesson, the teacher never really addresses this concept.

I am saying that there's no excuse to relate our current exponential growth to this beaker/bacteria situation. The point that should be made is that our numbers have been at the limit almost immediately after day one of human existence. For thousands of years human number did not grow exponentially, yet our birth rate always attempts exponential growth. The beaker demonstration should show the beaker overflowing and the teacher should make it clear that that represents premature death, specifically child mortality. The rate of child mortality is determined by how many children we average. If we average 4 children, and the beaker walls are steady, then 50% of the babies will never become adults.

The demonstration can be further enhanced by raising the sides of the beaker to show how we increased our environment by farming instead of hunt/gathering. We also increased the height of the beaker by burning fossil fuels to make fertilizers and refrigeration. Did we increase the height of the beaker faster than our births demanded? Well, we've seen exponential growth in our numbers which looks a lot like an beaker where the limit is above the population, but was that exponential growth as fast as the exponential growth that our births demanded?

No, it was not. The bacteria spilling over the top is analogous to child mortality, and we have always had pockets of relatively high child mortality. If our child mortality was spread evenly over the population and was always related to mentally or physically handicapped children or parents, then we could argue that that mortality was not caused by too many births. That's not what we see. We see pockets of poverty and high child mortality, where the children and parents are not physically or mentally handicapped. These people were incapable of shoving other humans out of the way of the resources they needed to survive.
Val
#2 Posted : Saturday, October 12, 2013 8:29:01 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: NW Kansas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I remember that demo. The population, in reality, does not continue up exponentially.
As depletion hits, along with pollution effects, the rate of increase slows as death rate increases and birth rate decreases.
Momentum effects come in with the girls growing up and having kids even stopping at two, or one. The decrease in population by stopping at just less than two is slow enough where the depletion and pollution effects hit before the population is reduced to long term sustainability. The beaker disappears after getting smaller and smaller.
This sustainable level is accelerating downward with depletion and pollution toward zero. Before mid century population is far greater than even short term sustainability. First the world economy collapses after years of migrations, then ecological collapses as aquifers dry up and soils deteriorate with AGW taking away a large amount plus with economic breakdown, less availability of cheaper energy for fast distribution of perishable foods.
A peak is reached with a dramatic drop off in numbers.
Normally, the population would slowly recover to following the long term sustainable level. However, with near total biosphere destruction or fast change related to consequences of human pollution, after several hundred more years, thermal maximum is too fast and too much for eco-systems and species humans depend on to live. Human colonies in caves keeping cooler, would have to little food outside to survive. So our species will follow most of the rest to extinction.
This extinction originally brought about by overpopulation, greed, and stupidity, ends it also for those in the minority who can and do live sustainably. That is a shame.
JohnTaves
#3 Posted : Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:07:59 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators, Approved
Joined: 7/14/2011(UTC)
Posts: 75

Val, I think you missed the point of this posting. I am saying that Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis - Part 4 article, and David Suzuki's One Minute to Midnight are missing the essential bit that the human population has hit that limit a long long time ago, and therefore our understanding of what the limit is, is flawed. The limit is simply the situation where births are attempting to drive the population number higher than it can be and therefore causing child mortality. The point is that our population scientists need to know that births are killing and need to teach it.

In general your comments are not about the fundamental issues of population and environment, they are specifically about humans and the consequences of discovering how to burn fossil fuels and consume other resources faster than they renew. That's not the topic of the beaker example.

Val;286 wrote:
The population, in reality, does not continue up exponentially.

Yes it does, but only before it hits the limit. We have never seen human population growth like that because it happened for maybe a few thousand years after humans entered each continent.
Val;286 wrote:

As depletion hits, along with pollution effects, the rate of increase slows as death rate increases and birth rate decreases.

Why would you say "as depletion hits"? Why don't you say as the "population reaches the limit".? If the population is not consuming resources faster than they renew, and that is a very common situation because it is rather difficult to do so, then nothing is being depleted.
Val;286 wrote:

Momentum effects come in with the girls growing up and having kids even stopping at two, or one.

Why? When the beaker becomes full, whatever "momentum" you imagined is abruptly cut off. (the model is that if the bacteria is in the beaker, then they are alive, if the bacteria is flowing over the top, it is dead). I assume the "momentum" you are talking about is the concept where the population continues to grow even after we have limited births to 1 per person. The point of the beaker is to show that the environment was full and is full and therefore any population increase is actually an increase in the size of the beaker. With this in mind, that momentum is only possible if we manage to figure out how to produce more sustenance, which for the past several hundreds of years has been historically remarkable.
Val;286 wrote:

The decrease in population by stopping at just less than two is slow enough where the depletion and pollution effects hit before the population is reduced to long term sustainability.

I suspect you are describing humans and imagining some future situation where we magically average 2 babies. I suspect you are envisioning that the human population has followed that beaker example and has not quite hit the top of the beaker. My whole point is that the beaker example should tell us that we hit the limit a long long time ago. The exponential growth you see today is not like that beaker. It is the situation where the size of the beaker is being expanded at an exponential rate, and full the whole time, and overflowing the whole time.
Val;286 wrote:

The beaker disappears after getting smaller and smaller.

Why? The beaker is an environment. The environment might get smaller, but disappear? Are you talking about when the Sun dies?
Val;286 wrote:

This sustainable level is accelerating downward with depletion and pollution toward zero.

If depletion is the reduction of some non-renewable assets, like fossil fuels, then I see no reason why depletion reduces the sustainable level. Sure, the pollution released from those assets might alter the sustainable level, but the sustainable level never included the level enabled by non-renewables. This beaker model did not have any concept of consuming resources faster than they renew. I have no problem adding that concept where the beaker size is increased temporarily, then brought back down to the sustainable level. Again, that is somewhat off topic of this posting.
Val;286 wrote:

Before mid century population is far greater than even short term sustainability.

What century? The human population has been above the sustainable level since at least 1900. We started pumping oil in earnest in the late 1800s and that energy was contributing to keeping our numbers alive.

