Bushwalk Australia

What we are doing to this planet continues to distress me.

The entire world's economy is tied to population growth, which can not be sustained.

The easy solution would appear to be limiting the number of children people are having. However, this would cause a collapse of the entire global economy.

There were 4.5 billion people on earth when I was born - now there's roughly 7.2 billion.

Who is going to be the first world leader to do something about the fact we are breeding ourselves to destruction? Anyone who has seen WALL-E (the Disney kids movie) would see what we have in store for the Earth if we continue on our current path.

What do you think about population control?

Have you ever seen a plague of mice. There are millions of the little blighters everywhere, eating everything that they can and this goes on for a good while. Then the food runs out and you literally wake up one morning and they are gone, all dead except a few hardy souls to start again and they do start again.

Countries are buying up other sovereign nations food capacity, dairy, beef, grain, water, why???

Because when the music stops, not everyone is going to have a seat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Population growth, much like so many other great scares of our time, is turning out to be a really big non-issue. Fix living standards across the world (economic growth and distribution), ensure the rule of law, provide education to the masses and we shall see the few remaining regions of the World with high population growth address their own problems.

Doomsday prophets peddling nonsense do a great deal of damage and should be held to account.

Hi Maddog.

I'm assuming you do realise on your graph
a) regardless of the actual percentage, population growth remains positive at all times
b) the blue line is a guess that my kid could have drawn in.

Thankyou for labelling me a doomsdayer. All the education and poverty correction will make zero difference if the earth can't sustainably support what's here already.

SA_Hiker, both your points are correct and valid, but they don't negate what Maddog is referring to.

In every country, as education has risen, female fertility has dropped. In many prosperous countries, women are already having fewer than 2 babies each, i.e. less than the rate required to keep the population steady. If the same thing happens in the remaining third world countries (and there's no reason to think it won't) then the world's population will peak and start to decrease.

Your kid could have drawn that blue line, it is true. It's a guess whether the population will peak (and the blue line will go into negative territory) in 2050, 2075 or 2100. But it's going to happen. When women can have careers, they no longer have so many babies.

I would prefer the population to peak sooner rather than later. The lower the population, the more resources there are for everyone, and the higher quality of life we have. Right now, the person who can make the biggest difference is the Pope. He just needs to say "Hey, all forms of birth control are cool" and hundreds of millions of women will have fewer children.

South_Aussie_Hiker wrote:The easy solution would appear to be limiting the number of children people are having. However, this would cause a collapse of the entire global economy.
...
Who is going to be the first world leader to do something about the fact we are breeding ourselves to destruction? Anyone who has seen WALL-E (the Disney kids movie) would see what we have in store for the Earth if we continue on our current path.

China has, for the last few decades! But got blasted by the West and various political and rights group, then after decades, it dawned on them that enforced population control is necessary for China, as well as for the entire planet. So the leader you sought is Deng Xiaoping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

In any case, life is a fatal illness and Earth is also a fatal planet in due course. It'll get swollen up by a red giant unless it gets blown up for the intergalactic freeway.

G’day SAH,

No problem. You raised the issue of population growth: ‘the entire world’s economy is tied to population growth, which cannot be sustained.’ And yes, I do understand that population growth remains (marginally) positive. But, my guess is you would find it hard to find more than a small handful of nations, enjoying the benefits previously mentioned, that are, in your terms, breeding themselves to destruction. What do such nations have in common? Indeed, much of the developed world suffers from the opposite problem – they are not replacing themselves. What do these nations have in common? Notice a pattern? (See also ribuck's post).

Perpetuating discredited Malthusian ideology (e.g. comparing humans to mice, calling for population control, etc.) do little to address the problem as it exists (in pockets of the world). People peddling such ideas have, in the past, failed to realise that such problems are often illusory , so their inability to provide solutions is of no surprise. Indeed such 'solutions', usually informed by prejudice, actually predated the 'problem', and are more likely to make the 'problem' worse. BTW, just how does one go about the ‘easy solution’ of limiting the number of children people have? A one child policy? Sterilisation? Are you comfortable with such things?

