Overpopulation - the truth of which nothing shall ever be spoken

[PeanutButter]

2 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

Third of water courses carries 'forever chemicals' linked to cancer

More than a third of water courses contain 'forever chemicals' linked to cancers and fertility issues, analysis has found.

The Royal Society of Chemistry's (RSC) analysis found 35% and 37% of English and Welsh water courses that were tested contain a medium or high-risk level of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) respectively.

👍

AHEM 

 

[Arpeggio]

22 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

AHEM 

 

Good soft kill thread, and timely of you to mention it on this one.

[staintunerider]

On 10/10/2023 at 10:44, btd1981 said:

Ranting here because at least people are capable of accepting a 'controversial ' view and happy to discuss in a (largely) mature way

The Guardian are running an article about planning and the prevailing view is 'build more housing, build more housing'

While I accept this, whenever I try to suggest in comments that the planet cannot support a human population that increases indefinitely, they moderate me straight away.

I'm not trying to be provocative, and I don't take it personally. It's just a fact that seems incontrovertible to me, and I'd love somebody to explain to my how it isn't??

- at least if the end result is to be a planet that anybody would want to inhabit.

Are humans doomed to failure if we cannot have a sensible debate about this elephant in the room? It seems deeply concerning.

'everything is fine....'

David Attenborough has been very vocal about this for sometime, of course as a national treasure they are probably loathe to shut him down .....

I doubt the tiny island of the Uk no matter how much you fill it up is ever going to be a major factor for world overpopulation, you only have to look at a map.....this place is a spec...

So going on a govt sponsored house building spree here like after ww2 which is exactly what we need isn't going to matter as far as global population.....and we do have plenty of space for housebuilding we just don;t use land in the most sensible way.....

If we properly invested in infrastructure way and beyond the aims of HS2 we could make much more of this country instead we waste most of the tax income on state welfare that gives nothng back and just grows and grows insatiably...

 

[Smith]

16 hours ago, MarkG said:

Collapsing population is rapidly becoming a global problem.

Not a desperate problem yet as we lived pretty well with much smaller populations in the past, but it's hard to just turn birth rates on and off. And, worse, because Western countries use it as an excuse to flood their countries with foreigners.

Only an economist could believe the world needs an ever increasing population. If that's your position, what's the end game?

[Wampus Cat]

This is a sensitive topic, as the conclusions that any rational analysis leads to will upset a lot of people.

Fact 1 - Women's education levels correlates precisely with a falling birth rate.

Is this  problem? Yes, the problem can be divided into short and long term;

• Short term - not enough people working, so the economy will shrink and the old will have no one to care for them or pay their pensions. This can partly be off set by immigration.
• Long term - the society will go into a demographic death-spiral and ultimately go extinct. This doesn't mean the end of the human race - societies which do not support women's education will step into the space left by the societies in decline.

People who think this is not a problem are either incredibly short sighted or are just plain 'I'm all right Jack' selfish.

Why don't people like talking about it?

Because there are only two outcomes;

• Women's education is strictly limited. In Afghanistan the decision has been taken that Women should only be educated only to Primary school level. This goes against the cherished belief in equality in the Western world and is largely considered 'unthinkable'. 
• Women's education continues and so will the decline in societies that tolerate it. Ultra  religious groups such as Orthodox Jews, Old Order Amish and fundamentalist Islam will continue to grow and thrive. The demographic profile of the moderately religious mostly follows the same profile as the secular. Only fundamentalists can buck the trend.

Ultimately, the 'contradiction of feminism' is that societies that adopt female equality will die out because the women are not having babies. These egalitarian societies essentially doom themselves to be out-bred by the fundamentally religious. With immigration the society with values that don't work, is essentially stealing people from societies with social models that do work.

I believe we are on course for outcome 2 - and nothing can stop it. Israel is a good example - Secular Jews  are getting older while 50% of Palestinians are under 18. Like the US and the rest of the western world they are struggling to find enough recruits to staff their militaries.

What I have written above is true even if it offends you. There is no counter argument. It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, it's what will happen. The truth upsets people because it points out that one of their most cherished values doesn't work and is unsustainable.

 

Here's a short video about it:

 

[Smith]

16 minutes ago, Wampus Cat said:

People who think this is not a problem are either incredibly short sighted or are just plain 'I'm all right Jack' selfish.

Or they don't agree with your analysis.

Unless you think our planet can support an infinite number of people, then there has to be a point when the population stops increasing. To argue otherwise defies logic.

[btd1981]

One of my biggest issues is that debate almost entirely circles around the impact of human population trends upon humans only.

We are collectively responsible for one of, if not *the*, greatest mass extinction events this planet has ever seen. This planet is the only one that we know of that sustains complex life, and could conceivably be unique (although I don't subscribe to this).

All the same, we might well be obliterating most of the only life that exists in the universe. The more of us there are, the worse it gets.