Further, what definition of "short term sustainability" are you inventing here? It is either sustainable, in other words not depending on consuming resources faster than they renew, or not. I suspect you are defining "short term sustainability" as the level that can be sustained with consuming resources faster than they renew. That level cannot be exceeded. That is the full beaker situation. The beaker cannot keep alive any more than some amount, so there is no such thing as "above the short term sustainability". To a large degree this is my point. Population scientists have a dreadful collection of concepts. They define "overpopulation" as the situation where the number exceeds the carrying capacity, which is an excellent definition, but then they totally forget that this can only happen by consuming resources faster than they renew. They totally fail to even mention the concept of a population limit, that cannot be exceeded. The point of this posting is to show that the beaker is full, and cannot be fuller than full.
Val;286 wrote:

First the world economy collapses after years of migrations, then ecological collapses as aquifers dry up and soils deteriorate with AGW taking away a large amount plus with economic breakdown, less availability of cheaper energy for fast distribution of perishable foods.
A peak is reached with a dramatic drop off in numbers.

Sorry, I have little patience with predictions. I see no point. It only sets you up to be discredited. The point of this beaker example is to show that births are killing right now. This concept is not enhanced by making predictions of future death.
Val;286 wrote:

Normally, the population would slowly recover to following the long term sustainable level.

Again, you are talking about a population that is capable of consuming resources faster than they renew, which is somewhat off topic because this beaker example does not really deal with overshoot.
Val;286 wrote:

So our species will follow most of the rest to extinction.
This extinction originally brought about by overpopulation, greed, and stupidity, ends it also for those in the minority who can and do live sustainably. That is a shame.

What extinction? I don't see how the worst outcome of human activity results in 0 humans. A species that self extincts is pretty rare, or rather they don't hang around for thousands of years and then self extinct. Further to the point, this has nothing to do with the beaker. And even if it was somehow relevant to anything, why does anyone care? No human will ever experience human extinction.
Val
#5 Posted : Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:35:57 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: NW Kansas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)

John Taves; "If depletion is the reduction of some non-renewable assets, like fossil fuels, then I see no reason why depletion reduces the sustainable level."
I could hardly believe you wrote this!!!!?!
Fossil fuels are renewable, and so is the soil and aquifers, but over such long time frames as to be considered non-renewable. Others that deplete more permanently by dilution of a sort, is refined metals not recycled. The main ones that lower sustainable level of humans is water and soil polluted or otherwise lost by over-use. Pollution is also very long term for all the plastics at sea and mercury everywhere. So far past the natural systems' ability to absorb. That also affects how many can be sustained over the long term exposure.
Am I as far beyond you as you are above the amoeba? Or do you really understand all the science and math at all? There is a big picture to see.
Can humans destroy the biosphere completely? YES!!!! That is the vector we are on!!!
Can we stop it? Maybe if we prematurely blow Yellowstone and Toba together. Like 75K years ago except with high technology. All we need is a good biosphere and at least a couple hundred breeding couples left, and with the wisdom to never overpopulate and exploit God's Gift to Humanity--our Earth's biosphere.
JohnTaves
#6 Posted : Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:27:43 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators, Approved
Joined: 7/14/2011(UTC)
Posts: 75

Val;9744 wrote:

John Taves; "If depletion is the reduction of some non-renewable assets, like fossil fuels, then I see no reason why depletion reduces the sustainable level."
I could hardly believe you wrote this!!!!?!
Fossil fuels are renewable, and so is the soil and aquifers, but over such long time frames as to be considered non-renewable. Others that deplete more permanently by dilution of a sort, is refined metals not recycled. The main ones that lower sustainable level of humans is water and soil polluted or otherwise lost by over-use. Pollution is also very long term for all the plastics at sea and mercury everywhere....


This is exactly the definitional problem population scientists have. I am trying to get a better use of words and terms than what has been demonstrated by the population experts and you. You don't need to tell me all the different ways we depend upon consuming resources faster than they renew, which is the whole gist of your comment.

The "sustainable level" as you are defining by your use of the phrase is the number of people that can be kept alive. That use/definition, makes some sense because I can say that I am being sustained and clearly I am being sustained with huge help from non-renewables. However, this definition and usage is not good for population science and not good for comprehending our current status.

I am saying that we should refer to the "sustainable level" as the number that can be kept alive without consuming resources faster than they renew. This is synonymous with "carrying capacity", but not with how you and other population experts use that term. The definition we see on wikipedia excludes the use of resources faster than they renew, yet this definition is not actually followed by anyone. With the correct understanding of the definition, you can see that my comments make sense. The sustainable level does not change with the use of non-renewables, (unless those things are causing pollution that permanently ruins the renewable resources.)

My whole point of this beaker example, is to make it clear that there is another level that we must know about. I call it The Limit. It is the level that cannot be exceeded. Premature death is the consequence of attempting to exceed it. That level rises when we use resources faster than they renew.

I am also saying we are at and have always been at that level because uncontrolled reproduction always relentlessly attempts to exceed it.

Population scientists do not have 2 separate concepts for these two different levels and that has created whopping problem of understanding. It is rather simple indeed. Understanding The Limit, and knowing that we are at it, tells us we must control breeding. Understanding that we are overpopulated, tells us what we must control that breeding to an average of less than 2 babies. As long as these two concepts are muddled into one we will never get consensus.
Val
#7 Posted : Saturday, October 25, 2014 9:17:14 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: NW Kansas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
'Population scientists do not have 2 separate concepts for these two different levels and that has created whopping problem of understanding. '
Yes we do have several concepts. Long term can be 500 years, or it can be the whole interglacial epoch. Different standards of living are used for calculations----one is poor or 1500 calories per person per day possible to feed over the long term without degradation of the water, soil, air, and natural support ecosystems. The next is "Euro" standard, roughly 2500 calories per person per day, and the last is "American" which is 3500 cal/person/day. No wonder the obesity epidemic also driven with stupid greed that allows all the chemicals and process carbs and sugars.
People who are poor generally want better, and Americans can sacrifice as we have to lower our footprint, so "Euro" but green is the best. If you ever read "Elephants in the Volkswagen" you would know these levels are; roughly 1, 2, and 3 billion, and for the USA 50, 100, 200 million. Levels that can be sustained if it weren't for the CAGW and other long term pollution effects reducing the number along with long term depletion and degradation of resources. Degradation includes poisoning.
Then there is the short term sustainable level, like less than several hundred years. High tech, greed, and stupidity have us into overshoot along with our mammalian over-breeding tendency. The curve we are on exactly matches crash curves of other mammals studied for many years.
In the case of human mammals, it is causing terminal extinction events to be on the trajectory, so there is no recovery, at least less than 30 million years or so, if it doesn't go total turnover runaway.
So yes, we do have the concept of short term sustainability and long term sustainability in population science. It is only exponential science in the lab and single celled organisms. In real population science it takes into account a number of data sets from different disciplines, including human psychology.
JohnTaves
#8 Posted : Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:17:28 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators, Approved
Joined: 7/14/2011(UTC)
Posts: 75

Val;9751 wrote:
Population scientists do not have 2 separate concepts for these two different levels and that has created whopping problem of understanding. '
Yes we do have several concepts.

