Slashdot Mirror

We need to reduce our footprint on the planet, and the only sure way that we know will definitely work is by drastically reducing our numbers. Which is not a thing that will voluntarily happen...

It can and it has. As soon as people can afford contraception, they use it!

The population side will take care of itself. However, a per-person CO2 reduction still needs to happen.

No need to speculate. Here's the data.

Nothing but extinction is perhaps inaccurate. It has brought us many things, and it will also bring us extinction.

And how did you draw that conclusion? We've only seen capitalism do the exact opposite:

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...

https://www.gapminder.org/tool...

Nobody says capitalism is perfect. In fact, it's analogous to democracy: Many problems, but the best system we've ever come up with. Unless you have a better idea (communism and socialism have been soundly proven to be big giant flops) then what the hell are you ranting about? Let's see if you can come up with a better idea than democracy too while you're at it.

Put on your scientist hat on and look at history like actual scientists and historians have done. The profession consensus is that the link between capitalism and success outside of the expansion of capitalism, i.e. technological or social progress, is a correlation, not a causation.

Where the fuck are you getting this from? Some communist blog/forum? Newsflash: Capitalism has allowed technology to scale at an exponential rate due to private citizens investing massive amounts of money toward that end; this is not a coincidence. Hell, the Soviet Union, for all of the resources it had at its disposal to improve its military technology, was still using vacuum tubes in its fighter jets when the US had moved to integrated circuits long before. The same integrated circuits that were made practical for mass production in 1958 by three US companies, and that now power most of the technology we enjoy today.

Here's a bit of data that should drive the point home, especially when correlated with countries that have come from some other system to capitalism.

https://www.gapminder.org/tool...

Take a look at China for example; the government began adopting capitalist practices around 1980, and not long after that (roughly 1988,) you see their bubble quickly heading in the direction of higher average purchasing power (shown in that chart as income.) Granted, China had an enormous pile of untapped labor, that doesn't erase the fact that prior to these changes, such labor couldn't have ever been tapped because nobody could invest into the needed infrastructure (not even the government could.)

Hans Rosling (scientist, by the way) explains this data rather well:

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...

And chances are, you score worse than the monkeys in this test:

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...

By the way, until he died, he dedicated his career to educating academics, and to a lesser extent, people like you:

rather than generating data, Rosling has spent the past two decades communicating data gathered by others. He relays facts that he thinks many academics have been too slow to appreciate and argues that researchers are ignorant about the state of health and wealth around the world. That’s dangerous. “Campuses are full of siloed people who do advocacy about things they don’t understand,” he says.

http://www.nature.com/news/thr...

Communists/socialists here on slashdot always like to slam capitalism as if there's a much better way to go, but we've honestly been there and tried those, and they're all crap. They don't understand, at all, that the world is doing nothing but improving, as the data there very clearly shows. And contrary to popular belief, "megacorps" (as they're often described here, as if this is a cyberpunk novel) are a lot less powerful than they were in ages past. The first publicly traded corporation to exist the Dutch East India Company, at its peak had a net worth of $7 trillion in today's dollars back in 1675. Let that sink in for a minute. They also had the power to raise armies, declare war, jail and execute people who didn't pay their bills, and they had the largest monopoly the world has ever seen. As time has gone on, we've seen this power continually decrease, whereas right now the biggest companies have no martial powers at all, and the number of monopolies that exist is getting smaller and smaller, and the ones that remain have very tiny impact compared to the ones that existed in the past.

There is no "pressure" needed for anti-aging because there is a strong market pull (demand). Just ask your wife how much she's spending on anti-aging lotions etc.

Joking aside - there have been tremendous advances in extending life expectancy worldwide: https://youtu.be/jbkSRLYSojo

You may educate yourself here with more updated numbers: https://www.gapminder.org/

I think you got the wrong impression. I think the only way for countries to get "rich" (by which I mean that median income rises, building a middle class) is by internally directed economic growth and development. The developed countries can help on the margins but it must be driven by the people who actually live there.

Gapminder (by the late Hans Rosling) is a fantastic resource for this sort of thing and its video is a good, in depth documentary about the myths and facts about population growth.

I think you got the wrong impression. I think the only way for countries to get "rich" (by which I mean that median income rises, building a middle class) is by internally directed economic growth and development. The developed countries can help on the margins but it must be driven by the people who actually live there.

Gapminder (by the late Hans Rosling) is a fantastic resource for this sort of thing and its video is a good, in depth documentary about the myths and facts about population growth.

