World, Writing, Wealth discussion

If you look at the data, accumulated from different sources like CIA world factbook, World bank and others, one would get an impression that the population is shrinking in most parts of the world. Take a look at the blue countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
This is true for most of the Western world, however, it would be a wrong impression in general, since Africa and some other regions contribute enormously to overall Earth's population growth.
It seems the higher the general level of prosperity and well-being is attained by a country the more balanced, if not shrinking the birth rate becomes. Although well-being of African countries is quite slow on improvement, eventually they might enjoy the benefits of progress.
Here comes the question whether we need to expect the exponential growth, leveling out or even decline at some stage?
Also, should we be concerned with global population growth or specifically per country with their respective governments concerned how to feed their citizens?

And finally what's the world capacity or carrying capacity? Some estimate it at 10 bil: http://www.livescience.com/16493-peop..., but who really calculated the potential for crops, fruits, vegies, cattle with modern technologies? Some say, fresh water is a problem. True, but desalination is a proven and viable (although expensive) solution.

What do you think?

And another finally-:): if the crisis and famine becomes very severe in certain countries, how, if at all, should the rest of the world address the problem?

Of course. If there is crises in one part it usually effects global trade and commerce, I think. The sooner it is addressed the better.

This may seem heartless to say, but I believe that this local overpopulation problem will eventually create its own solution, ie mass deaths by famines, droughts, failed crops, deforestation and the like. Most of the places where excessive birth rates happen are ruled by incompetent/corrupt leaders who couldn't care less about the problem and do nothing about it. The influence of the Catholic Church, still strong in Africa and Latin America, doesn't help either, with its anti-contraception/abortion stance. Most of the migrants attempting to leave North Africa for Europe via flimsy boats do so because of economic/overpopulation pressures, not because of wars, so that process is already playing out. The real solution would be to finally convince those populations to both restrict their birth rates and stop destroying/abusing/polluting their eco-systems. However, I frankly am not too optimistic about that. As for what the rest of the World should do about that, I would say to either convince those countries to change their ways and better educate their populations, or close their borders to these migrants and force their governments to act responsibly and deal themselves with the various crisis.

This is a tongue and cheek statement, but it has a twinkle of truth to it.

As I remember, there was report that came out that said the earth can sustain 15B people if the world food sources were well managed. But, that was in 1975. I'm sure that has changed because of technology. But, like you said, with todays technology, 10B is the present number. Which, means we are not managing our food sources properly. We're at 7B. What will it be like another 50 years--5B population that will have enough to eat. I see Soylent Green on the horizon.

Couple of years ago, my wife and I went to Croatia. I was eager to go there because I wanted to eat Mediterranean sea food. I love seafood. Well, there ain't none. It's all fished out in that region. All the seafood in Croatia came from other parts of the world. Also, the ocean food is full of PCBs, mercury, and other toxins, it's not worth eating.

About population growth, at the rate we're going with wars, we will be closer to Armageddon. And, then who gives a damn.

I'm sorry Nic to be a pessimist, but man doesn't have a bright future. More like Atomic clouds will shroud our earth and reduce population. And along with Global Warming, he won't have that much land to cultivate. There are no glaciers in the Alps anymore. And by 2030, they predict the polar caps will no longer be covered with ice. Hence, the landmass will diminish greatly.

About fresh water, and desalinization plants, I read the other day that the oceans have become more saltier. When it reaches a certain level (can't remember the level), it will kill the remaining fish. Don't get me wrong here, but they said it would take a millennium to rectify itself. Maybe there is some truth to that prediction of a 1000 years of peace.

GR wrote: "'m sorry Nic to be a pessimist, but man doesn't have a bright future. ..."

Can be as you predict, but who can really know? Prophets are rare breed -:)

Farmers are producing more per square foot today than ever before. If countries like the US continue to allow GMOs we're definitely going to see increased production on less land, and we could see the emergence of crops that are more drought tolerant than they are today.

As far as population numbers, we're looking at a future based off a world as it is today, but we're seeing more and more of the African continent as an "emerging" society. Sure a lot of the region is in the "developing" category and maybe birth rates are higher than 1st world nations, but as these nations increasingly head into 1st World status, you will see families engaging in family planning, you will see increased acceptance of contraception and birth control and you will see birth rates decline.

In the short term, the world's population is going to grow uncomfortably, but it is conceivable that by the end of the century enough of the world has modernized where we're actually talking about the world's population declining.

It's not just numbers its waste and other resources. 7 Billion with 2 billion at poverty line with that level of consumption compared to 10 billion at 1st world levels of consumption and waste. Life expectancy goes up with wealth. Requiring more homes more schools more hospitals more demand.

