Slashdot Mirror

You need to engage your brain...

There is no point in advocating killing anyone or doing anything at this point.

It's too late. It's too fucking late. It's too late by almost three decades.

Requested Cite:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
"There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100.
https://blog.iiasa.ac.at/2014/...
Demographers from the United Nations Population Division and several universities published a paper in Science last week that argues the world population is unlikely to stop growing this century. They calculate that there is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100, with the median at 10.9 billion. ...
These projections indicate that there is little prospect of an end to world population growth this century without unprecedented fertility declines in most parts of Sub-Saharan Africa still experiencing fast population growth."

Every prior projection projection of maximum human population has turned out to be on the low side. Just during my lifetime, the prior projected "maximum" has risen a billion at a time every decade.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node...
U.N. Raises âoeLowâ Population Projection for 2050

http://www.globalchange.gov/si...
Population Projections: Reasons for Uncertainty

I actually agree on the logarithic growth but it's not asymptotic as has been projected.

We are already well past overshoot territory. Read limits to growth, then the updated one, and then do some research on chromium and other metal reserves. Oil isn't the only non-renewable. We are going to have to find replacements for every industrial metal at roughly the same time.

It's like Global Warming. It's also too late on global warming. Tropical diseases and pests range will definitely increase by thousands of miles over the next 100 years. The north west passage will open. And the sea is going to rise by at least a foot by 2100.

We are on a train with no way to stop it and the bridge is out a mile ahead.

People actively try to avoid thinking about this because it's so horrible.

The short lifespan of large dog breeds is correlated more with their early growth rates than with size as such.

I think 600 million more indians in the next 45 years is definitely a significant increase in the population

I don't know where you get 600 million, the page you provided a link to says: "According to the most recent (medium variant) UN population projection India's population will increase by an additional 401 million between 1995 and 2025." The only place it mentions 45 years is where it says "On a country-by-country basis it was mainly the oil exporting nations of Western Asia that had the highest population growth rates over the past 45 years." Those 45 years are in the past. Now if you say 45 year from now, that would be in the year 2052, and I can't find 2052 anywhere on the page. It does say however that Africa will add 1.3 billion people, and that's despite the spread of AIDS.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm

I think 600 million more indians in the next 45 years is definitely a significant increase in the population.... that is like another western europe(more considering their population crunches going on now...)

the upper end projection is an increase by over 900 million people.... again.. not insignificant..

How about looking at some real numbers instead of a pretty flash animation that may or may not be correct?

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0502-rhett_butler.ht ml

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_bir_rat-peop le-birth-rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/ch ap1.htm

I'm not too worried about having a large family right now.

But hey don't let common sense get in the way. Just ignore the fact that agriculture puts water vapor into the air.

You cannot argue this point from generic observations, as you have done throughout your messages on this topic. Both forests, mixed zones, and grasslands transpire large quantities of water into the atmosphere.

"Trees planted on previously cleared land commonly use between 30-55% of annual pan evaporation, while healthy trees planted at high density can use up to about 65% of annual pan evaporation. Raper found some evidence that under ideal conditions, maximum long-term water use could be up to 75% of annual pan evaporation." Australian Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation.

The benchmark, pan evaporation, is water loss from a literal gradated shallow pan, which would be even higher than from the shallow channels that you assume predominate in agriculture.

The remainder of your points are demonstrably false. First, the sun does not have a constant energy output, and I am not referring merely to "apparent annual variation" or the 11 year sunspot cycle. Second, cultivation of shallow rooted crops does not necessarily increase evaporative and transpirative losses, as is evident from the report referenced above. Third, virtually every arable inch of land on Earth is not under cultivation, which is blatantly obvious to anyone living in the Eastern United States who lives near a national park or in a new subdivision built over previously cultivated land. "This gross estimate of land with cultivation potential is twice the area that was actually in use for cultivation during 1994-96 according to FAO's statistical data." United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization statistics

But hey, don't let facts that you could Google in less than 5 minutes get in the way of your common sense.

Just randomly picking from a google search finds this PDF which says the average household income for a rural household is 2262 Yuan which is about $327 USD. So a $150 computer would be about 6 months work for a rural family.

The graph on this page confirms the ~2200 Yuan for rural households and shows urban households at just more than double that of rural.

So, from 3 to 6 months net income for an average household.

I think the point we're clashing on is that you don't realize your original post insinuated that the Chinese are multiplying like horny rabbits,

As one can see from this chart, for most of the past 2000 years China's population fluctuated between some 60 and 110 million. A significant increase in population only occurred during the Qing dynasty, when China's population reached the 400 million level. However, there is no historical precedence to China's modern population growth since the 1950, which doubled a 550 million population in less then 40 years.