I enjoyed watching Hans Rosling's TED talk and visiting his dollar street web application. It's so hard to get a feel for what it is like to live in another country, so I can't judge how much difference $40 per month per couple would make. But I believe people, goods and services are generally free to move around Kenya, so it will be interesting to see what effect this has on the economy outside of the target villages and how the demographics of each village changes during the experiment.

By the way, changing the y-axis of that interactive tool to "cumulative emissions" shows that my previous statement is also true (and clearer) without the words "per capita". That is, the USA has emitted more cumulative CO2 (total, in tons) than India and China combined. As of 2011, the USA has emitted a cumulative total of ~360 Gt of CO2, compared to India's 40 Gt and China's 141 Gt.

In fact, we've emitted roughly twice as much CO2 as India and China combined. That's quite an "accomplishment" for a nation with only ~320 million people, compared to a combined population of ~2.5 billion. America, fuck yeah!

I think the study's methodology is highly suspect. What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita. The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-09]

As others have explained, burning wood can be carbon neutral. And as I just told Jane, the only real caveat here is significant land use change, like deforestation. I've also told Jane that in the 1990s, the upper bound on CO2 emissions due to land-use changes was less than half of the lower bound on those due to fossil fuel emissions.

This can be confirmed using simple accounting or by using 14C isotope ratios. Burning wood releases unstable 14C carbon because it hasn't had time to decay, but there is no 14C in coal. So we actually have several independent ways to see that Jane Q. Public and John O'Sullivan are wrong when they keep blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations:

... THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-10-21]

I've already told Jane this is nonsense, but he refused to retract this Sky Dragon Slayer claim and keeps blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations. Once again, John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International" and several others repeated O'Sullivan's misinformation.

Ironically, when one isn't talking to Sky Dragon Slayers like John O'Sullivan, it isn't controversial to note that developed countries are responsible for most of the CO2 rise. Here's an interactive tool to explore historical CO2 emissions

For an example of presentations done right, you should check out Hans Rosling's GapMinder videos.

You are correct to point out the similarity between the failure mode of capitalism and communism as being central control by corporation vs central control by government. But this is precisely the argument for why basic income is a solution to both.

You're correct in another way that needs some elaboration, because on the face of it you are dead wrong:

The demographic transitio, in which total fertility rates fall below replacement rate as women are given independence by economic development, is a powerful force for zero population growth, as can be seen in this GapMinder animation of TFR vs per capita income by country through time. If one relies on such data, one can see that overpopulation is not a problem (although race replacement of non-African countries by African countries will obtain due to liberal immigration policies into the future).

However, income as TFR suppression, must be seen for what it is: A kind of antibiotic targeting human fertility.

Viewed in this way, once the world has been Africanized and has a TFR below replacement rate, subpopulations that are immune to the antibiotic will emerge with very high TFRs.

So, yes, fertility controls will eventually become critical, since the biosphere is a two-dimensional surface and exponentiation is hyperdimensional, but this is true regardless of the political economy in place.

Just a look at the U.N. education data (try http://www.gapminder.org/) and you will see 3rd world nations rising HUGE amounts. As everybody gets to the top, the relative differences are smaller and rankings should fluctuate more as it takes so little to decide between them. The spread is much smaller now. The difference between 1st place and 20th place is small.

Then you have metrics; that was just the distribution of the results and how it's glossed over completely, with metrics you have measurement issues like the demographics (does the top nation only test the top students?) what things you measure and how those differ (sometimes the test changes) and lastly, what should they know? If you teach concepts in math at a young age (which can include calculus and algebra) without technical drudgery until they are older (and better able to sit still) you are going to do poorly when the measurement expects you to learn in a certain prescribed order.

Mediocre is just fine. As long as most people are in the middle of the bell curve and that is "mediocre" which is enough for most jobs, then what is the big deal? We actually have much bigger problems than education that are not being solved. What good is it to have plenty of decent IT workers when industry will claim otherwise simply so they can suppress wage increases or perhaps they just want the best in the world and refuse to make do with mediocre? Even if that mediocre is better than the planet, they still can want more and for less. (In which case who says your top people will stay in the country? Especially when it is not going to be the best place for them to live? We've got a lot of brains here because they moved here and stayed here; so far.)

If you want to work at McDonalds, move to the EU where they make at least $20 and hour; with better healthcare. Middle income profession? Move to Canada, they make more than Americans + better healthcare + it's still a democracy.