'but what about caring for the elderly, innit'

Edited October 21, 2023 by btd1981

[Wampus Cat]

48 minutes ago, Smith said:

Or they don't agree with your analysis.

Unless you think our planet can support an infinite number of people, then there has to be a point when the population stops increasing. To argue otherwise defies logic.

What were seeing here is a catastrophic population crash in the developed world and a population explosion mong the fundamentally religious. Not an end too population growth overall.

[PeanutButter]

5 minutes ago, Wampus Cat said:

What were seeing here is a catastrophic population crash in the developed world and a population explosion mong the fundamentally religious. Not an end too population growth overall.

Agreed, but I am fine with a population decline. If anything, it should be more rapid. 
Women worldwide, when asked how many children they would ideally have, on average say two. 

But we don’t make the rich richer with women having just two kids.

 

[Smith]

2 minutes ago, Wampus Cat said:

What were seeing here is a catastrophic population crash in the developed world and a population explosion mong the fundamentally religious. Not an end too population growth overall.

 

1 hour ago, Wampus Cat said:

What I have written above is true even if it offends you. There is no counter argument. It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, it's what will happen. The truth upsets people because it points out that one of their most cherished values doesn't work and is unsustainable.

There most certainly is a counter argument to your "catastrophic population crash". You maybe need to learn the difference between facts and opinion.

 

[scottbeard]

4 hours ago, Wampus Cat said:

I believe we are on course for outcome 2 - and nothing can stop it.

What I have written above is true even if it offends you. There is no counter argument. It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, it's what will happen

I’m not offended by what you wrote - but your arrogance and over confidence is astounding.

You have made a raft of assumptions and projections - basically extrapolating current situations and trends indefinitely into the future.

Any time someone makes a speculative post about what MIGHT happen over the next 1,000 years and then says “what I have written is true.  There is no counter argument” isn’t someone worth debating with clearly, but rest assured a myriad of other outcomes over the long term are possible from wipeout by nuclear war to children being grown outside women.

 

[nightowl]

12 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

But we don’t make the rich richer with women having just two kids.

Historically, having more than enough replacement rates also meant a younger healthier and productive group could sustain and support the elderly sick and frail better so doesn't have to be a purely economic benefit. 

We tend to think of our island as an example and Israel's decline being another mentioned but Chinas demographic collapse is the one to watch out for especially if global economics is concerned!

Edited October 22, 2023 by nightowl

[zugzwang]

15 hours ago, Wampus Cat said:

Ultimately, the 'contradiction of feminism' is that societies that adopt female equality will die out because the women are not having babies. These egalitarian societies essentially doom themselves to be out-bred by the fundamentally religious. With immigration the society with values that don't work, is essentially stealing people from societies with social models that do work.

There's no contradiction. Everyone wants a Western consumer lifestyle, even the Saudis and Iranians. AI and automation will take care of the employment shortfall. With the notable exception of America, medical advances mean we live longer and are far healthier in old age than we ever have been. One third of Japanese over 70 are still working.

Edited October 22, 2023 by zugzwang

[bartelbe]

On 10/10/2023 at 10:44 AM, btd1981 said:

Ranting here because at least people are capable of accepting a 'controversial ' view and happy to discuss in a (largely) mature way

The Guardian are running an article about planning and the prevailing view is 'build more housing, build more housing'

While I accept this, whenever I try to suggest in comments that the planet cannot support a human population that increases indefinitely, they moderate me straight away.

I'm not trying to be provocative, and I don't take it personally. It's just a fact that seems incontrovertible to me, and I'd love somebody to explain to my how it isn't??

- at least if the end result is to be a planet that anybody would want to inhabit.

Are humans doomed to failure if we cannot have a sensible debate about this elephant in the room? It seems deeply concerning.

'everything is fine....'

The Guardian are a joke, comment is free my arse. They censor any comments they don't like, even if they obey every moderation rule.

As you say it is a valid question. I asked it under one of Monbiot's articles about re-wilding; about how he could square open borders and population growth with transferring land to wildlife? Now I have allot of time for Monbiot and agree with much of what he says but I think I asked a valid question.

Instant censorship, you simply can't even make that point, which is nuts. One of the main reasons the natural world in this country is under so much stress is too many people and too much development. Yet you can't ask greens on the left how they can square their views on the environment with increasing the population by 600k a year.

[bartelbe]

1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

There's no contradiction. Everyone wants a Western consumer lifestyle, even the Saudis and Iranians. AI and automation will take care of the employment shortfall. With the notable exception of America, medical advances mean we live longer and are far healthier in old age than we ever have been. One third of Japanese over 70 are still working.

Sorry but that is laughable non-sense. You're like someone in the 1950's saying we don't need to worry about energy security because we know nuclear power will be too cheap to meter.

Technology might come to the rescue of Western societies but you can't possibly know it will.