And in regards to the trajectory for world population growth, the pattern observed in the graph, is pretty widely accepted. Check with the World Bank if you like.

Cheers,

Maddog.

The key is obviously a combination of increasing population and the increasing middle class within, and the effect on resource consumption they bring. Trying to refute population is not a factor is just futile, especially with skewed data presentation. A bit like environment change denialists.

Hi Maddog.

I didn't draw any conclusions between mice plague and the human/earth condition. That was someone else.

As for how does one instigate such change, I don't know. That's why I started the thread. I don't support one child policy or any other radical measures. I'm interested to see what other people on bushwalk.com think, that's why. I asked the question.

What I do support is global leadership who acknowledges
a) continued population growth is unsustainable
b) economic policy and the success thereof being tied to population increase is a fundamental concept which needs to be re-examined
c) a lot more work needs to be done on determining if even the current level is sustainable in the super long term (ie if growth were to zero tomorrow, how long would 7.2 billion be sustainable? - and I'm not talking this generation or my kids' generation, I'm talking thousands of years into the future)
d) as someone with a science/physics degree, I understand the earth and the human race is ultimately doomed as someone has said. My very humble and unworthy opinion is that history may go on to prove that 7 billion may in fact be many multiples greater than that which is sustainable on a long time scale.

I used to just think about me and my existence. Then I started thinking about the legacy for my kids, and perhaps their kids. And then I realised thats not enough either.

I think it's worth discussing. A global economy which can remain prosperous during population decline is the only way forward, if in fact the sustainable level has already been surpassed.

South_Aussie_Hiker wrote: as someone with a science/physics degree, I understand the earth and the human race is ultimately doomed as someone has said.

Didn't they teach you about space travel?

Currently, that seems so unlikely (in terms of both locating something actually suitable and actually being able to travel there), that we'd be better off looking after this little rock rather than looking to quickly destroy and discard it on the small chance the monumental challenges with moving somewhere else might be overcome by then.

South_Aussie_Hiker wrote:What we are doing to this planet continues to distress me.

The entire world's economy is tied to population growth, which can not be sustained.

The easy solution would appear to be limiting the number of children people are having. However, this would cause a collapse of the entire global economy.

There were 4.5 billion people on earth when I was born - now there's roughly 7.2 billion.

Who is going to be the first world leader to do something about the fact we are breeding ourselves to destruction? Anyone who has seen WALL-E (the Disney kids movie) would see what we have in store for the Earth if we continue on our current path.

What do you think about population control?

All you can do is take care of your own backyard and educate your own family on the importance of doing the same.
I have my family, how could I dare to impose a restriction on those that don't have a family as yet.
Do we sterilize very second person, euthanize the those over a certain age?
To hell with world leaders making decisions on population control..........Hitler tried that one!
Go bushwalking, take your time, smell the roses and enjoy the time you have.

I don't share the belief that all will be ok with some careful management of population and the dragging of lower class into middle and upper class. My whole working careers has been in agriculture. What most people tend to do is think about food in terms of products, meat, soybean, corn, skim milk powder (the above are all staples in world food calculations on global food stores) but what we should be looking at all foods is in terms of protein. When one does this you quickly realise that we don't have sufficient protein in the world to maintain our current population. This is why countries from the Middle East, China and other land deprived or poor soil type countries are purchasing productive agricultural land globally. China is not just buying Ag land here, it's doing so in North and South America, Australia and NZ. The other big issue that no one seems to want to touch is water or the lack of it. This is probably the single biggest issue globally and great cause for concern. Countries that share a common water source are now deeply concerned when upstream countries start building dams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

neilmny wrote:To hell with world leaders making decisions on population control..........Hitler tried that one!

Wrong context and comparison. Personal liberty and communal liberty are not always congruent. That's why there are laws in society.

GPSGuided wrote:

neilmny wrote:To hell with world leaders making decisions on population control..........Hitler tried that one!