Um, you just proved that you don't have 2 separate concepts. Several concepts is not 2 separate ones.
Val;9751 wrote:
Long term can be 500 years, or it can be the whole interglacial epoch.

What is the point of thinking of it this way? The concept is whether the store of food is being consumed or not. A family that stores the harvest for consumption during the winter certainly will think about the time that it can consume the store of food, but only because it can replenish it. Fossil fuels can't be replenished. We are either destroying future generation's ability to keep the numbers we are attempting to saddle them with, or we are not. Clearly we are, and it does not become more morally palatable knowing that I will be dead in approximately 50 years so I won't witness the consequences of my over breeding. Or at least it should not to a scientist who's supposed to think logically about this.
Val;9751 wrote:
Different standards of living are used for calculations----one is poor or 1500 calories per person per day possible to feed over the long term without degradation of the water, soil, air, and natural support ecosystems. The next is "Euro" standard, roughly 2500 calories per person per day, and the last is "American" which is 3500 cal/person/day.

This does give me plenty to think about, but not because these calculations are meaningful. A scientist will get career brownie points by publishing interesting scientific articles. A highly complex calculation like the ones you are describing are far more interesting and valuable for the career than a simple concept. Unfortunately apart from the ability to get published, there is no utility to knowing how many people the Euro standard can keep alive. There is no entity, no collection of people, no organization, nothing that will do anything with this information. What is the thinking here? Does the scientist that spends time calculating this garbage think that Obama will say "Oh, OK, I will pass a law that says no more than 1500 calories per day!" This desire to engineer the world is what I have to comprehend. I understand the fascination with these engineering plans where you imagine you are god and you can set limits on this and that, but seriously what is the point? I see these sorts of comments in various places. Someone on Quora was saying we all need to be vegans. Oh, OK, we'll just pass a UN resolution! No more meat.

However, in the end these same engineering plans totally disregard the fact that no matter what limit you plan for and how you engineer the resource distribution, nothing is going to stop the breeding from attempting to drive the total population number higher than your plans. That attempt causes death. That attempt will force the crap standard of living on your system no matter what you design.

The scientist takes the totally wrong lesson from the fact that 6 million children die each year from starvation related causes. The scientist starts running the system engineering model and concludes that we could have distributed the food better. Instead, they should recognize that we didn't distribute the food better and never have. Instead of figuring out ways we can sacrifice to enable others to live, the scientist fails to recognize we aren't sacrificing on a global scale to let others live. Maybe they are failing to distinguish between an individual's willingness to sacrifice to let a specific individual live, and a whole country sacrificing to allow another country to reduce child mortality. But, again, this still makes no sense because the scientist should recognize the input to this whole thing is how many children we average and the engineering plans for Euro calorie intake does nothing to control the input.

Val;9751 wrote:
Then there is the short term sustainable level like less than several hundred years.

Isn't this abuse of the word "sustainable" a huge problem? I mean if scientists are going to talk about sustainability in an infinite number of contexts, like only 100 years, or like ignoring fossil fuel destruction but considering CO2 production, or like my Nissan Leaf is zero emission, isn't the term totally useless?
Val;9751 wrote:
High tech, greed, and stupidity have us into overshoot...

No, we are in overshoot because we figured out how to dig up and burn fossil fuels. We are at the limit because we are ignorant of the fact that uncontrolled breeding attempts to drive our numbers relentlessly towards infinity. We are not going to get rid of high tech, nor will greed be eliminated, so it makes no sense to assign any causality to these. General stupidity is never going away either. The specific stupidity can be eliminated. The specific stupidity is our failure to understand and teach that uncontrolled fertility is killing.
Val;9751 wrote:
The curve we are on exactly matches crash curves of other mammals studied for many years.

What mammals consume resources faster than they renew? What mammals have population histories anything remotely like humans? What mammal could? There are zero that have changed sustenance acquisition via farming, money, fertilizers, tractors, to raise the capacity of the environment dramatically. I know of none that have anything you could call a technology advancement (without becoming a different species). Sure the mother otter teachers her offspring how to open a shell with a rock, but we are not witnessing otters setting up oyster farms and watching their numbers bloom due to the growing food production, and even if we did witness that, where's the resource consumption above what can be renewed?

Val;9751 wrote:
So yes, we do have the concept of short term sustainability and long term sustainability in population science.

I did not mention anything about short or long term, so the "yes" to start that sentence does not agree with me at all. I see no point to putting any arbitrary time limits on this stuff. Those time limits allow the scientist to run a bunch of useless calculations and avoid the far less publishable but far more useful conclusions.
Val
#9 Posted : Monday, November 3, 2014 1:02:36 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: NW Kansas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I lost my reply somehow!
Basically, humans tech gains and increasing use of fossil fuels were the stimulus to hyperbolic population increase.
Just like other mammals with stimulated populations from a bumper season/s and/or lack of predation enough to lower numbers, until the shadow curve of predators catches up then they are both in near vertical population free fall. With a slow return to sine wave, gently around seasonal and longer time frames.

The thing that IS different is the amount of pollution and what it does to the biosphere. The last time this happened was when the explosion of cyanobacteria killed themselves globally with their own waste, which, lucky for us, was oxygen. Billions of years ago.
I doubt if there will be any future scholars to think about what happened billions of years ago on this third planet from our sun.
JohnTaves
#10 Posted : Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:06:57 AM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators, Approved
Joined: 7/14/2011(UTC)
Posts: 75

I don't get why you insist on ignoring a better way to comprehend this. Why do you keep returning to a vague notion that populations go up and down and why do we gain anything by saying that the population size correlates to sine curves? It seems to me that you are using these correlations and projections to predict gloom and doom for the human population, then using those predictions to convince people of some change in behavior.

Instead, why not grasp the concepts that I am trying to convey and recognize that these concepts provide a better understanding of what is going on and therefore what behavior needs to change? You seem to insist on telling me the conventional wisdom and this does not really tell me anything new. It does not help me to understand why the view I am conveying is not being used. It does not tell me where my view does not offer a better understanding.

If you comprehended my view, you wouldn't say the following.
Val;9776 wrote:
Basically, humans tech gains and increasing use of fossil fuels were the stimulus to hyperbolic population increase.