So, starting in 1950, they doubled their population over 40 years. If they had the 550 million they had 50 years ago, the pollution in China wouldn't be as large of a problem as it is today.

Their massive population growth is a problem they created -- the pollution created by that population growth is part of that problem.

I agree that today population growth is counter-productive for large parts of the world, and that it is counter-productive for a small hunting & gathering tribe in the neolithic age.

Christian morality in Western Europe, however, mostly spread in a context of population booms following a regression of the sea and increased productivity in agriculture in the 10th century. At least where I come from. Christian kingdoms were apparently more able to take advantage of surplus land for population growth than non-Christian kingdoms for some reason. A universal Christian morality took root only very slowly; Note that only in the 15th/17th centuries Christians systematically started attacking 'witchcraft' i.a. for its abortion practices in Europe outside the core areas of the Roman empire (Including Brittania for unclear reasons). The power which Europe exercised over the rest of the world in the centuries following that is arguably based on high growth rates caused by its belief system (but only in circumstances where it is rewarded).

Even today, religious Christians enjoy a higher birth rate, as even the difference between the US - which has a higher birth rate and more Christians - and Europe testifies. The same is true for Muslims. Today's population growth-induced famines are generally in Christian and Muslim areas. Look at the highest population growth rates. Today borders are more or less fixed, and "pagans" are the minority. In the past Christians and Muslims have spread at the expense of pagans.

Even an equal treatment polygyny differs from, say, gay marriage in that so many fundamental legal notions (wills & last testaments, power of attorney, child care & visitation, etc, etc) assume that a civil union/marriage comprises only two people.

Wills are interesting as an instrument. Another succesful "sexual" innovation is primogeniture, independently discovered by different cultures. But when it served its purpose (establishing strong kingdoms that survive until today as states) it was eventually abandoned because it also caused abject poverty. The crusades, and mass migration to colonies, are both consequences of a high population growth combined with primogeniture.

The fact that a practice causes famine or poverty does not mean it cannot conquer the world. Succesful and good are not the same thing, as Darwinism teaches us.

There is an interesting article here (PDF) that describes how northen cod in southern Labrador and eastern Newfoundland fisheries suffered as a result of maturing at ever-earlier ages/smaller sizes (a trend caused by the way the fisheries were managed).

Uh, you *do* realize that the "greying" you speak of mostly will occur in the U.S. and Europe (due to the baby boom created shortly after World War II), not in the rest of the world, right?

Besides, India has over 1 billion people. IIRC, only some fraction of 1% of them are actually employed in IT (for now). China has 1.2 billion people, and is in a similar situation.

In 1991, only 285 million of their then about 0.9 billion people were actually "economically active". Assuming the rate has remained approximately the same with India's growth, then about 316 million people now are "economically active" there. That only leaves, oh, about 700 million people as unproductive labor, waiting to be educated and put to work in IT (or engineering, or other fields)...

China has about 740 million of their 1.2 billion employed (assuming China isn't lying about these statistics). So there's another 500 million then in China who could be tapped for IT work, given the training and education (and that's ignoring the people they already employ in IT).

And then there's Russia, Belgium, the former Soviet-bloc eastern European nations, South Korea, etc. etc., which I haven't touched-upon... Believe me, there are *PLENTY* of people in other nations to fill whatever labor demands American businesses may have.

In short, for practical purposes, there is no "greying" you speak of, once you include the labor supplies of the world economy, not just the U.S. economy. Think globally, not locally.

That's very similar to Europe. They have a higher percentage of broad band usage than the U.S. They also have a higher population density.

Even more interesting but off topic. Compare the population density map of the US to the 2004 election results.

According to the most recent estimate by the Council of Europe, Germany had a Net Reproduction Rate of 0.66 in 1999. In other words, due to its reproductive behavior the population of Germany is shrinking by 34% between generations.

Please note that this natural population decline is currently not obvious, because it is compensated by high net-immigration and a temporarily higher number of births due to age structure effects. There is still a relatively large number of parents from the "baby boom" generation, who temporarily produce a somewhat larger number of births - despite the fact that each of them on average has only 1.36 children, which is far below the reproductive level of about 2.1 children per woman

To the contrary, all available evidence shows that Malthus was mistaken to extend his results to humans. Julian Simon, the Doomslayer, proved the folly of applying Malthus to human population.

advances in technology over the past 150 years or so have simply forestalled what is otherwise inevitable.

More than mere forstalling, advances in technology have radically improved the quality of human life with no end in sight.

stop creating new North Americans / Western Europeans).