The education system here for the most part, isn't so bad that it prohibits upward mobility for most students - IF THEY WORK AT IT. The culture will do them more harm than the education system. When kids get tried as pedophiles or jailed for nothing or shot or ...TV...games...food...legal drugs...consumerism... not to mention available JOBS... doesn't matter how good you teach them; they have bigger problems...

There is nothing wrong with a non-college educated half illiterate person doing construction work at a decent wage; or whatever - not every job requires the education and none should pay so little the economy is borked- which is what is happening among other things.

Yeah, that good STEM degree will make life wonderful and easy for sure! http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-wo...

In case you are in position to help as the article suggests and, you just need a little kick to get you in action, watch this one: http://www.gapminder.org/news/...

isn't it a bit naive to project essays of 30 years ago on today's economy?

Well, I said there was no reason to believe an economic conclusion would always be right everywhere. So of course you have a point, we could already have crossed a threshold to where Simon's model fails.

I don't think we have, but I'm not an economist. I do know that some of the developing countries of the world are experiencing 20% annual GDP growth right now, which is nice to see.

As to energy costs, well, that looks to me like a case of the Jevon's Paradox GGP mentioned.

I also think it's very clear that unbounded population growth would lead to catastrophic problems. However, fertility rates seem to be inversely related to median income, and as second-world and third-world countries develop and become more prosperous, their population growth rates appear to be dropping.

If you care about population growth and the economic implications thereof, I would recommend you check out gapminder.org. That is, of course, only one point of view, and it's smart to check other sources for some balance.

http://marketrealist.com/2013/10/shutdown-101-perceived-wealth-distribution-isnt-reality/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Health care disparities would presumably reflect that too, to some extent. But a deeper issue is how health is more than access to "sick care", What you eat, how much you worry, where you can live, whether you have time for self-education and exercise, these are also big factors, and those connect to at least a certain level of wealth.

The USA is really confused about that, in part because of decades of propaganda funded by very selfish people.

On global issues, see:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/10/world/gapminder-us-ignorance-survey/
http://www.gapminder.org/ignorance/
http://www.gapminder.org/GapminderMedia/wp-uploads/Results-from-the-Ignorance-Survey-in-the-US..pdf

Meanwhile, China is about to land a robot on the moon!

As George Orwell said:
http://blog.gaiam.com/quotes/authors/george-orwell
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, whene we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, is possible to carry this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

http://marketrealist.com/2013/10/shutdown-101-perceived-wealth-distribution-isnt-reality/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Health care disparities would presumably reflect that too, to some extent. But a deeper issue is how health is more than access to "sick care", What you eat, how much you worry, where you can live, whether you have time for self-education and exercise, these are also big factors, and those connect to at least a certain level of wealth.

The USA is really confused about that, in part because of decades of propaganda funded by very selfish people.

On global issues, see:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/10/world/gapminder-us-ignorance-survey/
http://www.gapminder.org/ignorance/
http://www.gapminder.org/GapminderMedia/wp-uploads/Results-from-the-Ignorance-Survey-in-the-US..pdf

Meanwhile, China is about to land a robot on the moon!

As George Orwell said:
http://blog.gaiam.com/quotes/authors/george-orwell
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, whene we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, is possible to carry this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

Gapminder's main site

Go ahead, check out the stats. By any measure, the US is NOT number one when it comes to health care and we spend a higher percentage of our GDP than everyone else for demonstrably poorer results.

"We" already are starving and overpopulated**.

"we" are not. In fact, only a small portion of the world now faces starvation, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa.

The evidence so far strongly suggests that we now live in a "winner-take-all" world economy, where technological advances do not filter down and only serve to deepen the inequality both within a countries population and between countries.

Again, alarmist babble with little basis in fact. The truth is that the technological revolution of the last 200+ years has extended the average lifespan worldwide from around 30 in 1800 for most people to well over 70. Even the poorest people have seen average life expectancy go from 30 to about 60.

Is everyone where they need to be? No. But let's stop with the Chicken Little imatation, shall we, so we can concentrated on the remaining problems? This scientific research/engineering project is exploring one of those ways to extend benefits to exactly the groups that need it most. Why not just evaluate the feasibility of the project, both economic and environmental, on its own merits?

"We" already are starving and overpopulated**.

"we" are not. In fact, only a small portion of the world now faces starvation, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa.

The evidence so far strongly suggests that we now live in a "winner-take-all" world economy, where technological advances do not filter down and only serve to deepen the inequality both within a countries population and between countries.