How close were those new planets again?

The problem of GMO food. They are developed to withstand certain blights and pests. They structure the DNA or eliminate certain DNA that attracts blights and pests. Therefore, they are resistant to these problems. Hence, an abundance. That's not the issue, and probably will become more common over the decades. People must eat, since we're putting them into the present lifecycle--it's call unmanaged sex. Full bellies don't cause problems. Empty bellies do. That's the reason for GMO.

The problem is: What attracted the blight or bug has been eliminated. That removed DNA is essential part of life--all of life. Once removed, we will see in the future many problems develop in man--if not already.

I was talking with an intelligent friend about limiting population growth, and I expressed my concern about the effect on the environment. She took a totally different tack and said that when population growth stagnates, then economies suffer. We need, she said, young people who contribute to the economy in order to support aging populations. I couldn't argue with that. What would you say to her?

That this kind of reasoning has led us to where we are today. The Earth needs less human population, not more. The best way would be to find a way to keep our older citizens productive longer while not endangering their health at the same time. I am myself 61, am nearing retirement and have already worked for 43 years of my life, so I am talking out of clear interest in this question.

We may not have that chance in the future to work or retire. I saw a documentary last night on bees. The bee population is diminishing. They are dying from pollutants. Pollutants are all over the food chain, from sea to shining sea. The oceans included. Einstein said, if all the bees in the world die, man has 4 years to live. Maybe this is the reason for GMOs, but that looks like a bad way to go too. Read my message 8 above.

If war doesn't kill us off, over population will do the rest, if not GMO and the lack of bees.

Scout wrote: "What would you say to her?..."

That is based on the assumption that working population practically pays for everything and supports all other groups of population and there are in fact enough jobs to offer..
That's what in fact happens, where pensions and allowances to elderly are not pegged to their personal pension program savings. The system works and it might be a reasonable solution, for the elderly bore the burden in the previous years.
However, if automation and export of jobs undermines their availability, I entire construct can collapse. Having a lot of youngsters won't help in such a case ...

I agree, Nik. There is nothing that will solve the problem. There will not be any work in the future, except for the very intelligent and creative. But for the mass majority, there has to be some other solution then social security, 401K, and other retirement plans. If society doesn't solve the problem, we may find ourselves be eaten by the masses.

As it looks to me, war is the solution to reduce population growth. It can do it in mass numbers. What a sad dilemma. Everything I am opposed to.

My guess is climate change/sea level rise will take out a rather large chunk of the best agricultural land. At the moment our agriculture is very productive, and is at an unprecedented level, BUT that depends on a lot of oil and fertiliser use. We shall eventually run out of oil because we aren't making any more, and by then Beijing will be under water. Look at a map and see how much land we lose. No oil, no nitrogen fertiliser, and worse than that, once Moroccan phosphate deposits are exhausted, there will be no easy phosphate fertilisers.

It is all very well to talk about GMOs that fix blights, etc, BUT as soon as a good plant source is available, evolution will find some bug capable of dealing to it. We do not need to lose the DNA of our current hardiest plants.

There are answers, but not unless we get started on them. GMOs are not really there to solve the food problem because there isn't one. It is there to increase corporate wealth.

So, what are the answers? We need a clear plan of action. So far, there hasn't been one. What do you propose?

Scout wrote: "So, what are the answers? We need a clear plan of action. So far, there hasn't been one. What do you propose?"

Complicated, isn't it? What doesn't help is that global warming is a major problem, and the President of the country most capable of helping towards a solution doesn't believe in it. I think we have to reduce carbon burning, but also that merely slows the problem from arriving. So my first program would be to understand the effects of the various geoengineering possibilities, to know whether there is an acceptable answer there. I would also go towards making a maximum effort to recover phosphates from rivers, etc, e.g. through plants, and that should also clean up the nitrogen pollution.

I would also go for biofuels, but not those that hurt the food supply. Marine algae could manage this, and at the same time improve the environment for fish. (I have an ebook called "Biofuels An Overview" that is half price at Smashwords this week, if you want to see the argument and figures. I am probably biased towards this, because I have worked on it on and off for some number of decades.

First, we have to stabilize and then lower the human population of Earth, while doing our best to stop or at least reduce our production of warming pollution. Next, we need to reverse the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, possibly by building a vast network of giant air scrubbers. With luck (lots of luck!), we will then be able to reverse the melting of the polar ice caps before many of our coastal cities disappear under water.

Reducing the population is reasonably easy if every person has only one child. (A couple = two children.) It takes time, but two is not sufficient to replace the population. China went further with the "one-child" policy, and they will have a bigger reduction because thanks to a certain silliness, many parents apparently killed off girl babies so they could have a boy.