Wrong context and comparison. Personal liberty and communal liberty are not always congruent. That's why there are laws in society.

I disagree.......who decides????????....not the power and money hungry "world leaders" mentioned by the OP.
I see the laws of society as the wrong comparison. Community laws designed to "protect" are one thing but laws designed to maintain power are another.
Everybody fixes up their own backyard it is very simple.

neilmny wrote:I disagree.......who decides????????....not the power and money hungry "world leaders" mentioned by the OP.
I see the laws of society as the wrong comparison. Community laws designed to "protect" are one thing but laws designed to maintain power are another.
Everybody fixes up their own backyard it is very simple.

Everyone wants to be 'FREE' but every part of Earth has been claimed by a country or war lord. So unless one hides in a corner of the wilderness, the rest of us are all being restrained in one way or another. For the great majority of the social beings, we co-exist with others within the chosen or default society we live in, with specific social rules and defaulted government and political structure. Nothing new to all these, been going on for thousands of years now. Fact is, community laws have evolved to protect the interests of the various parties (rightly or wrongly) and for the continuing existence of the cohort. Subject to the structure, success and failures ensue through history. There's no absolute freedom to the individual and that's life and there's little to agree or disagree about. 'Power hungry world leaders' actually came out of the same cohort of human beings we live with, shaped by the social political system we have in place... For a start, it's already a challenge to view the agenda in the interest of the human kind or Earth than the political structure (country) they represent. No surprise, because many if most have been brought up to look after the interest of the individual than the community.

'What rights does country X have to tell my country what to do' is not too different to 'what rights do others have to tell me what to do'... This seemed to be central to our discussion and problem.

G’day Neilmny,

Have to admit euthanizing the old would probably be a sensible option given the fertility rate been plummeting in most places (other than the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa). It would also help us deal with the bulging seniors who cost far more than they produce. They are, to be fair, not just an environmental burden, but also a financial one. Finally a measure on which IPA conservatives and radical greens can agree. With such an initiative, the developed world can be seen as doing its bit and it could be efficiently managed through the health system.

But, in our haste to find a solution to this non-problem, we should not overlook those of more modest financial circumstances. The solution offered by Malthus:

Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases: and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased ... we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty and yet few be absolutely starved.

Pleasant stuff. Strangely enough, just the type of conditions we would expect in countries with high fertility rates and booming population growth. But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good scare.

Cheers,

Maddog

G'day Giddy,

There is no coming famine however much you may hope for one. We are producing more food with less land than ever before. And as for the Chinese, they will buy when they have money and sell when they run out. Barnaby's farm scare sounds a little like the fear we had of the Japanese in the 1980's. Sell them as much as they will buy is the lesson from history.

Also, what happened to 'peak oil'? Our Prophets have a poor track record don't they.

Cheers,

Maddog

maddog wrote:G’day Neilmny,

Have to admit euthanizing the old would probably be a sensible option given the fertility rate been plummeting in most places (other than the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa). It would also help us deal with the bulging seniors who cost far more than they produce. They are, to be fair, not just an environmental burden, but also a financial one. Finally a measure on which IPA conservatives and radical greens can agree. With such an initiative, the developed world can be seen as doing its bit and it could be efficiently managed through the health system...........

You truly are a maddog..........still just here for the argument

G'day Neilmny,

As a keen bushwalker I know a lively thread is a sure fix for a dull forum, so I just try to help out here and there. It is unfortunate that some members are unable to recover from old wounds though.

maddog wrote:G'day Giddy,

There is no coming famine however much you may hope for one. We are producing more food with less land than ever before. And as for the Chinese, they will buy when they have money and sell when they run out. Barnaby's farm scare sounds a little like the fear we had of the Japanese in the 1980's. Sell them as much as they will buy is the lesson from history.

Also, what happened to 'peak oil'? Our Prophets have a poor track record don't they.

Cheers,

Maddog

Hey Maddog,

The trouble with your figures is this,

It includes crops grown for oil and crops grown for ethanol, it also includes the massive amount of extra land that has been cleared through out the Amazon basin for the production of soybeans and corn for biofuel.