Again, alarmist babble with little basis in fact. The truth is that the technological revolution of the last 200+ years has extended the average lifespan worldwide from around 30 in 1800 for most people to well over 70. Even the poorest people have seen average life expectancy go from 30 to about 60.

Is everyone where they need to be? No. But let's stop with the Chicken Little imatation, shall we, so we can concentrated on the remaining problems? This scientific research/engineering project is exploring one of those ways to extend benefits to exactly the groups that need it most. Why not just evaluate the feasibility of the project, both economic and environmental, on its own merits?

"We" already are starving and overpopulated**.

"we" are not. In fact, only a small portion of the world now faces starvation, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa.

The evidence so far strongly suggests that we now live in a "winner-take-all" world economy, where technological advances do not filter down and only serve to deepen the inequality both within a countries population and between countries.

Again, alarmist babble with little basis in fact. The truth is that the technological revolution of the last 200+ years has extended the average lifespan worldwide from around 30 in 1800 for most people to well over 70. Even the poorest people have seen average life expectancy go from 30 to about 60.

Is everyone where they need to be? No. But let's stop with the Chicken Little imatation, shall we, so we can concentrated on the remaining problems? This scientific research/engineering project is exploring one of those ways to extend benefits to exactly the groups that need it most. Why not just evaluate the feasibility of the project, both economic and environmental, on its own merits?

Conclusions

The problems of extreme poverty and population growth (may well) have been solved.
Climate change is still a massive problem (which we must therefore try to solve).
Excessive per-capita resource consumption in rich countries must now be reduced.

Nevertheless, you get what you pay for and most Americans get healthcare which is higher-quality than that received by Europeans

That is simply not true. Life expectancy. Infant mortality. Deaths from burns. Drownings. Deaths from falls. Deaths from poison.

Pick any metric that you like and you'll see similar results. The reality is that the U.S. paying FAR more than virtually all other countries for health care and getting demonstrably poorer results than many, including most of Europe. (We're tied with the Marshall Islands with Tuvalu and Niue close behind. Everyone else spends far less than we do.)

Worse, if you set any of the graphs in motion it becomes blatantly clear that for the past several years, we have been spending ever more on health care and seeing next to no improvment. It's most blatantly obvious in the case of infant mortality but the same trend is clear for virtually all variables. Meanwhile, country after country following more 'socialist' models are seeing far better results from the dollars that they spend.

Nevertheless, you get what you pay for and most Americans get healthcare which is higher-quality than that received by Europeans

That is simply not true. Life expectancy. Infant mortality. Deaths from burns. Drownings. Deaths from falls. Deaths from poison.

Pick any metric that you like and you'll see similar results. The reality is that the U.S. paying FAR more than virtually all other countries for health care and getting demonstrably poorer results than many, including most of Europe. (We're tied with the Marshall Islands with Tuvalu and Niue close behind. Everyone else spends far less than we do.)

Worse, if you set any of the graphs in motion it becomes blatantly clear that for the past several years, we have been spending ever more on health care and seeing next to no improvment. It's most blatantly obvious in the case of infant mortality but the same trend is clear for virtually all variables. Meanwhile, country after country following more 'socialist' models are seeing far better results from the dollars that they spend.

Nevertheless, you get what you pay for and most Americans get healthcare which is higher-quality than that received by Europeans

That is simply not true. Life expectancy. Infant mortality. Deaths from burns. Drownings. Deaths from falls. Deaths from poison.

Pick any metric that you like and you'll see similar results. The reality is that the U.S. paying FAR more than virtually all other countries for health care and getting demonstrably poorer results than many, including most of Europe. (We're tied with the Marshall Islands with Tuvalu and Niue close behind. Everyone else spends far less than we do.)

Worse, if you set any of the graphs in motion it becomes blatantly clear that for the past several years, we have been spending ever more on health care and seeing next to no improvment. It's most blatantly obvious in the case of infant mortality but the same trend is clear for virtually all variables. Meanwhile, country after country following more 'socialist' models are seeing far better results from the dollars that they spend.

Nevertheless, you get what you pay for and most Americans get healthcare which is higher-quality than that received by Europeans

That is simply not true. Life expectancy. Infant mortality. Deaths from burns. Drownings. Deaths from falls. Deaths from poison.