[Smith]

Several times in this and other threads I've asked this simple question to those who believe population must continue to grow for society to work:

What is the end game for a system which requires ever increasing population? How do think this will end?

No one has so far attempted to answer this question, which might be telling.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Smith

[scottbeard]

2 hours ago, Smith said:

Several times in this and other threads I've asked this simple question to those who believe population must continue to grow for society to work:

What is the end game for a system which requires ever increasing population? How do think this will end?

No one has so far attempted to answer this question, which might be telling.

Who thinks that?!  It's impossible.  No one thinks that.

[yelims]

2 hours ago, Smith said:

Several times in this and other threads I've asked this simple question to those who believe population must continue to grow for society to work:

What is the end game for a system which requires ever increasing population? How do think this will end?

No one has so far attempted to answer this question, which might be telling.

I don’t believe populations need to grow for ever increasing economic wealth, there’s plenty of examples now where wealth has decoupled from population and even fossil energy use

But anyways to answer your question, take a look at the Expanse books and tv series for what a dystopian future with 30+ billion people on earth and another billion in solar system, tho this sci-fi series does solve it in various erm ways (not to spoil story)

[24gray24]

2 hours ago, Smith said:

Several times in this and other threads I've asked this simple question to those who believe population must continue to grow for society to work:

What is the end game for a system which requires ever increasing population? How do think this will end?

No one has so far attempted to answer this question, which might be telling.

This is an economic model, not a demographic one. 

The end game is the economic model changes to a declining population mode. 

I don't think many countries have increasing birth rates these days, growth is just better health care increasing the population by keeping people alive. 

[Wampus Cat]

7 hours ago, zugzwang said:

There's no contradiction. Everyone wants a Western consumer lifestyle, even the Saudis and Iranians. AI and automation will take care of the employment shortfall. With the notable exception of America, medical advances mean we live longer and are far healthier in old age than we ever have been. One third of Japanese over 70 are still working.

No, plenty of groups reject the Western consumer lifestyle. These groups correlate with religiosity rather than nationality. These groups tend not to be represented in the mass media, so your awareness of them is probably limited.

The idea that the consumer lifestyle can expand globally and be continued indefinitely with help of technology is wrong.

[Wampus Cat]

16 hours ago, scottbeard said:

I’m not offended by what you wrote - but your arrogance and over confidence is astounding.

You have made a raft of assumptions and projections - basically extrapolating current situations and trends indefinitely into the future.

Any time someone makes a speculative post about what MIGHT happen over the next 1,000 years and then says “what I have written is true.  There is no counter argument” isn’t someone worth debating with clearly, but rest assured a myriad of other outcomes over the long term are possible from wipeout by nuclear war to children being grown outside women.

 

We have to work on current trends because that is literally the process we are living though.

I concede a black swan event like nuclear war, or another Carrington event could wipe out 80% of the population and push us back to the stone age, but it's still an outlaying possibility.

[Wampus Cat]

20 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

Agreed, but I am fine with a population decline. If anything, it should be more rapid. 
Women worldwide, when asked how many children they would ideally have, on average say two. 

But we don’t make the rich richer with women having just two kids.

 

Women's fertility preferences are linked to culture and vary enormously.

[mynamehere]

1 hour ago, 24gray24 said:

This is an economic model, not a demographic one. 

The end game is the economic model changes to a declining population mode. 

I don't think many countries have increasing birth rates these days, growth is just better health care increasing the population by keeping people alive.   

Fertility declines with development so it kinda balances out. As the world completes its development population will level off. the economy will operate very differently at that point. But it will be neccessary to incentivise fertility to keep the age balance otherwise it will be to many oldies  

from an economic health point of view the ratio of working to retired is more important than the absolute numbers involved?

from an environmental point of view it seems we will run out of fossil energy at some point so it’s sink or swim in that regard. Kinda makes sense to drive forward progress quickly as possible 

 

Edited October 22, 2023 by mynamehere

[scottbeard]

1 hour ago, Wampus Cat said:

We have to work on current trends because that is literally the process we are living though.

Will current trends persist in a year? Yes. 10 years? Probably.  100 years? Unclear. They might…but your dogmatic “there are NO counter arguments” simply isn’t right 

1 hour ago, Wampus Cat said:

I concede a black swan event like nuclear war, or another Carrington event could wipe out 80% of the population and push us back to the stone age, but it's still an outlaying possibility.

Agreed on those exactly, but there is a sliding scale of less severe but similar ones eg due to climate change.

[iamnumerate]

23 hours ago, btd1981 said:

One of my biggest issues is that debate almost entirely circles around the impact of human population trends upon humans only.

We are collectively responsible for one of, if not *the*, greatest mass extinction events this planet has ever seen. This planet is the only one that we know of that sustains complex life, and could conceivably be unique (although I don't subscribe to this).

All the same, we might well be obliterating most of the only life that exists in the universe. The more of us there are, the worse it gets.

'but what about caring for the elderly, innit'

+1