Based on what I can see, most of the gains are being used in motor cars.

Turn it around, one can certainly say there's enough food/protein being produced to feed a 7B population. However, it will require a significant curtailing of excesses of those in developed countries to distribute to those in the underdeveloped and developing countries. Unfortunately, the 'free' middle class life style that developing countries use to validate their entity and political structure has been intimately associated with waste and excesses. Trying to curtail this lot will invariably lead to major conflicts b/n groups and nations i.e. War. A well tested way to rapidly reduce the population. LOL

Well Giddy, I’d have to agree that in a world awash with cheap oil expensive bio-fuels should be phased out, providing closure to a scare from another era. As should subsidies for renewables more generally. No more corporate welfare - surely we can all agree.

In respect to the Amazon, tropical rainforest is remarkably resilient, so cleared areas rapidly return to forest if left to fallow. Notwithstanding this inconvenient truth, here’s a silver lining for your cloud.

Hi Maddog,

Nice cherry picking

Key words in your response,

"Cheap oil, expensive bio fuel". Whilst this is true of the current state of play its not the norm with hydrocarbons averaging far higher average costs of production than bio fuels, hence the explosion of crops suitable for bio fuel production. Hydrocarbons are at record lows because they are being manipulated by the Saudis to prove a point. That point being that when the U.S became self sufficient in oil from its shale oil deposits and started to export into open markets a message needed to be sent. Shale oil costs on average about $60/barrel to produce so in order to suppress that production the Saudis through OPEC drove the price below that $60 barrier. The current price is unsustainable as a quick look at the Saudis balance sheet will quickly show and it will need to return in short order, late this year to prices around or slightly over $60. Once this happens your bio fuel is back on parity at very least.

"If left to fallow"

Nice catch phrase, problem is it's not being left to fallow and the available hectares around it are being cleared as well with no foreseeable end in sight. Guess we won't be seeing regrowth on those fields being touted as a solution to carbon sequestration.

As for your silver lining, well I don't think over 5000 square kilometers of old growth rainforest being cleared every year as a silver or even bronze lining. To be quite frank it's nothing more than fecal matter!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

G’day Giddy,

On oil, there is no doubt that there is plenty of it about. Don’t forget the Russians though, with around half of the worlds reserves, nor that the Iranians are re-entering the market. More than enough for the world’s slowly growing population. On shale reserves, a worthy example human ingenuity, and justification for optimism. If the price rises, or perhaps in times of conflict, many such reserves will quickly come back on line.

But none of this changes the need to remove corporate welfare – to all corporate rentseekers. Why on earth should the taxpayer subsidise Chinese solar panels? Or ethanol production? I can think of others more needy.

On the clearing of the Amazon, a little perspective is necessary. Using the annual clearing figure you provided, 5000km2, and with quick reference to Wikipedia to determine the total area of the Amazon's rainforest (5.5 million km2), you are wetting the bed over an annual clearing rate of approximately 0.09%? At that rate it would take 1100 years before they got through the lot. Sounds pretty inconsequential to me. A little research will lead you to concede that such an ‘impact’ would be less than the damage incurred by storms, or the scratching of subsistence farmers. May even do some good. Forests are healthier when disturbed – it allows for succession. In regards to the term ‘old growth’, how do you define this? 30-60 year regrowth?

Cheers,

Maddog.

maddog wrote:On oil, there is no doubt that there is plenty of it about. Don’t forget the Russians though, with around half of the worlds reserves, nor that the Iranians are re-entering the market. More than enough for the world’s slowly growing population...

Population growth may be slowing but the primary driver of oil and energy is the move to middle class life style. This is happening to China and India and in the developing world. Further, in relation to your counter on 'peak oil', that's a long wave projection while the present slowing China economy is a medium cycle downturn. In terms of quantum of energy consumed during this slow down, it's still substantial. Market pricing does not bear a linear relationship to consumption, it rises and falls exponentially at the two extremes. For the even bigger picture, fossil energy is just not feasible in view of its role in global warming.