Pick any metric that you like and you'll see similar results. The reality is that the U.S. paying FAR more than virtually all other countries for health care and getting demonstrably poorer results than many, including most of Europe. (We're tied with the Marshall Islands with Tuvalu and Niue close behind. Everyone else spends far less than we do.)

Worse, if you set any of the graphs in motion it becomes blatantly clear that for the past several years, we have been spending ever more on health care and seeing next to no improvment. It's most blatantly obvious in the case of infant mortality but the same trend is clear for virtually all variables. Meanwhile, country after country following more 'socialist' models are seeing far better results from the dollars that they spend.

Nevertheless, you get what you pay for and most Americans get healthcare which is higher-quality than that received by Europeans

That is simply not true. Life expectancy. Infant mortality. Deaths from burns. Drownings. Deaths from falls. Deaths from poison.

Pick any metric that you like and you'll see similar results. The reality is that the U.S. paying FAR more than virtually all other countries for health care and getting demonstrably poorer results than many, including most of Europe. (We're tied with the Marshall Islands with Tuvalu and Niue close behind. Everyone else spends far less than we do.)

Worse, if you set any of the graphs in motion it becomes blatantly clear that for the past several years, we have been spending ever more on health care and seeing next to no improvment. It's most blatantly obvious in the case of infant mortality but the same trend is clear for virtually all variables. Meanwhile, country after country following more 'socialist' models are seeing far better results from the dollars that they spend.

Nevertheless, you get what you pay for and most Americans get healthcare which is higher-quality than that received by Europeans

That is simply not true. Life expectancy. Infant mortality. Deaths from burns. Drownings. Deaths from falls. Deaths from poison.

Pick any metric that you like and you'll see similar results. The reality is that the U.S. paying FAR more than virtually all other countries for health care and getting demonstrably poorer results than many, including most of Europe. (We're tied with the Marshall Islands with Tuvalu and Niue close behind. Everyone else spends far less than we do.)

Worse, if you set any of the graphs in motion it becomes blatantly clear that for the past several years, we have been spending ever more on health care and seeing next to no improvment. It's most blatantly obvious in the case of infant mortality but the same trend is clear for virtually all variables. Meanwhile, country after country following more 'socialist' models are seeing far better results from the dollars that they spend.

rant.

Life expectancy vs. % of GDP spent on health care.

Life expectancy vs. Government share of total health spending.

Tell me again why government funded health care is a bad idea? We get less for our health care than every other developed nation and pay far, FAR more than anyone else does. We are clearly doing something wrong. Maybe we ought to take a look at what works for a change instead of getting our 'facts' from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

rant.

Life expectancy vs. % of GDP spent on health care.

Life expectancy vs. Government share of total health spending.

Tell me again why government funded health care is a bad idea? We get less for our health care than every other developed nation and pay far, FAR more than anyone else does. We are clearly doing something wrong. Maybe we ought to take a look at what works for a change instead of getting our 'facts' from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

Gapminder.Org is a GREAT site for seeing how things have improved for the entire world's population over the past 200 years. Dozens if not hundreds of variables are available for plotting. If you let the default graph of life expectancy over income per person play out, you'll see that every country has seen vast improvements over that span.

The Sub-Saharan African countries in particular didn't really see much improvement until the end of WWII, but since then the average life expectancy has gone from around 30 to the mid 50s and lower 60s. Cape Verde is all the way up to 75 years.

Income per person has increased in some cases by more then a couple orders of magnitude. Even the poorest nations have seen at least some growth in income.

One of the best ways to affect increased income is to increase education. Higher literacy rates translates directly to the ability to learn new skills. Availability of educational resources that are available over the Internet therefore directly impact people's ability to earn more, which directly impacts their ability to feed their families.

While I'm not a devout Christian by any means, this whole debate boils down to that simple proverb: "Feed a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Play around with the stats on Gapminder some time. There's the objective, empirical data that you're looking for.

Look at how the various societies do over time. Look for the sharp breaks in how well a given country is doing. At those points you're liable to find a change in the type of government.

Religious teachings don't really affect population growth at all. At least not today. Religions and babies

I don't know anything about Dyson, but based on our "civilization" we don't "believe" in infinite growth... we just grow to point where our growth is no longer sustainable.

I'm not sure that's true. If you look at the statistics available, the number of children per woman drops over time as the child survivability increases.

This means that barring something that really fucks up child mortality, we'll likely reach a something very close to a population steady state by about 2050.

Sadly I'm not adept enough at using Gapminder.org to pull up a reference - it's simply what I recall from one of Hans Rosling's many TED talks.

