Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: thedoc on 13/10/2016 05:23:05
-
asked the Naked Scientists:
Mr. Smith and Staff,
Lovely decade long series of PodCast you all continually create, a big thank you all for your continue efforts. I just now heard you asking your listeners to submit scientific questions. Concerning Mother Earth's and it inhabits sudden global climate change problem: Scientifically, would't it be more of a logical, permanent and perhaps a faster solution to limit the stresses we are all placing on our one and only environment by limiting the amount of un born humans? This also seems it would be more logical a course of action now that computers are controlling the machines that manufacture the majority of man's needs and desires, thus less and less meaningful labor is requited by it humans. One last thought, it surely seems that many of the problems in the mid east would possibly automatically be solved if there were not so many testosterone filled young men with to much free time and nothing to occupy their thoughts other than making war against their neighbors. The above is perhaps an interesting subject to create entire podcast or two on?
What do you think?
-
Most sentient beings either limit their reproduction to what the environment can sustain, or don't worry too much about dead babies. Humans, alas, do not have the intelligence to do the former and invest too much effort in reproduction to do the latter. The species is therefore doomed to extinction.
Which is a pity because not making babies is surely the easiest thing any animal can do, since it involves intentionally doing nothing.
But alas, politics and religion demand an ever-increasing and increasingly stressed population. Imagine if we all had plenty of food and space, and no worries. We wouldn't need more laws to restrict our activities, nor anyone to tell us that it will be all right in the next life as long as we suffer enough in this one.
-
We humans shouldn't be too gloomy about the future. We are the most amazing species ever evolved in Earth's history, far superior to anything that's gone before.
We have developed "mind", and "language" and "culture" and "civilisation" and above all, "science". These achievements should not be lightly dismissed. We may be the only beings in the Galaxy, or the whole Universe, to have them.
So, as for "limiting population", ie of human beings, I would say that in general, that's not a good thing. What we need is more human beings, to spread out into the Universe. With this proviso - that the humans should be of excellent quality. That's to say, they must all be "scientists", either amateur or professional, like on this forum.
If the posters on this forum (even the mods) were running the Earth, wouldn't they make a better job of it, than our present politicians?
-
Population growth is a disaster in the making, especially in India and Africa. The average family size in sub-Saharan Africa is 4.5 children which is unsustainable, and will lead to even more problems than exist already, which are substantial.
-
Can't the population growth in Africa, be accommodated, by opening up land in Europe, for the Africans to come to?
-
You can in principle fill every square inch of the globe with people, but they wouldn't have anything to eat or be particularly happy. What matters more, the number of humans on the planet, or the health and happiness of every human?
Making babies takes effort and causes misery. So why do it?
If you want to have less space and less food, by all means do so, but don't force others (including your own children) to share your misery.
-
Making babies causes instant pleasure. Possible long-term consequences don't get a look-in. That's why the world's human population is now over 7 billion.
-
Wrong. Sexual intercourse is pleasurable but it needn't always result in conception. Those who say it should, because god told them so, will rot in the hell of their own disgusting invention.
-
Not all babies are the result a need for sexual pleasure if you are living by subsistence agriculture they can be a productive labour force from an early age and at a later age as a fighting force to defend your territory.
Better contraception is not the answer it is more efficient and less labour intensive agriculture and better resolution of territorial disputes.
Perhaps the next variety of sentient creatures after humans have become extinct will do things better!
-
You can in principle fill every square inch of the globe with people, but they wouldn't have anything to eat or be particularly happy. What matters more, the number of humans on the planet, or the health and happiness of every human?
The points you mention, are superbly addressed in one of my all-time favourite SF stories, Isaac Asimov's "2430".
In the story, humans have actually "filled the globe" - or at least the continental land-surface of it - with a "mighty population" of 15 trillion human beings. This figure has been scientifically calculated as the maximum that Earth can support. All other animals and plants have been eliminated. Except for "algae" in the oceans, which are efficiently farmed to make food for the humans to eat. The algae are in turn fed with human wastes and corpses, recycled by being put back into the oceans, in an never-ended cycle.
The humans live happy placid lives, free from war. They eat, sleep, "carefully make love" (so as not imbalance the population), engage in scientific research, and have a nice time, until they peacefully end their days, by being reabsorbed into the algae soup.
I must confess to finding a certain allure in this. Does it appeal to you, I wonder?
-
We humans shouldn't be too gloomy about the future. We are the most amazing species ever evolved in Earth's history, far superior to anything that's gone before.