I shan't ask you to collect the eggs, as it would be tantamount to letting the fox in the hen house

Curious on your hydrocarbon numbers around Russia, care to qualify them and the means of extraction? It might be there but no one knows how to get it, maybe you do

On your conflict/security statement one needs to look no further than the shaky alliance between Saudi and the U.S. Oil will restore its price to historical mean values and quite quickly thus making bio fuel viable again, which was my point.

As for usage of hydrocarbons, it's not population creep its our capitalist world of "want" that is driving usage. China shows us how with these numbers, this is your middle class desire gone rampant.

Quote:
According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the number of registered vehicles (including cars, vans, buses, and trucks) in the U.S. has been growing slowly but steadily from 189 million in 1990 to 247 million in 2007. By comparison, according to China’s State Statistical Bureau, the country had merely 5.54 million vehicles on the road in 1990, but the number exploded to 62 million last year (including 26.05 million privately-owned sedans), and will exceed 70 million this year.

When will China have as many vehicles on the road as the current U.S.? China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology recently estimates that there will be over 200 million registered vehicles in the country in 2020. So we think it will take at least a decade.

That's old information and we are just 3.5 years away from 2020.

As for "old growth", this

"is a forest that has attained great age without significant disturbance and thereby exhibits unique ecological features and might be classified as a climax community.[1] Old-growth features include diverse tree-related structures that provide diverse wildlife habitat that increases the bio-diversity of the forested ecosystem. The concept of diverse tree structure includes multi-layered canopies and canopy gaps, greatly varying tree heights and diameters, and diverse tree species and classes and sizes of woody debris"

That definition seems to have little room for your material "scratching around" by anyone, let alone a bulldozer. The other sad thing is that the biodiversity is replaced with a monoculture and usually a genetically modified one in the form of soybeans. The only thing sustainable about that is the profit for companies that supply the seed.

As for the 5000 square kilometer number, I stand by that as being to much. One should also note that that number is the new improved "helping the planet number!!!" It was closer to 25,000 square kilometers a year until someone realised a forest was disappearing.

Perhaps if one was to drag this to your doorstep or where you like to walk in the wilderness your repose might change some what.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Giddy_up wrote:Curious on your hydrocarbon numbers around Russia, care to qualify them and the means of extraction? It might be there but no one knows how to get it, maybe you do

Absolutely correct. There can be reserves but the cost extraction makes a significant amount uneconomical. Drive the price up any further, then alternative energy solution becomes the better economic solution. Isn't that the Saudi's strategy to destabilise the shale oil strategy in the US?

GPSGuided wrote:

Giddy_up wrote:Curious on your hydrocarbon numbers around Russia, care to qualify them and the means of extraction? It might be there but no one knows how to get it, maybe you do

Absolutely correct. There can be reserves but the cost extraction makes a significant amount uneconomical. Drive the price up any further, then alternative energy solution becomes the better economic solution. Isn't that the Saudi's strategy to destabilise the shale oil strategy in the US?

Spot on GPS, the Saudis are playing a dangerous game. They are bringing some of the largest producers in the world like Venezuela to their knees through this price manipulation and all to prove a point to the U.S

Iran is a fresh face with the removal of the embargoes on them but by their own admission they will have to go slowly and ramp their production up proportionally to global consumption.

maddog wrote:More than enough for the world’s slowly growing population.

Maddog, the world's population growth rate is slowing, as shown by the graph you posted earlier.

However, the world's population is not slowly growing. The sheer numbers make this impossible. The appropriate graph is this one:

This is the current UN prediction of what the world future population could be. Of the 60 sample trajectories modelled, none show any significant population decrease by 2100. By that point, event the most optimistic of predictions suggest a population of nearly 10 billion people. The equivalent least optimistic predictions suggest a population of around 13.5 million, with a median of a little over 11 billion people. This is a massive amount of added population and resource pressure, even with the most optimistic scenario.