Your prayers have been answered, at least in Europe (and Japan). The U.S., though, is projected to see about a 50% population growth over the next 30 years.

Well, you have to remember that the google is in it for money. Any company is about that. The "You can make money without doing evil"-thing will bow away to realities of making money and marketshare. If google did not censor their site they would be totally blocked. When totally blocked they would loose the ability to reach extremly many ( http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data /pop/pop_9a.htm ) people available there. Then someone else would step in...

".... mankind has been very lucky and that things could have been truly catastrophic, with an "ozone hole" occurring everywhere, if industry, instead of chlorine, would have produced similarly large quantities of bromine-containing compounds...."

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/INF/lectures/Koopmans /koopmans_crutzen_2003.html/

Simple chemistry, unknown at the time industry chose to use chlorine, marginally cheaper, over bromine, in freons etc.

Bromine in those applications would've wiped the upper ozone layer worldwide.

Oh, and the 'skeptics' (Hogan)? -- note the dates on those pages being proffered and the elevation of the effects described. That parrot's dead.

Do I need to remind you of the total population in China?

"...give me 1 REASON , WHY Should I care in the least about censorship in China ?

The fact of the matter is that in modern times nearly every country in the entire first world has sub-replacement population growth. Combine that with the recent paradigm shift in population growth in countries like China which previously had a major influence, and the probablye future advancement of third world countries, and you don't see anywhere near as dramatic an increase as what you say.

Until a few years ago, the United Nations and other institutions preparing population forecasts assumed that fertility would increase to replacement level and that subreplacement fertility was only a transitory phenomenon. This assumption is supported by the argument of homeostasis as discussed in Chapter 11 . In this view, fertility levels are not seen as the sum of individual behavior, but as one aspect of the evolution of a system in which individual behavior is a function of the status of the system (see Vishnevsky, 1991). Under such a systems approach the assumption of replacement fertility in the long run seems a defendable possibility. Therefore, we assumed a TFR between 2.1 and 2.3 in 2030-2035 as the high-fertility assumption in the five industrialized regions.

It is difficult, however, to find many researchers who support this view. Too much evidence points toward low fertility. The return to replacement fertility has been criticized as an assumed magnetic force without empirical support (Westoff, 1991). Many significant arguments support an assumption of further declining fertility levels. They range from the weakening of the family in terms of both declining marriage rates and high divorce rates, to the increasing independence and career orientation of women, and to a value change toward materialism and consumerism.

Read this for more info, specifically this graph show what the trend will more likely be like in the future.

The fact of the matter is that in modern times nearly every country in the entire first world has sub-replacement population growth. Combine that with the recent paradigm shift in population growth in countries like China which previously had a major influence, and the probablye future advancement of third world countries, and you don't see anywhere near as dramatic an increase as what you say.

Until a few years ago, the United Nations and other institutions preparing population forecasts assumed that fertility would increase to replacement level and that subreplacement fertility was only a transitory phenomenon. This assumption is supported by the argument of homeostasis as discussed in Chapter 11 . In this view, fertility levels are not seen as the sum of individual behavior, but as one aspect of the evolution of a system in which individual behavior is a function of the status of the system (see Vishnevsky, 1991). Under such a systems approach the assumption of replacement fertility in the long run seems a defendable possibility. Therefore, we assumed a TFR between 2.1 and 2.3 in 2030-2035 as the high-fertility assumption in the five industrialized regions.

It is difficult, however, to find many researchers who support this view. Too much evidence points toward low fertility. The return to replacement fertility has been criticized as an assumed magnetic force without empirical support (Westoff, 1991). Many significant arguments support an assumption of further declining fertility levels. They range from the weakening of the family in terms of both declining marriage rates and high divorce rates, to the increasing independence and career orientation of women, and to a value change toward materialism and consumerism.

Read this for more info, specifically this graph show what the trend will more likely be like in the future.

I'm going to assume that the "country's growth" you refer to is its economy (which, ultimately, defines who is a superpower and who is not).

China's population rate is still growing (0.6% in 2003 and 0.9% in 2000, compared to the United States' 0.95% in 2003)

Your example, India, grows at 1.47%.

I realize that the lag between an increase in population and an increase in the country's population exists (i.e. until the new population become functioning citizens), but even then... the effects of the staggering birth rates in China during the 60's will last for many decades. India's current and continuing population growth will likely continue propel its economy (and, therefore, world clout) in the future, I don't think China's lacking in that respect either.

While a country's growth rate may influence its GDP growth, their link really isn't strong enough to say that on that factor alone, a country will or will not be an economic superpower - letting alone the fact that China has yet to have a negative population rate in recent years. That may change, though.