You'd say something more like: "basically, human tech gains and increasing use of fossil fuels, increased the limit of how many people can exist at one time on this planet, enabling our excess fertility to grow the population instead of just killing."

The use of the word "stimulus" seems very similar to a debate I had on quora (I was not able to find it in 5 minutes of looking). Someone stated that if humans had not discovered farming, the population would have grown from 5m to about 10m today. I asked him why he thought that the population would grow at all from 5m if he holds technology constant. I suspect that he thinks that certain technology achievements enable growth, instead of recognizing that these technology gains enable a larger population that naturally grows from the old value to the new value. His view enabled him to mindlessly project some population growth rate into the future. He felt that the Earth could support at least 20m humans doing hunt/gathering, so he had no problem projecting whatever growth rate he thought existed at that time forward to today. Instead he should assume that the population was at the limit and only a change in technology would enable a higher population. What is your thinking? Does "stimulus" indicate your thinking is more like his?
Val
#11 Posted : Friday, November 14, 2014 3:50:46 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: NW Kansas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I would add the caveat "temporary", so " "basically, human tech gains and increasing use of fossil fuels, increased the temporarylimit of how many people can exist at one time on this planet, enabling our excess fertility to grow the population instead of just killing."(because any extra causes lack of enough food or water)
It is all just academic, seeing we will have already put out enough pollution and poisons to make it so there is no recovery up to sustainable, in most realistic scenarios. People continue their slog toward extinction rather than being educated about ecology, and working toward zero pollution/depletion way of life quickly enough.
In population science, "stimulation" comes from an overabundance of food, and/or lack of predation(including diseases). They all fall under one of those, the tech gains(incl. mechanized and fossil fuel dependent) in ag(more food) and in lower infant mortality and increasing longevity(under lack of predation effects). The stimuli is followed by exponential gain until death rate catches up and a near vertical fall is next, with slow increase to the usual or a new sustainable level. It is slow modulation around the average yearly sustainability without stimuli.
JohnTaves
#12 Posted : Thursday, November 20, 2014 4:12:47 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators, Approved
Joined: 7/14/2011(UTC)
Posts: 75

Val wrote:
I would add the caveat "temporary", so " "basically, human tech gains and increasing use of fossil fuels, increased the temporarylimit of how many people can exist at one time on this planet, enabling our excess fertility to grow the population instead of just killing."(because any extra causes lack of enough food or water)

Your caveat's are fine. I do not state those caveats because I am using the definitions that I am attempting to discuss on Terms, Definitions, and Concepts. These definitions separate the two concepts "The Limit" and "Carrying Capacity" such that it should be clear that carrying capacity is the time indefinite concept that cannot have "temporary" attached to it, and the limit is the temporary one that certainly does have time involved.

Note however, that the carrying capacity certainly is not a constant. The CO2 build up is probably changing it. All sorts of environmental and technology changes do affect the carrying capacity. If one wants to estimate a carrying capacity, they will need to gather all sorts of information that does depend upon the time or era that is being estimated. However, there is really no point to these estimates. We don't need to know the carrying capacity. We need to know that we are above it, which is determined by whether we depend upon using resources faster than they renew to keep our numbers alive. We also need to know that when above it, must average less than 2.

I would like some clarification. Do you understand that we have generally always created excess births where "excess births" is defined as births that are causing child mortality? I mean do you understand that we have been creating excess births even during the remarkable rise in our population numbers over the past say 100 years?
Dingo
#13 Posted : Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:41:31 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 6/10/2012(UTC)
Posts: 101
Location: California

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
John you strenuously insist that you disagree with most other population experts yet end up basically at the same point, no more than a two child average per couple. You say that we are at our limit all the time regardless of technological improvements. Okay, so what original point are you making? Here's a quote from you. "The specific stupidity is our failure to understand and teach that uncontrolled fertility is killing." You won't get much argument there. For some reason you seem to want to set yourself apart when for the most part you are basically just using a slightly different framing model. I appreciate you setting up this site but am somewhat at a loss as to why you are so invested in insisting on distinctions with very little difference.

For some reason you seem to miss the part about humans being an agent of planetary disaster, for instance generating a 6th extinction event and that is an important reason why we need to stop growth and in fact become less populated. That's not something that can be folded in simply to a moment to moment understanding of limits. We're involved in an environmental Ponzi game which allows us to use up our capital for a period faster than it usefully recycles not to mention destructively change the environment itself. So with us for a while there is not a perfect symmetry between use and renewal.

Also rather than simply obsessing on the 2 limit business I think we need to focus on the idea of local communities developing in a locally sustainable manner. It would achieve the same result but folks live in an environment, a community, not just a set of numbers.

JohnTaves
#14 Posted : Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:35:06 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators, Approved
Joined: 7/14/2011(UTC)
Posts: 75

Dingo;11035 wrote:
"The specific stupidity is our failure to understand and teach that uncontrolled fertility is killing." You won't get much argument there.

Please show me anyone that agrees with this. Malthus didn't state that averaging too many babies is killing children. Joel Cohen is an expert on population. He wrote "How Many People Can the Earth Support" which is 600+ pages. It is a ridiculous book if one understands that we are currently and generally always have been at the limit. His book and the Wikipedia articles on "overpopulation" fully demonstrate a total lack of comprehension. They mix the two definitions together into a subjective measure of misery and use that crap to conclude that we are not at the limit and that we are not way way above the sustainable limit.

The definition and usage of "replacement rate" by every population article I have read is circular and thus utterly ridiculous from any rational scientific perspective because it assumes we are not causing child mortality by averaging too many babies. Take a look at Joel Cohen's video at 10:20 into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vr44C_G0-o. He shows a bathtub analogy where the water pouring in are births and the water running out of the drain is deaths. Replacement is where the same amount runs in as out. If he was aware of the fact that averaging too many babies is killing, he would have drawn the bathtub full and overflowing. The faster we pour water into the tub, the faster it flows over the top. The faster we make babies, the faster we kill.

Joel Cohen is an expert on population and he states "Malthus predicted wrongly that the population growth rate would always promptly win a race against the rate of growth of food. Malthus has been wrong for nearly two centuries because he did not foresee how much people can expand the human carrying capacity of Earth, including but not limited to food production." Malthus' main conclusion from his famous paper is "Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second….And it appears, therefore, to be decisive against the possible existence of a society, all the members of which should live in ease, happiness, and comparative leisure; and feel no anxiety about providing the means of subsistence for themselves and families." Cohen states, in the video references above, that there are 1 billion humans chronically hungry. Notice how ludicrous this is. Malthus stated that there will always be chronically hungry people because population will relentlessly fill and attempt to exceed how many can be fed, and Cohen is stating that 1/7th of the population is chronically hungry, but states that Malthus is wrong!!!! Never mind the fact that Malthus, and countless people that have commented on Malthus, mindlessly assume that somehow magically this chronic hunger does not result in premature death.