We have developed "mind", and "language" and "culture" and "civilisation" and above all, "science". These achievements should not be lightly dismissed. We may be the only beings in the Galaxy, or the whole Universe, to have them.
So, as for "limiting population", ie of human beings, I would say that in general, that's not a good thing. What we need is more human beings, to spread out into the Universe. With this proviso - that the humans should be of excellent quality. That's to say, they must all be "scientists", either amateur or professional, like on this forum.
If the posters on this forum (even the mods) were running the Earth, wouldn't they make a better job of it, than our present politicians?
No many here are arrogant fools who think they know everything with no doubt of their own interlectual capabilities. They also tend to be threatened by the idea of there being other people out there doing stuff. Anything at all that changes the world stuff.
That's why they are so infavor of reducing the world's population even in the face of overwhelming evidence that this is totally unnecessary.
-
The resources on planet earth are like a cake, finite in extent. Like a cake, there are only so many slices to go around. If population carries on increasing there will come a point where the environment forces a decrease. There will be no choice in the matter and no fools, arrogant or otherwise, able to prevent it.
-
When I visit the USA I am always surprised what a low population density is has compared to India or China, I must write to Trump or Clinton and suggest they do something about it.
-
Yes,I love eating algae,and my daily routine is mostly scientific research,the subject of which is how not to be disgusted and terminally bored.The movie "Soylent Green" was very much to the point.Also,as a senior citizen retiree,I have found the need to invent ways to be useful,and to avoid "mooching" off the younger generations.Leisure and idleness are not all they're reputed to be.
You can in principle fill every square inch of the globe with people, but they wouldn't have anything to eat or be particularly happy. What matters more, the number of humans on the planet, or the health and happiness of every human?
The points you mention, are superbly addressed in one of my all-time favourite SF stories, Isaac Asimov's "2430".
In the story, humans have actually "filled the globe" - or at least the continental land-surface of it - with a "mighty population" of 15 trillion human beings This figure has been scientifically calculated as the maximum that Earth can support. All other animals and plants have been eliminated. Except for "algae" in the oceans, which are efficiently farmed to make food for the humans to eat. The algae are in turn fed with human wastes and corpses, recycled by being put back into the oceans, in an never-ended cycle.
The humans live happy placid lives, free from war. They eat, sleep, "carefully make love" (so as not imbalance the population), engage in scientific research, and have a nice time, until they peacefully end their days, by being reabsorbed into the algae soup.
I must confess to finding a certain allure in this. Does it appeal to you, I wonder?
-
Why do the humans lead "happy placid lives"? Part of our psyche is rooted in getting out to see trees, flowers, natural wonders and - critically - get away from each other. With 15 trillion people you wouldn't be able to move for human interactions. You certainly wouldn't be able to "get away from it all". I cannot think of anything worse. Some of the most beautiful places I have ever visited have held that allure for me for precisely the reason that there were no other people there.
(I also wonder what accent they'd all speak with...?)
-
When I visit the USA I am always surprised what a low population density is has compared to India or China, I must write to Trump or Clinton and suggest they do something about it.
Cancel the wall......
-
So, as for "limiting population", ie of human beings, I would say that in general, that's not a good thing. What we need is more human beings, to spread out into the Universe.
If I were in combat morde, I'd ask " who 'we'? and define 'need' ". But I don't expect an answer, so I won't ask.
If the posters on this forum (even the mods) were running the Earth, wouldn't they make a better job of it, than our present politicians?
No. There would be an immediate war between the expansionists like zx and Tim, and contractionists like me, and the expansionists would win by sheer weight of numbers and then all starve because they hadn't actually thought about the numbers. 'Twas ever thus, with each generation of numbskulls driving out the intellectuals until Germany, Russia, China, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa....imploded. Except China where they intentionally limited the population. God help America.
-
Alan, when you say you're a "contractionist", how far do you advocate that humans should "contract"?
Should we give up our present wonderful expansive planet-wide civilisation, with its art, literature, culture, science, and technology.
Abandon the big modern cities. Forget the libraries and laboratories. "Contract" ourselves into small tribes, re-enter the self-replenishing forests, and pass our time hunting animals, and foraging for fruit and berries?
-
90% of the world's population have no access to any art, literature, culture, or science that you would recognise. 10% don't even have clean water.
By "big modern cities" do you mean the square mile of architecturally beautiful London or Venice where practically nobody lives, or the favelas, bidonvilles, shantytowns and slums of all the rest of the world, where up to 50% of the population lives? Or are you in favor of Sixties concrete tower blocks?