Let's say you reduce population, then what? If we do that, the whole political, economic, and social system has to change. Otherwise, nothing will work.

The real measure is population multiplied by environmental footprint. On that basis, we are losing, heavily.

I am not aware of relevant studies, but my guess is that a sustainable world population multiplied by a level of environmental impact that gives reasonable life to most people would be under 2 billion on today's technology.

Trouble is, we are past peak fresh water and are mining the aquifers. We are destroying topsoil at a great rate. We are officially in the 6th great extinction event, destroying the web of life that's keeping us alive.

Most examinations of these topics look at too few factors. You need to look at the total picture, which is bleak.

But it's OK. When the students have destroyed this school, you'll find there are billions of other schools within the universe.

If you reduce the population to about 500 million, everything would still work. O)f course there would be adjustments, and I am assuming you did this cooperatively and not violently. Most of the work done by people is required for the number of people there. Thus housing, education, infrastructure, etc requires enough people doing it to service the local population.

Back in 1975, there was a series of reports talking about the 21st Century, and what to expect. They said the US had its peak during the 1950s. Everything was ideal. Population was at 300million, employment was at its peak, the stability of the country was the best in recorded history. And with the growing of population of the mid 1970s, everything would deteriorate, and if nothing was done about it, the quality of life would plummet and be irreversible. It sound like they were right.

Well, this is all very depressing. Drastically reduce population in developed countries, and their economies suffer. Reducing populations in less-developed/poor countries with birth control would help, but how can that practically be accomplished? I wish there were an answer to that question. My dad tells me that the overpopulation problem will take care of itself, as it does with animal populations. Too many animals, too few resources, and they die from starvation or disease. In the case of humans, killing off each other will also be an option. No wonder people avoid thinking about this. I hope that world leaders and great thinkers can come up with a solution before this happens.

The simple answer is each person has no more than one child, i.e. a married couple have two children. That takes care of itself over a few hundred years, depending on how much reduction you want to achieve. China and its one child policy has done quite a bit without chaos, although they are giving up on that because there are too few women, thanks to silly Chinese wanting boys.

Ian, I'm afraid that's not the solution. It doesn't work. With the US present social system and like countries, how are the aged going to be taken care of? Reducing population doesn't solve the age problem. You need the young to support the aged. It takes 2 for every person. And, as I read on the internet, the worst problem that's facing the health systems is Alzheimers. The ever increasing aged are developing senility issues. It isn't heart attack, strokes, or diabetes, its Alzheimers--there are 7 types.

The biggest problem with society is the aged, what to do with them. I read yesterday, Alzheimers will break the healthcare system in the US.

The aged can be taken care of. Whether they can in the US with its political issues is another matter. However, if we want two to replace every person, the population will get out of control, and nature will do the rest, and it won't be pretty.

But, with the US they don't have a social system. It's meager as it is. And congress wants to do away with it and put it into business' hands. That will be disastrous. We saw it in Obamacare without controls. And the Republican congress doesn't want to put any controls on business. Whenever business gets involve, prices always goes up, services always go down.

With the future, there will be less work. Robots and automation will take over. Most people will be unemployed. This is a big problem for the US, and the Western World. People are no longer needed. I don't know what's going to happen when China and India reach the same level as US and Europe. War? It looks like the most effective why. But, I don't want to be around when that happens. I don't think anybody else does either.

GR, there are probably many solutions to what to do if robots do all the work. I gave one in my "Scaevola's Triumph", but I am sure there are many more.

I have an idea that would or possibly work if robots took over. Everybody has a dream job, and they can be paid to do it. But of course this is an illusion.

All the ARTS would be submitted to a government Arts Services and be paid for their efforts. The Art item would become public domaine. Then the Service would sell the music, picture, story, creative property to anyone who want to further develop it. And that piece of work could be linked to the originator for further recognition and payment. No patent or copyright involved if the government buys it -- that's the down part, but you could survive until recognition.

Sports lovers could work in some aspect of the sports and be paid for their efforts and guidance, especially for the youth. Teams would be generated and everyone involved would be paid. Any sport or game, Scrabble, Bingo, Monopoly, including "tiddlywinks." This could go on for hobbies, crafts, any activity that involves doing, making, creating.

It's all about putting brains to work. Generating ideas in the arts and sports and entertainment, and hopefully industry. This will take people off welfare, and the government dole. People would work in industry for ideas. Government would pay them until they become part of industry.

Educated people: I don't like this academic stuff the way it is today. It doesn't make leaders or better supervisors. There is no need for degrees when it comes to creating. It needs applied knowledge and doing it. Education should go back to when education meant something. You went to College to learn how to think and reason. You went to a trade school to learn a job. ETC.