Oh, my, that's scary! You mean, we might finally get to a point where we're NOT PAYING 50%-100% MORE OF OUR GDP THAN THE REST OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD DOES FOR DEMONSTRABLY WORSE RESULTS?????????? How WILL we ever survive?

/sarcasm

What a depressing view of human potential. A child born may be a problem, true, but also has the potential to come up with any number of solutions. And, yes, how is an unsubstantiated claim that a whole swathe of people delimited by region and religion are 'not that intelligent' not racist?

Take a look at the facts instead. With decreasing poverty, overall birth rates tend to decrease, Arab countries included. Whilst war tends to increase birthrates and long term population densities.

I won't even say children being born is a problem. They may be a "burden" on society and upon their families while they are young, learning, and may be unproductive compared to middle aged adults (using the term very broadly meaning somebody from the age of 20 to the age of 70, give or take a few years on each end of the age range), but you are correct that the potential of children to grow up and become a part of the solution to the problems posed by over population is something to consider as well.

The limiting factor for population growth really is, at least to me, freedom to choose or even freedom at its most basic level. It is the freedom to move from wherever you are to wherever you may like to be. The freedom to start a business and solve a problem that you see which you think will not only help your neighbors but also yourself. It is the freedom to do what you want, when you want, however you want. As long as you aren't harming your neighbors (yeah, that isn't an easy concept to nail down either... such is life), you shouldn't be prohibited from doing that.

I would dare say that those parts of the world where poverty is most rampant, where population pressures cause the most distress and seem to be the best candidates for a demonstration of Malthus' ideas are also the places in the world where the government is most oppressive, where people aren't even capable of posting a message on Slashdot not because of a lack of language skills, but because the government of that country won't even let the citizens express their opinion on line. In nearly every situation you can bring up, when the governments involved opened up and granted freedoms to their citizens in even the smallest degree, economic prosperity resulted and the country as a whole became much stronger... especially compared to its neighbors but also in terms of the ability of that country to deal with issues like poverty, disease, famine, and other major issues that can result from what seems on the outside to be a crushing population.

China is an excellent example, where for many generations there have been oppressive governments (before and after the Communist take-over) and ordinary citizens had little to do other than simply obey the local magistrate or party chief. People with advanced degrees in physics or engineering (particularly in the "Cultural Revolution") had their talents completely crushed under by being forced at gun point to work in rice paddies and manually plant the crops and to perform those tasks in the most inefficient manner possible. The fact that those folks even had degrees should be impressive at all, but it got worse under Mao than it had been earlier.... and that is saying quite a bit. It shouldn't be a wonder that with such inefficiencies and lack of respect for people that millions starved to death in China.

With the granting of economic freedoms in China and a general relaxed attitude toward political dissent (not up to western Europe standards, but far more tolerated than it w

What a depressing view of human potential. A child born may be a problem, true, but also has the potential to come up with any number of solutions. And, yes, how is an unsubstantiated claim that a whole swathe of people delimited by region and religion are 'not that intelligent' not racist?

Take a look at the facts instead. With decreasing poverty, overall birth rates tend to decrease, Arab countries included. Whilst war tends to increase birthrates and long term population densities.

But see, this cannot happen in the "free" market: choosing more pay vs more free time is not in fact an available option to you because the employers always prefer employees who pick the "more pay" branch of the alternative. Thus a minority of workaholics can force everyone to woork extra long hours.

In Europe, people get more holidays because these are mandated by the government. And this improves hourly productivity because not-completely-burnt-out people do work better (no shit). This is how the French, with their incredible number of days of holidays get to be nearly as productive as the 60-hours-a-week Americans.

This is a case were collective preference (most people would prefer more free time even at the cost of some salary) can only be obtained through regulation, or alternatively powerful unions.

Check out some of his earlier videos (including other TED talks that he's done) at Gapminder.

Whenever somebody speaks with approval about the Luddites, the Know Nothings, or the other regressive movements that sprung up during the 1800s, I like to point them to this graph. Go ahead and play it through a few times. Stop and start it a few years or decades before and after each point. I know, it only goes back to about 10 years before the Luddite violence, but you can still see the long term improvement in the world's economy /and/ our health.

One thing that you'll note is that at the time the Luddites were overreacting to a disruptive change in Britain's economy (and admittedly the government overreacted as well), the UK was already one of the wealthiest nations on Earth with one of the highest life expectancies. To some degree, the displaced textile workers really didn't know how good they had it. They could have had the misfortune to be born in Angola or the Solomon Islands, for example.