Imagine having underground trains with more seats than passengers. An electricity grid run entirely on renewables. A garden for everyone who wants one. One tenth of the present atmospheric pollution in towns and cities.
I'm only talking about reducing the population, not the amenity. I don't see wandering tribes of Canadians or Australians hunting and foraging (actually I do, but those that do, do it from choice rather than necessity) or living without a discernible scientific and artistic culture. The trick is to have a low population density.
As for the number of people needed to drive your culture forward, Trinity College Cambridge has a population of under 2000 including undergraduates, admin staff, cooks and gardeners. The only institution credited with more Nobel Prizes, is the entire United States of America.
For the UK, I think a population of some 5 - 10 million would be indefinitely sustainable. Given one tenth of the competition and ten times the resources per capita, our descendants would be able to lead very comfortable and fulfilling lives.
You can estimate the numbers for any other part of the world by asking how much food they could grow with no input from fossil fuels, and whether they could supply 5 - 10 kilowatts per person from renewable energy sources.
-
Thanks Alan, I've considered your extremely well-written and perceptive post, and must agree, in general, with what you say.
That the world would be better off with a smaller human population. But aren't there practical problems. For example, you suggest that for the UK, a small sustainable population of 5 to 10 million would be ideal.
Unfortunately, the present population of the UK is over 60 million. To achieve your ideal, how would you suggest getting rid of the excess tens of millions?
Voluntary euthanasia? As a UK citizen, I don't feel like volunteering. Unless I see an inspiring example. Perhaps you could you step forward, and be the first in line?
-
90% of the world's population have no access to any art, literature, culture, or science that you would recognise. 10% don't even have clean water.
Well, 40% of the world's population has access to the internet...... including this estimable site.... and your erudite ponderings.....
-
, you suggest that for the UK, a small sustainable population of 5 to 10 million would be ideal.
Unfortunately, the present population of the UK is over 60 million. To achieve your ideal, how would you suggest getting rid of the excess tens of millions?
Abolish all child allowances, and pay every woman aged 16 to 50 £500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant. This will pay for a lot of contraception (though you can get it for free anyway) and should discourage early or frequent reproduction. The net saving to the exchequer will be significant: fewer schools, reduced NHS maternity and paediatric services....Maybe allow one "bye" without affecting your entitlement to £1000 per year, but remember that there is no state support or housing consideration attached to any child: if you can't afford to raise a child, don't have any.
My feeling is that this will reduce the birthrate to about half replacement level. Old people will continue to die at pretty much the same rate, so there will be decreasing numbers in each cohort from age 60 upwards, to almost none at 100. The "working fraction" of the population, those between 20 and 60, increases from 0.5 to almost 0.6, so there's more tax money to pay for pensions and elderly care, and the entire population decreases to about 5 million over the next 100 years, with nobody having to do anything at all!
-
We cannot ignore the "natural" evolution constant...
Despise our artificial methods to control and harvest the natural resources, we do still need to eat, and as long that happens, we do not need to worry, nature will find a way to apply its natural selection method...
Of course we can still cooperate and move to save our species. The truth is the situation is already so advanced, our numbers, that humanity will naturally correct itself and the meanings for that are diseases, accidents, starvation, violence... For my point of view all this is sad, but no different than a earthquake or tsunamis, in fact, talking about "people" seems more fair to fight society by seeking renewable energy sources and exile in nature, than struggling to survive a natural disaster...
Nature have killed more humans than we could possible achieve, and the only reason why we do still exist is trough reproduction, we compensate our limitations trough our numbers, reducing our numbers is also reduce our production, with less production we cant "built" the components of our technology, the very technology that suggests us, from inside its commodity, that the solution is to reduce control the numbers...
All the species remaining on the planet, including us, are here exactly because the different genetic traces, homo sapiens wouldn't have being existed in first place if neanderthal was within a certain commodity. It was the struggling into survive that have always forced creatures to evolve...
We may have set the bed, but it's not in our hands to save us from it, we merely have to evolve to learn how to keep ourselves alive until we are there...
Problems will come and pass, all we need to do is to survive, and believe me, I'm involved with bush craft for years. The first days are the most encouraging, than it start to get boring, happens that after mounts on "nature" we start to learn that we as animals, that we are very good on that too...