You might be tempted to say that Cohen and Malthus are just 2 random people that can be idiots, but Cohen is getting population articles peer reviewed and published. This is like having someone publish articles in peer reviewed physics publications on how Mars and Venus interact in accordance with the anger and joy of some gods, thus demonstrating total ignorance of the theory of gravity.

I can go on and on listing the expert population scientists that do not comprehend this, for example Paul Ehrlich. Indeed, find me just about any article that refers to population and I can show you how they are assuming that the population is not at the limit right now. I cannot find anyone that comprehends that averaging too many babies has always been, and is currently, killing.

Dingo;11035 wrote:
For some reason you seem to miss the part about humans being an agent of planetary disaster, for instance generating a 6th extinction event and that is an important reason why we need to stop growth and in fact become less populated.

I do not miss this part at all. I see no point in wasting time predicting the future. I see no point presenting the issue in the manner you are attempting. When you state that we are destroying the environment we live in, the reader has to deduce that this will cause premature death at some point in the future. The reader then has to comprehend how far in the future to see if they actually give a rip. The reader most likely will never arrive at the fact that how many babies we create is the ultimate cause and therefore the only cure of this. There is no reason to believe they will ever arrive at the conclusion that they must not have another baby and that they must teach their children (if any) that they too must not have 2, and that every human on the planet must limit themselves to say 1 (or better yet, OneTwoFour).

Your statements couldn't be more obtuse at getting at the meat of the issue if you tried. Compare your statements to "Averaging more than 2 babies is killing children.": 1) This is a fact of nature. It is not a prediction of the future. 2) This states the problem that everyone on the planet agrees is a problem. Nobody will argue that killing children is OK. 3) It states the cause.

Dingo;11035 wrote:
Also rather than simply obsessing on the 2 limit business I think we need to focus on the idea of local communities developing in a locally sustainable manner. It would achieve the same result but folks live in an environment, a community, not just a set of numbers.

I find it very hard to conclude you comprehend anything I have stated if you believe the discussion needs to shift away from what I am stating to this. It is fundamentally impossible for local communities to live sustainably. A) Right now we need to burn fossil fuels to keep 7.2b humans alive. B) If just one of your local communities averages more than 2 babies, all other communities can have zero babies, but humans numbers still attempt to grow to infinity.
Dingo
#15 Posted : Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:27:27 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 6/10/2012(UTC)
Posts: 101
Location: California

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
JohnTaves;11036 wrote:
Malthus didn't state that averaging too many babies is killing children.

No, he said averaging too many babies is killing people - one more of your distinctions without a difference.

Quote:
Joel Cohen is an expert on population.

Thanks for the video. I thought it was quite good. I like his multi-perspective approach.

Quote:
The definition and usage of "replacement rate" by every population article I have read is circular and thus utterly ridiculous from any rational scientific perspective because it assumes we are not causing child mortality by averaging too many babies.

Interesting. We must read different population articles. Every serious article I've read on the subject assumes higher child mortality is associated with having too many babies. It's obvious and unavoidable.

Quote:
If he was aware of the fact that averaging too many babies is killing, he would have drawn the bathtub full and overflowing. The faster we pour water into the tub, the faster it flows over the top. The faster we make babies, the faster we kill.

If the tub is growing presumably for a period of time you could have more than an average of 2 children without it resulting in a higher mortality rate.

Quote:
Cohen states, in the video references above, that there are 1 billion humans chronically hungry. Notice how ludicrous this is. Malthus stated that there will always be chronically hungry people because population will relentlessly fill and attempt to exceed how many can be fed, and Cohen is stating that 1/7th of the population is chronically hungry, but states that Malthus is wrong!!!! Never mind the fact that Malthus, and countless people that have commented on Malthus, mindlessly assume that somehow magically this chronic hunger does not result in premature death.

What population expert assumes chronic hunger does not result in premature death? My guess is all Cohen was saying is that food supplies rather than growing arithmetically since the industrial revolution was growing exponentially and therefore for a window of time the A vs. E distinction did not hold up. As for the chronic hunger problem that wasn't necessarily just a supply problem but could be a distribution, corruption and all sorts of other problems thrown into the mix.

Quote:
I can show you how they are assuming that the population is not at the limit right now.

I agree with you generally that population follows the resource limit but I don't think that is as novel an idea as you seem to think it is among population specialists.

Quote:
Dingo;11035 wrote:
For some reason you seem to miss the part about humans being an agent of planetary disaster, for instance generating a 6th extinction event and that is an important reason why we need to stop growth and in fact become less populated.

I do not miss this part at all. I see no point in wasting time predicting the future.

In a since that is too bad. You don't know the future of a game of Russian Roulette either but you know it's eventually going to kill you and you better take measures to end the game.

Quote:
The reader most likely will never arrive at the fact that how many babies we create is the ultimate cause and therefore the only cure of this.

Not the only but certainly a critical one. And as far as population is concerned Cohen makes a good point that education and feeding of the young is necessary if one wants them to grow brains that are even capable of comprehending the problem.

Quote:
Your statements couldn't be more obtuse at getting at the meat of the issue if you tried.

Same to you buddy. You seem a bit obtuse yourself but nevertheless thank you for creating the only stand alone population forum in cyberspace as far as I can see. Under the circumstances a little obtuseness is forgivable.lol

Quote:
Dingo;11035 wrote:
Also rather than simply obsessing on the 2 limit business I think we need to focus on the idea of local communities developing in a locally sustainable manner. It would achieve the same result but folks live in an environment, a community, not just a set of numbers.

I find it very hard to conclude you comprehend anything I have stated if you believe the discussion needs to shift away from what I am stating to this.

You fail to comprehend where I am coming from if you think this conversation is just about you and your specialized number obsession. I'm using you as a departure station to make my own points.

Quote:
It is fundamentally impossible for local communities to live sustainably.

Any decent anthropologist would be appalled by such a ridiculous statement. In the preindustrial era groups living sustainably was often quite normal which is why I put a lot of emphasis on looking backwards for discovering models of success.