Poor scaling... Take a look at a zoomed-in-version

The reason I picked CO2 and sulphur is that both were available on gapminder. If I want other pollutants, I'd have to hunt a lot deeper, and then the conversation would be stale. I'm all for looking at more data if we can find it.

Again, it's not my argument that the rest of the world needs to do nothing. I'm just saying that the guy I replied to was fundamentally saying that the US needs to do nothing. That, I think is specious.

And its a gift to the rest of the world. Our emissions are actually quite clean; I"ll bet first world car exhaust is safer to breathe than 3rd world standard air.

Did you just literally say that your shit smells like roses?

The US is in the top bracket of polluting countries! Check this out...

Taking just CO2, the US is four times higher per capita, but China's higher overall. Same story with Sulphur... Here, the US is about 3 times as much as China.

In both cases, India is far behind both the US and China.

Again, let me repeat that our country is so clean that our piddly bit of pollution is cleaner than daily life in these countries.

Its a blessing to them to get our exhaust gasses. Its like manna from the gods.

The highest per-capita emissions, and the second highest totals - that's some pretty interesting mana you gods are giving us!

And now don't switch tactics and try to claim that it's necessary for your standard of living; just look at the UK and Germany with far lower levels of both CO2 and Sulphur per capita. It's possible, as long as you give your SUVs up.

And its a gift to the rest of the world. Our emissions are actually quite clean; I"ll bet first world car exhaust is safer to breathe than 3rd world standard air.

Did you just literally say that your shit smells like roses?

The US is in the top bracket of polluting countries! Check this out...

Taking just CO2, the US is four times higher per capita, but China's higher overall. Same story with Sulphur... Here, the US is about 3 times as much as China.

In both cases, India is far behind both the US and China.

Again, let me repeat that our country is so clean that our piddly bit of pollution is cleaner than daily life in these countries.

Its a blessing to them to get our exhaust gasses. Its like manna from the gods.

The highest per-capita emissions, and the second highest totals - that's some pretty interesting mana you gods are giving us!

And now don't switch tactics and try to claim that it's necessary for your standard of living; just look at the UK and Germany with far lower levels of both CO2 and Sulphur per capita. It's possible, as long as you give your SUVs up.

we have too many people. Population growth needs to level off if we are to have a sustainable future. I don't want to see that through draconian population control measures, I'd rather see it through people self regulating.

There was an interesting recent TED talk on world population growth. The numbers the guy presents say we're just about to reach steady-state in number of children worldwide, though as the world's population pyramid fills up the overall number of people (children plus adults of all ages) will take a few more decades to level off at around 10 billion. The number of children per woman worldwide has plummeted everywhere except sub-saharan Africa. If you don't want to watch the talk, you can at least see this animation (after it loads, click play). Watching China is particularly interesting. There's been a huge shift towards fewer children in the last 30 years, and we're just about down to the replacement rate, on the whole.

Good point. Now, stop using resources at four times the rate of a Chinese or Indian.

Resource use is in no way proportional to the population. If the US can bring itself down to Germany or Britain levels, then we'll start talking...

In case you're wondering, it's the same case with net energy usage per person and water withdrawal.

So, it seems like population is hardly the only problem, eh?

Good point. Now, stop using resources at four times the rate of a Chinese or Indian.

Resource use is in no way proportional to the population. If the US can bring itself down to Germany or Britain levels, then we'll start talking...

In case you're wondering, it's the same case with net energy usage per person and water withdrawal.

So, it seems like population is hardly the only problem, eh?

Good point. Now, stop using resources at four times the rate of a Chinese or Indian.

Resource use is in no way proportional to the population. If the US can bring itself down to Germany or Britain levels, then we'll start talking...

In case you're wondering, it's the same case with net energy usage per person and water withdrawal.

So, it seems like population is hardly the only problem, eh?

And we want the Government to do MORE of this? Medicare doesn't work well enough to qualify our Government to expand it to all of us.

This expresses my 'Republican' views, and many agree with me. We haven't even touched on whether the Government has the right, Constitutionally, to take over healthcare financing, which would De Facto be a takeover of the industry.

Before you get too excited about choosing a position about how to manage healthcare costs under various plans, I strongly, STRONGLY urge you to spend some time at Gapminder.Org.