The problem exists only when we thing about it as a collective species, and the truth is, our truth, we have being pretending for a while, that we are "truly" connected one to the other, when in fact the only important thing for each of us is to keep our gathered knowledge preserved. The only collective that humans seems to have beyond their small groups, is within this purpose, the fear that everything we have learned from our father and grand fathers become lost, more than that our families are just aquanted one to the other...
Explode the land, destroy the machines, burn the religious books, as long as we have "children" we will perish and they will grow already learning how to move on our knowledge...
There is no such thing as "reduce or limit" the birth rate, not on a global scale, we shouldn't...
Take my generation as a living example, all this people, hundres of minds to endup with brilant ideas on renewable technology, an aleatory chain of events that from the beggining wouldn't be the same without the same amounght of people, at least no one could possible know that, because without the problems we created, we wouldn't have the necessity to fix what never happened...
I'm now at 30 years ould ready to change my habits, like seting my house purely on solar power, that I'm also reaching the practical knoledge to my parents house, the only reason this is happening is becouse the problems already existing when I was born, if want so, we would just evolve to be naturaly "imune" to climate change, isn't it?
My kids will grow considering solar energy as casual technology, and burning anything for power an atrocity, is already being seen on streets. Oil companies like to pretend that they have the meaning to do anything to hold back evolution, a false sense of true power I imagine, although I'll quote the resume:
"As long as men die. Freedom will never perish."
or any of us here actually believe that we still burning our planet alive, because is the best we can do?
The reason behind the actual situation is one, a bunch of fools without hope, people who do not question their own simplicity cause they do know that nothing is awaiting beyond life, they simple try to extract the max profit of life and planet, because like primitive people, their do not know how to deal with that fear, so they turn an eye to their limitations and find a certain logical within that. To be true I do not blame them for doing so, less evolved people, also needs to do the best for their survival, for oil companies, this is survival, let their way be dissimated without fight back would be suicide, it's simple not on our nature, people died on past, and will keep on future, except that in the future will be due cosmic radiation during interstellar traveling...
If we star to mess with reproduction, the only thing that will change, is the high probability that with less interaction with diversity and people, without conflicts, our descendants may not even care if the person right next to them fall dead on the street...
If one seek further on this tough, eventually will feel why not... Pretending, is part of being human, remove that necessity of different interaction with tons of different others, and thing will get one step more close from a pure superior race, that will slowly and inevitably not killing themselves, but simple dying, much like bacteria...
Reproduction is and always have being intuitive, the only true defense against this ball of molten rock gladly waiting to kill us... We should keep worrying about nature, not about ourselves. Removing ourselves from the equation, is not an answer, unless we remove 90% of all of us, and doing so, we are dead.. We need to multiply trough time, until we left to be what we were yesterday, until we evolve, for that we need obstacles, that we need to walk trough and connive with, never picking the easy way, the lazy way...
-
The idea that the world is in any way over populated, that humanity cannot solve the slight problems caused by having so many of us, is in any way real is the most evil meam ever.
The rich world has so much food it is using the none threat of climate change as an excuse to turn food into fuel just to raise prices to make rich farmers richer. 30% to 70% more for basic food causing millions of poor people to die per year due to this.
When we face a problem such as the expected emergence of bird flue it is our wealth that allows us as a society to have the resourcs in the form of a bank of scientists waiting to make the cure/vaccine. This wealth is based on having lots of productive workers making enough money to support the scientists. The more rich (not starving, able to pay tax) people about who care about the good governance of the place theree are the bettere this will work.
I posted (here I think) a link to an experiment where in the desert of Austrailia they had made a farm using desalinisation of sea water. The costs of the food were about twice those of normal production. Well, if you are as rich as all of us here, rich enough to have a computer, you will hardly notice that price inrease.
There is plenty of food for us all. Killing off the poor is in no way justified. It is purely evil. Stop spreading this lie.
-
Killing the poor is not a viable solution to any problem, which is why no sane person has suggested it.
Reducing the birthrate until the population reaches a sustainable level is the zero-cost, zero-effort solution to practically all of humanity's problems.
-
Killing the poor is not a viable solution to any problem, which is why no sane person has suggested it.
Reducing the birthrate until the population reaches a sustainable level is the zero-cost, zero-effort solution to practically all of humanity's problems.
10 billion people is easily sustainable.
-
Only for as long as we have enough fossil fuel to produce artificial fertilisers and move food around the planet. Which means that a significant number will be wholly dependent on the whim of the oil-producing nations - as many of us already are.
5 billion could survive without artificial fertilisers and bulk transport.