Quote:
If just one of your local communities averages more than 2 babies, all other communities can have zero babies, but humans numbers still attempt to grow to infinity.

Badly stated. If just one of your local communities averages more than 2 babies and so do all of their descendents then yes they are in effect striving for infinity.
Val
#20 Posted : Wednesday, July 15, 2015 7:59:31 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: NW Kansas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
We reached max sustainable over a hundred years ago, and now are about 10 times the new, lower sustainable level. Lower with depletion and pollution. Having 2 children only, worldwide, quit working mathematically IN THE MID 1980S, and fell below 1 before the turn of the century. Now it has fallen to less than zero, and even then, would not stop CAGW pollution effects. Basically the population would have to crash right now to have any chance at stopping thermageddon. That is a death rate of almost a billion per year. It is unlikely that that will occur, so sustainability will reach zero, on a hot planet.
The arguments were really all made last century. There is no way having 'just' two kids will even help at all. That is basically the status quo of gross overpopulation for too long, to the point of ecological destruction. Overpopulation causes mass death, and with humans, it includes the death of the biosphere.
Nothing could save the biosphere except immediate rapid human population decline, through economic collapse, Cascadia, La Palma, or Katla, or a nuclear war, or fortuous asteroid impact. A super eruption could also do it, but is not due for thousands of years---too late. The magma chambers are just too deep for humans forcing the eruption.
So, most likely, the tipping point of positive feedback loop formation with the tundra methane deposits, will be reached in 8 to 13 years, and human population collapse from lack of food and water will happen a decade later with completion around mid century, followed by surface temperature increase to unlivable sometime around 2100.
JohnTaves
#16 Posted : Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:06:00 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators, Approved
Joined: 7/14/2011(UTC)
Posts: 75

Dingo;11037 wrote:
JohnTaves;11036 wrote:
Malthus didn't state that averaging too many babies is killing children.

No, he said averaging too many babies is killing people - one more of your distinctions without a difference.

One of Malthus' Papers is here. Please find where he states that averaging too many babies is killing.

More importantly averaging too many babies kills children and ONLY children. This is not a distinction without a difference. It does not kill adults. Consider the situation where the sustenance production is stable (e.g. the bulk of human history, and not the past 500 years). Children must die at a rate of (x-2)/x where x is the number of babies adults average. If the adult life expectancy rate is dropping (killing people), then the child mortality rate can be less than that formula. I hope it is obvious the adult life expectancy cannot be dropping for long, thus killing adults can only provide a temporary respite from the required child mortality. Our ignorance of this causes us to sacrifice adult life expectancy which shifts the age distribution lower which means that more absolute numbers of children are being killed to satisfy (x-2)/x rate. See this explanation if that is not clear. This is a fundamental concept that nobody should be confused about. It certainly should be taught in any beginner population course or topic and I can't find anyone stating this.

Dingo;11037 wrote:
Every serious article I've read on the subject assumes higher child mortality is associated with having too many babies.

Find an example, so we can discuss the same. I suspect you are referring to countless studies that show poor families create too many babies that they cannot afford. I have not found anyone that states that the average number of babies everyone else is having caused the deadly poverty that these families are suffering.

Dingo;11037 wrote:
If the tub is growing presumably for a period of time you could have more than an average of 2 children without it resulting in a higher mortality rate.

Why is your comment relevant? Yes, as the tub is growing then the rate that children must die will be less than (x-2)/x. However, 99.9999% of human history is characterized by a full and overflowing tub. It make no sense for a population expert that knows we are at the limit to draw a half full tub. Why would anyone go out of their way to use an incredibly rare event in human history as an example? Either he's trying to avoid stating that averaging too many babies is killing, which is fundamental concept that no intro to population issues should ever avoid, or he's ignorant.

Dingo;11037 wrote:
What population expert assumes chronic hunger does not result in premature death?

Again, find where Malthus states that births are killing, or find where anyone states that averaging too many babies is causing the 1billion people suffering chronic hunger.

Dingo;11037 wrote:
My guess is all Cohen was saying is that food supplies rather than growing arithmetically since the industrial revolution was growing exponentially and therefore for a window of time the A vs. E distinction did not hold up.

If Cohen comprehended the issues properly and was commenting on what Malthus got wrong, he would state that Malthus was correct to point out that populations relentlessly attempt to grow exponentially, but Malthus was off his rocker to state that sustenance production increases arithmetically. Of course it can increase at an arithmetic or geometric or just about any rate for arbitrarily short time spans. This is stupid. Given that humans have existed for a long long time and the environment is a finite thing, it is logical to state the sustenance production does not grow. Again, of course it can grow for some arbitrary short period of time, but in the long run it cannot grow (e.g. 99% of human history is characterized by no growth in sustenance production). He would point out that Malthus' main conclusion that the collision of an attempted exponential growth in a finite environment must result in poverty so severe that child mortality will happen proportional to how many babies we average above 2.

Cohen did not come close to stating anything like this. If Cohen does comprehend this as you are trying to argue, then he is an incompetent teacher.

Dingo;11037 wrote:
As for the chronic hunger problem that wasn't necessarily just a supply problem but could be a distribution, corruption and all sorts of other problems thrown into the mix.

This is a typical comment from population experts. It shows the ignorance. It makes no sense to supply proximate causes for the poverty, when the underlying cause is averaging too many babies. No matter how little food waste you manage to engineer, we still will suffer starvation in proportion to how many babies we average. We don't have a clue how much fighting and corruption would exist if we did not overbreed, because we have always overbred. Averaging too many babies must produce child mortality so of course we will be corrupt, we will fight to control territory and resources, and of course there is waste in the food production system. Stating that people starved because of corruption, is about as silly as stating that the Titanic sunk faster because there were too many people on it. Of course it sunk faster because there were approximately 300,000lbs of people weighing it down. Stating that starvation was caused by corruption and all sorts of other problems does nothing but direct efforts in the wrong direction. It is obfuscation, not education.

Dingo;11035 wrote:
I agree with you generally that population follows the resource limit but I don't think that is as novel an idea as you seem to think it is among population specialists.

It would be more helpful if you actually produced a reference that supports your statement. Here's one that agrees. Notice however that it is a published paper and not common knowledge. In other words it is novel. However Hopfenberg does not agree that births are killing. I have exchanged emails with him and he recommends that we stop increasing the food supply to stop the population growth. I pointed out to him that this will result in a higher child mortality rate. He disagreed because he believes there is some magical mechanism that throttles fertility to ensure we do not average too many such that we are killing. I asked him to explain that mechanism and he clammed up.