BTW, every "% of humanity" statistic has to consider that most humans are Chinese.

If you want to be even remotely close to statistically significant you have to include citizens of India as well most of whom are very different from those of Chinese descent. . In fact most people will probably be an Indian citizen within the next 20 years. However citizens of India are a more heterogeneous population than that of China. Then again, Chinese of the diaspora (eg. in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philipines, Vancouver etc.) are also a large population but can be very different than mainland Chinese. So I guess in the end every % of humanity statistic that measures some culturally derived phenomenon has to be considered BS.

I like your point that only honest people pay those taxes. I certainly feel like a schmuck when I fill in that field.

Ah yes, the famed "schmuck tax." Good thing I'm not a schmuck. :)

You forgot local taxes. That makes 3 gov't entities. I looked up the French tax system and see local business tax and property tax, which you probably paid through rent and purchasing services. The web page says France gets 50% of its revenue from the VAT. " The standard rate of VAT on the sale of goods and services is 19.6%, but lower rates are applicable in many cases. In particular, the rate is 5.5% for food, some agricultural products, medicine (5.5% or 2.5%), books, hotels, public transport, newspapers and magazines (5.5% or 2.1%), some types of entertainment, etc."

More on France -- I'm looking at a table and see that the U.K., France, and Italy are pretty crowded at 60 million each; reunified Germany is over 80. (Wow, look at the variation in infant mortality ... more stuff.) The U.S. is closing in on 300 million I think, and of course is geographically much larger. But economically, the U.S. is *really* big. I recently checked California and found that at population of 34 million, if on its own it would form the world's sixth largest economy.

Tax theory is complicated, I know only a little bit of it, and I mentioned even less. I think it's pretty fascinating, though, to see what was intended versus how it plays out. The method of taxation definitely influences behavior, adding a layer of policy choices to the basic task of raising money. Neutrality is impossible, though a friend of a friend thinks everyone should simply get an identical bill for their share of the bill. An interesting puzzle is the effect of Pres. Bush's abolition of the dividend tax, aside from the obvious one of benefitting the wealthy.

There is a similar notion called "tax incidence" that looks at who takes the ultimate hit from a new tax. For things like corporate or VAT, it's not always the consumer because in some circumstances the company can't pass it along and takes the hit in its profits. Even if the end-user pays the tax, maybe they turn around and pressure their employer for more money. And so on, and so on.

In California, I remember there was a slightly different tax rate if you bought your donuts to eat in or take out. Kind of silly.

I like your point that only honest people pay those taxes. I certainly feel like a schmuck when I fill in that field.

Ah yes, the famed "schmuck tax." Good thing I'm not a schmuck. :)

You forgot local taxes. That makes 3 gov't entities. I looked up the French tax system and see local business tax and property tax, which you probably paid through rent and purchasing services. The web page says France gets 50% of its revenue from the VAT. " The standard rate of VAT on the sale of goods and services is 19.6%, but lower rates are applicable in many cases. In particular, the rate is 5.5% for food, some agricultural products, medicine (5.5% or 2.5%), books, hotels, public transport, newspapers and magazines (5.5% or 2.1%), some types of entertainment, etc."

More on France -- I'm looking at a table and see that the U.K., France, and Italy are pretty crowded at 60 million each; reunified Germany is over 80. (Wow, look at the variation in infant mortality ... more stuff.) The U.S. is closing in on 300 million I think, and of course is geographically much larger. But economically, the U.S. is *really* big. I recently checked California and found that at population of 34 million, if on its own it would form the world's sixth largest economy.

Tax theory is complicated, I know only a little bit of it, and I mentioned even less. I think it's pretty fascinating, though, to see what was intended versus how it plays out. The method of taxation definitely influences behavior, adding a layer of policy choices to the basic task of raising money. Neutrality is impossible, though a friend of a friend thinks everyone should simply get an identical bill for their share of the bill. An interesting puzzle is the effect of Pres. Bush's abolition of the dividend tax, aside from the obvious one of benefitting the wealthy.

There is a similar notion called "tax incidence" that looks at who takes the ultimate hit from a new tax. For things like corporate or VAT, it's not always the consumer because in some circumstances the company can't pass it along and takes the hit in its profits. Even if the end-user pays the tax, maybe they turn around and pressure their employer for more money. And so on, and so on.

In California, I remember there was a slightly different tax rate if you bought your donuts to eat in or take out. Kind of silly.

When does an island become a continent?

It doesn't.

When does a town become a city?

With approval of the central government (according to the Chinese).

When does winter become spring?

On the vernal equinox.

Hope this all helped... ;)
------------------------------