1 billion could be indefinitely sustainable at a comfortable western-style standard of living.
The joy of birth control is that everyone benefits from day one.
-
Only for as long as we have enough fossil fuel to produce artificial fertilisers and move food around the planet. Which means that a significant number will be wholly dependent on the whim of the oil-producing nations - as many of us already are.
5 billion could survive without artificial fertilisers and bulk transport.
1 billion could be indefinitely sustainable at a comfortable western-style standard of living.
The joy of birth control is that everyone benefits from day one.
Or develope technology which will allow us not to be so chained.
Fracking anybody?
Solar power is expected to be better than coal in the next couple of decades if recent progress rates continue.
-
Imagine driving on Britain's roads, or walking on the beaches, with a population density closer to that of the USA. Imagine full employment, lower taxes, free electricity, better pensions, no poverty.....and all for doing absolutely nothing at all. We already have the technology to support a much smaller population for ever, so why not simply allow the population to fit the available resources?
-
Imagine driving on Britain's roads, or walking on the beaches, with a population density closer to that of the USA. Imagine full employment, lower taxes, free electricity, better pensions, no poverty.....and all for doing absolutely nothing at all. We already have the technology to support a much smaller population for ever, so why not simply allow the population to fit the available resources?
Imagine all the people in the world necessary to amintain the infrastructure of it, all the roads, all the internet etc taking up all the able people in the world.
Imagine that world where the much lower population means that mass production is far less effective and everything costs much more.
Imagine a world where the total scientific effort is able to maintain the level of technology they have but not to advance.
Or of course we could florish, abandon this death wish drivel and spread across the stars.
-
Nice speech Tim. We do not have infinite resources. Neither do we have the will to be altruistic. Progress means selling more and more product and using more resources than we can replace. To what end? Happiness? I think not. To cushion the blow for those with the wealth.
-
Before the Haber-Bosch process enabled us to fix nitrogen, the Earth was incapable of supporting the then population. Fertilisers fed people and the result was not a sustainable existence but a population explosion.
What makes you think that, if you solve the present problems that the population won't further inflate and create a million more? Why must we continue having to solve problems driven purely by population. Why not just solve one problem - controlling the numbers of humans - and then we wouldn't have to genetically modify plants just to prevent ourselves from starving. At what point will people finally agree that enough is enough? Will it be when there is literally nowhere left on Earth to live? Or 5 years before that? Or 10 years before that happens? Eventually it will, so why wait for that day to come, by which time we'll have destroyed the place?
It's about time that people realised that just because God says having babies is a good idea that this is no necessarily the best thing to do...
-
Interesting philosphical debate (for those interested in philosophy). Haber invented the nitrogen fixing process out of scientific interest. Bosch was the engineer who scaled it up to economic production. Meanwhile doctors around the world were preventing perinatal fatalities and childhood diseases, and civil engineers were eradicating practically everything else that restricted human lifespan. So who is to blame for the forthcoming mess? Apart from popes and mullahs, whose job it is to blame everyone else.
-
Nice speech Tim. We do not have infinite resources. Neither do we have the will to be altruistic. Progress means selling more and more product and using more resources than we can replace. To what end? Happiness? I think not. To cushion the blow for those with the wealth.
Eh????
Progress is better dentistry due to the ability to specilise being greater. It is finding the cure for a cancer quicker due to there being more scientists at work on it. It is having new inventions appear faster. It is developing better solar power faster so that we can move onto the next set of resources.
The stone age did not end due to lack of stone. The oil age will end before the end of oil.
-
Interesting philosphical debate (for those interested in philosophy). Haber invented the nitrogen fixing process out of scientific interest. Bosch was the engineer who scaled it up to economic production. Meanwhile doctors around the world were preventing perinatal fatalities and childhood diseases, and civil engineers were eradicating practically everything else that restricted human lifespan. So who is to blame for the forthcoming mess? Apart from popes and mullahs, whose job it is to blame everyone else.
What mess???
Soon we will be capturing asteroids and mining them for their resources. This will give us access to a resource base of extemely cheap materials for much longer than humanity will exist for.
Those of you who were always too scared to climb out of your ivory towers might find that you are a self selecting group who share the instinct to be timid above all else.
-
There is no food or water on asteroids.
-
There is no food or water on asteroids.
Obviously there is often lots of water on asteroids.
Asteroids can be mined to build habitats where we can grow food in the distant future.
-
But imagine a night club there... it would be terribly boring... no atmosphere...