Dingo;11035 wrote:
Quote:
I see no point in wasting time predicting the future.

In a since that is too bad. You don't know the future of a game of Russian Roulette either but you know it's eventually going to kill you and you better take measures to end the game.

You missed the point I was making. Predictions are not necessary on this topic. Paul Ehrlich made the mistake of predicting mass starvation that did not come to pass and he has lost a lot of credibility. I have no intention of making that mistake. To explain overshoot, the condition where the numbers require the consumption of resources faster than they renew, we do not need to predict a population crash. We need to state that right now we do not know how to keep our numbers alive without destroying the resources we need to achieve that feat. Notice how this states it in the present tense. It does not predict a population crash. It does not predict the end of civilization, whatever that is. It is accurate and not speculative.

Dingo;11035 wrote:
Quote:
It is fundamentally impossible for local communities to live sustainably.

Any decent anthropologist would be appalled by such a ridiculous statement. In the preindustrial era groups living sustainably was often quite normal which is why I put a lot of emphasis on looking backwards for discovering models of success.

Living sustainably is trivial. We do not need to look backwards or forwards or sideways. Just give it enough time and the unsustainable activity will cease. The bulk of human history was living sustainably only because they did not know how to consume resources faster than they renew for any significant amount of time. For example until about 180 years ago we didn't know how to dig up and burn oil to fertilize, harvest, package, refrigerate and distribute food with less labor. So, I agree it is totally possible for local communities to live sustainably and it requires no effort whatsoever.

I was using a different definition of "live sustainably". Mine includes ensuring that we do not average too many babies. When we have the capability to ensure we are not averaging too many babies, then we can average less than 2 until our numbers no longer require the use of resources faster than they renew. In other words, we can follow the algorithm whereby we ask ourselves if we are using resources faster than they renew, and if the answer is "yes", then we continue to maintain an average number of babies below 2.

Dingo;11035 wrote:
Quote:
If just one of your local communities averages more than 2 babies, all other communities can have zero babies, but humans numbers still attempt to grow to infinity.

Badly stated. If just one of your local communities averages more than 2 babies and so do all of their descendents then yes they are in effect striving for infinity.

We both agree with the reality. Both of our sentences are fine. You seem to want to pick a slice in time, then are forced to mention the descendants. I don't pick a slice in time and thus the descendants are included.

Again, the point is that it makes no sense to discuss living sustainably. You are either using a silly definition of sustainability that can be achieved trivially by just waiting, or you are sending the topic towards solutions that cannot succeed. We must all limit the number of babies we create. Everyone, and their descendants, must not average more than 2, until we are no longer consuming resources faster than they renew, and then we can allow us to average 2, but no more. The only thing that the consumption side of the solution (e.g. vegan diets, no corruption, flawless food distribution etc...), can accomplish is to alter the population size that we can resume an average of 2 babies, unless of course you are indifferent to child mortality caused by averaging too many babies. Again, if you are indifferent to those deaths, then no solutions are required for sustainability. Just wait.
Dingo
#17 Posted : Thursday, July 16, 2015 2:39:59 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 6/10/2012(UTC)
Posts: 101
Location: California

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
JohnTaves;11039 wrote:
Dingo;11037 wrote:
JohnTaves;11036 wrote:
Malthus didn't state that averaging too many babies is killing children.

No, he said averaging too many babies is killing people - one more of your distinctions without a difference.

One of Malthus' Papers is here. Please find where he states that averaging too many babies is killing.

Why must he state the obvious? He also doesn't say the world is round. So does that mean he believes it is flat?

Quote:
More importantly averaging too many babies kills children and ONLY children. This is not a distinction without a difference. It does not kill adults.

Are you kidding? I can't believe you wrote this. Resource deficits only effect children? I'm missing something here.

Quote:
Either he's trying to avoid stating that averaging too many babies is killing, which is fundamental concept that no intro to population issues should ever avoid, or he's ignorant.

If you want to make things complicated the possibilities are endless. All Cohen was doing with the tub analogy was showing that a stable population was associated with births equaling deaths. The overflowing tub does the same thing but adds I guess a lethal implication. Again it is a distinction without a difference except your metaphor is more morally suggestive.

Quote:
Dingo;11037 wrote:
What population expert assumes chronic hunger does not result in premature death?

Again, find where Malthus states that births are killing, or find where anyone states that averaging too many babies is causing the 1billion people suffering chronic hunger.

Same old, same old. If they don't state the obvious in your terms then they are ignorant of what you understand - silly.

Quote:
Dingo;11037 wrote:
My guess is all Cohen was saying is that food supplies rather than growing arithmetically since the industrial revolution was growing exponentially and therefore for a window of time the A vs. E distinction did not hold up.

of course it can grow for some arbitrary short period of time, but in the long run it cannot grow

So what? Most of the time a species is at its limit. But when that limit increases then the population increases exponentially and when the limit increases exponentially due to human invention then the population increases to match it. If folks want to discuss this process what's your problem?

Quote:
Dingo;11037 wrote:
As for the chronic hunger problem that wasn't necessarily just a supply problem but could be a distribution, corruption and all sorts of other problems thrown into the mix.

This is a typical comment from population experts. It shows the ignorance. It makes no sense to supply proximate causes for the poverty, when the underlying cause is averaging too many babies.

I think human history is a little more interesting than simply numbers. Did Genghis Khan set out to conquer the world due to population pressures? Partly I'm sure. But that hardly exhausts the issue. Dreams of power and wealth and wenches etc. all play their part.

Quote:
Dingo;11035 wrote:
Quote:
I see no point in wasting time predicting the future.

In a since that is too bad. You don't know the future of a game of Russian Roulette either but you know it's eventually going to kill you and you better take measures to end the game.

You missed the point I was making. Predictions are not necessary on this topic. Paul Ehrlich made the mistake of predicting mass starvation that did not come to pass and he has lost a lot of credibility.

You're doing apples and oranges. The immanence of a 6th extinction event at some nonspecific time in the future has nothing to do with Ehrlich's bad predictions and being indifferent has everything to do with playing Russian Roulette.


Quote:
Dingo;11035 wrote:
Quote:
It is fundamentally impossible for local communities to live sustainably.

Any decent anthropologist would be appalled by such a ridiculous statement. In the preindustrial era groups living sustainably was often quite normal which is why I put a lot of emphasis on looking backwards for discovering models of success.