The U.S. spends nearly twice as much as other industrialized nations for a demonstrably worse result in almost every measure. I've chosen to graph life expectancy versus % of GDP as the most obvious way of highlighting the point, but there are dozens if not hundreds of other variables available to use.

I strongly urge you to spend some time looking at some of the other variables. Watch what happens over time. There is very clearly a correlation between overall health and wellbeing of a nation and its internal politics. Another example that clearly demonstrates this is maternal mortality ratio (per 100,000 live births) versus GDP per capita. Watch what happens in the U.S. after the 1980 and 1996 elections. These are both elections when so-called 'lesser government' ideologues gained additional political power and were able to push their agendas through legislation and manipulating political appointments. Pretty damning results, I'd say.

What are the facts? Again and again and again â" what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what the stars foretell, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable verdict of history â" what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts! -- Robert A. Heinlein

Look, I'm NOT saying that Obamacare is the right approach. However, it's pretty clear that what we've been doing for the past 30 years isn't working anywhere near as efficiently as what every other developed and (and many developing) countries are doing.

One thing that they all share in common? Some sort of nationalized healthcare system. Isn't it way past time that we took a long, hard look at what actually works and figure out how to adapt it for our own use?

And we want the Government to do MORE of this? Medicare doesn't work well enough to qualify our Government to expand it to all of us.

This expresses my 'Republican' views, and many agree with me. We haven't even touched on whether the Government has the right, Constitutionally, to take over healthcare financing, which would De Facto be a takeover of the industry.

Before you get too excited about choosing a position about how to manage healthcare costs under various plans, I strongly, STRONGLY urge you to spend some time at Gapminder.Org.

The U.S. spends nearly twice as much as other industrialized nations for a demonstrably worse result in almost every measure. I've chosen to graph life expectancy versus % of GDP as the most obvious way of highlighting the point, but there are dozens if not hundreds of other variables available to use.

I strongly urge you to spend some time looking at some of the other variables. Watch what happens over time. There is very clearly a correlation between overall health and wellbeing of a nation and its internal politics. Another example that clearly demonstrates this is maternal mortality ratio (per 100,000 live births) versus GDP per capita. Watch what happens in the U.S. after the 1980 and 1996 elections. These are both elections when so-called 'lesser government' ideologues gained additional political power and were able to push their agendas through legislation and manipulating political appointments. Pretty damning results, I'd say.

What are the facts? Again and again and again â" what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what the stars foretell, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable verdict of history â" what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts! -- Robert A. Heinlein

Look, I'm NOT saying that Obamacare is the right approach. However, it's pretty clear that what we've been doing for the past 30 years isn't working anywhere near as efficiently as what every other developed and (and many developing) countries are doing.

One thing that they all share in common? Some sort of nationalized healthcare system. Isn't it way past time that we took a long, hard look at what actually works and figure out how to adapt it for our own use?

Since you asked, most Americans don't grasp it yet, but the truth is that the global elite are absolutely obsessed with population control. In fact, there is a growing consensus among the global elite that they need to get rid of 80 to 90 percent of us. The number one commandment of the infamous Georgia Guidestones is this: "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." Unfortunately, a very high percentage of our global leaders actually believe in this stuff.

OK, I'm no American, but I'll play...

First, let's keep the anonymous polemics out of this, eh?

This philosophy is now regularly being reflected in official UN documents. For example, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief begins with the following statement:

What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?

Not related to climate change, but let's read the report:

Fast population growth, fueled by high fertility, hinders the reduction of poverty and the achievement of other internationally agreed development goals. While fertility has declined throughout the developing world since the 1970s, most of the least developed countries still have total fertility levels above 5 children per woman.

5 children per women is definitely a fertility level that's unsustainable in Nigeria. Or even here in India. This is nothing new - those countries with stable governments have been more or less going in the direction of lower fertility rates for decades. See this Gapminder plot, for example. In any case, the report says nothing about global warming. It's about health and happiness, not warming.

This agenda showed up again when the United Nations Population Fund released its annual State of the World Population Report for 2009 entitled Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate".

1. 
   1) "Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time."
2. 2) "No human is genuinely "carbon neutral," especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."
3. 3) "Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns."

That would be this one

The interesting thing is, this isn't really talking about eliminating 80% of the population of the world. Both reports talk about fertility rates, family planning and improved health. The second one is a little hyperbolic about climate change, but nevertheless, it's not a call to cull 80% of the world's population.

The population control agenda is also regularly showing up in our newspapers now. In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled "The Earth Is Full", Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement:

You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century