Living sustainably is trivial. We do not need to look backwards or forwards or sideways. Just give it enough time and the unsustainable activity will cease. The bulk of human history was living sustainably only because they did not know how to consume resources faster than they renew for any significant amount of time.

Again you are anthropologically ignorant. When Europeans came to America they for the most part found a people who lived quite sustainably within their environment and practiced birth control and engaged in ecologically sustainable practices. Your belief in their ignorance just shows your ignorance.


Quote:
Dingo;11035 wrote:
Quote:
If just one of your local communities averages more than 2 babies, all other communities can have zero babies, but humans numbers still attempt to grow to infinity.

Badly stated. If just one of your local communities averages more than 2 babies and so do all of their descendents then yes they are in effect striving for infinity.

We both agree with the reality. Both of our sentences are fine.

I have a problem with yours because populations ebb and flow over a broad space. It is the average that is critical and if a group in a particular ecological space grows to sustainability and then stops growing within that space then I am fine with that. The earth requires generally a 2 person limit but discrete areas can handle variability.
JohnTaves
#19 Posted : Friday, July 17, 2015 9:51:06 AM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators, Approved
Joined: 7/14/2011(UTC)
Posts: 75

Quote:
Quote:
More importantly averaging too many babies kills children and ONLY children. This is not a distinction without a difference. It does not kill adults.

Are you kidding? I can't believe you wrote this. Resource deficits only effect children? I'm missing something here.


Yes, you are missing something. I did not state that "resource deficits only effect children".

Let's use an analogy. You and I are in a meeting to discuss what we've learned from the Titanic disaster. You state that 1500+ people died prematurely because steel is heavier than water, and the water is freezing cold. I am stating that they died because there were not enough life boats on the ship, because the USS California turned off it's wireless at night, and because Smith did not heed the ice warnings. My statements make it clear we should have enough life boats for everyone, we should require ships to monitor their radios 24/7, and we should make it standard practice to monitor the ice floes and reroute shipping. Your statement is correct and totally useless. It does not direct efforts at a solution. The other members of the committee would ask you to leave because your words accomplish nothing to help figure out how to prevent the tragedy from happening in the future.

The analogy with the Titanic does not do this justice however. In the Titanic situation your words are useless. The only damage they cause is to waste time. In the topic of human population, "resource deficits" direct people to add more subsistence production, reduce waste, and end corruption. This is not just useless, it is damaging. These solutions only allow the population to grow even more. They do absolutely nothing to prevent resource deficits that will always happen as long as we average too many babies. For the past 200 years we have done a historically phenomenal job at increasing production, reducing waste, and reducing corruption, and throughout that whole time we continued to kill children by averaging too many. It is ludicrous to suggest solutions along the lines of doing more of what has failed and will always fail.

The difference between "resource deficits kill people" and "averaging too many babies kills children and we are averaging too many babies right now" is profound. There is only one country, China, that is attempting to ensure their people do not average too many babies. We can debate whether a limit of 1 is sufficient, but no other country is even considering limits. You will have serious difficulty finding anyone that thinks it is OK to ensure we do not create too many babies, yet every single one of them will agree that killing children is about the worst crime one can commit. If I give Cohen and Malthus the credit you want to give them, then they are absolute imbeciles at communicating. If they meant that averaging too many babies kills children, they have never used words remotely like that.

Quote:
When Europeans came to America they for the most part found a people who lived quite sustainably within their environment and practiced birth control and engaged in ecologically sustainable practices.

I agree with this. I did not disagree with it. I made it clear that it is trivial to live sustainably. Just wait for the resources to run out. The native Americans did not know how to dig up and burn fossil fuels profitably. They did not have the capability to drain the Ogallala acquifer, nor the ability to cause the 6th mass extinction. You have no evidence that if they knew how to burn oil, they would have avoided it. In other words, you have no reason to believe there is anything to learn from them. Unfortunately this view of "sustainable" is useless.

I agree that the native Americans and generally all societies practice some amount of birth control, but this is insufficient. They were always averaging too many babies and causing starvation related child mortality. There is no reason to believe that groups/communities/countries cannot export the required death. In order to conclude that they were living sustainably using the useful definition of sustainably, you'd have to prove that there were no groups in North American (I am assuming NA is a single and contained environment back then) for a significant period of time suffering from starvation related child mortality.
JohnTaves
#18 Posted : Friday, July 17, 2015 6:48:16 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators, Approved
Joined: 7/14/2011(UTC)
Posts: 75

Dingo;11040 wrote:

I have a problem with yours because populations ebb and flow over a broad space. It is the average that is critical and if a group in a particular ecological space grows to sustainability and then stops growing within that space then I am fine with that. The earth requires generally a 2 person limit but discrete areas can handle variability.

This is another example of the lack of comprehension of the concept. No community has implemented a system that ensures they are not attempting to grow their numbers. They must implement a system where someone is allowed to get pregnant when another dies. Alternatively, they could do a system where everyone stops at two, but is allowed to create another upon death of a child or if someone gives them their unused birth. With either of these systems births replace deaths, instead of births causing deaths. No community has done this, and even if they had, the belief system that this requires has gone extinct because surrounding communities would relentlessly attempt to grow and would overrun the ones that practice this type of pull system (See the evolution section on this page for more info). I call these "pull systems" because they are not relentlessly murderously pushing new babies into the system. Again, our numbers have always been at the limit, thus they only grow when the limit grows.

You keep trying to tell me that I am making distinctions without a difference, but your writing does not provide any evidence that you comprehend the difference between the population not growing because it is at the limit, and killing, vs the members performing the steps necessary to ensure they are not attempting to grow their numbers. The difference is dead children, and I am not being dramatic. I am being technically and scientifically accurate.
Dingo
#21 Posted : Sunday, July 19, 2015 3:28:04 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 6/10/2012(UTC)
Posts: 101
Location: California

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I have already suggested that the Europeans came into a Native American world that appeared to be comprehensively sustainable. As far as killing I don't expect it ever to disappear. I'll be satisfied to see it dramatically diminished.

You still keep separating out children from the rest of the population as far as excess death which strikes me as clueless.

You also offer no scenario for achieving sustainability in the real world. Your world of number accountants who appear indifferent to ecological feed backs, just playing a numbers game, is a bureaucratic nightmare populated by population control bean counters. My model of community involvement in sustainability does address the matter of population with numbers as a guide, not an obsession. Presumably they would operate in cooperation with other sustainable communities in policing the communities of aggression ie of population proliferators.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 1.9.5.5 | YAF © 2003-2011, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.587 seconds.