The biggest objection today is that it sounds like communism. But, that's where we're heading. There's no getting around it. What do you do with people if there is no work. The only alternative is WAR! And that is unacceptable to me. If we don't solve the social problem, man has failed, and deserves his upshot!

It's all a dream. It's all a fantasy. But a possibility.

There would be an easier solution to this problem of jobs disappearance: have lawmakers pass laws prohibiting further replacement of workers by robots or automation. I know that this sounds retrograde, but the British government in the 19th Century faced a workers' revolt at the start of the Industrial Revolution and briefly gave in to workers' demands.

Not today, Michel. That's dreaming.

The progress is hardly reversible...
I guess we'll be facing either a minimal distribution of resources to anyone in the form of universal income or similar stuff allowing subsistence or hunger riots, demolition and possible end of democracies or it'll level out, as in many countries we actually have a negative growth rate...

Ian, how do we achieve the goal of one child per person, when some countries have no access to / no desire for birth control?

China managed better. Also, in the West, I think that is more or less achievable already, however I know that in the poorer regions and the catholic and many Muslim countries, this won't happen anytime soon. The problem is the population have to buy into wanting to do it.

So, how many dudes can this planet host? And isn't it a hutzpah on fish and jelly part to crowd the ocean?

We don't know, and it depends on the standard of living we want

Given we are already destroying what we know of as our planet (Its not ours) with 7.5 billion well on way to 10 billion not sure if we can take another half billion more.

As Graeme will no doubt say there may be technical solutions, we (humanity and the animals) may be able to grow enough food but we won't be able to cope with CO2, Plastics, all the elements needed for consumption yet alone the thought of fossil fuel production etc.

Humanity has already failed to implement the solutions we currently have (Nuclear, recycling) why will this change?

It comes down to not how many people we can feed, but to quality of life and preserving what's left of the planet we love and depend on.

Yeah, I guess in India people live on a sidewalk and in Africa - in huts. So let's make it more nuanced: what's the minimal quality for a dignified human and how many of those the planet can accommodate?
Does it make sense for some individuals/families to have millions/thousands of acres, while others - nowhere to live?

No, it doesn't Nik, but while you have a free enterprise economy, simple mathematics says that is what you will get. You may recall back in the USSR you did not have people living on the sidewalk, but would you want a return to that?

Ian wrote: "No, it doesn't Nik, but while you have a free enterprise economy, simple mathematics says that is what you will get. You may recall back in the USSR you did not have people living on the sidewalk, ..."

I think a cap makes sense. One doesn't need millions acres. Like we limit monopolies (at least supposed to - that's what anti-trust authorities are there for), boundless amassment in current conditions doesn't make sense.
As of USSR. Yes, I'd prefer it existed as an alternative running model of a societal organization. Personally, I didn't have issues with its economic principles (while Lenin started to introduce entrepreneurial entities), which were curtailed after his death, just with a totalitarian regime. That needed to be changed.
China changed economy, but suppresses personal freedoms - not very interesting.

The3 problem with the USSR type of economy was that if the government made all the decisions there seemed to be an inevitable drift of ineptitude towards the top as each boss chose replacements who would not embarrass him. So even if you could get rid of the totalitarian aspects, a different method of appointing top managers was required.

Ian wrote: "The3 problem with the USSR type of economy was that if the government made all the decisions there seemed to be an inevitable drift of ineptitude towards the top as each boss chose replacements who..."

I thought that problem was the mass graves. But I am no economist.

There was no problem with mass graves that i know of. There was always plenty of spare space and around places like Magadan the bodies composted nicely.

Ian wrote: "The3 problem with the USSR type of economy was that if the government made all the decisions there seemed to be an inevitable drift of ineptitude towards the top as each boss chose replacements who..."

A lot of stuff needed a change, however a system provided for a meaningful living of all the members of an almost egalitarian society. No homeless, unemployed, etc.. A different concept altogether, based on shared economy which became popular recently :)
However, I'm pretty sure most of my ex-compatriots wouldn't care much about freedoms and choose a capitalist model, so that's what they get.
In a grander scheme of things, there is no competition of ideas anymore and it feels like we all became poorer when indiscriminate moneymaking became the only ideology. Most the values & ideals became hollow

J. wrote: "I thought that problem was the mass graves. But I am no economist...."

That was the problem of 30-40-ies. Any violent change of power inevitably leads to civil war and repercussions, that's why I prefer evolution over revolution. Stalin turned it into a horrible decades long purge.
Unfortunately, many countries' history contains those mass graves at this stage or another and one doesn't have to look that far to find them..

Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "The3 problem with the USSR type of economy was that if the government made all the decisions there seemed to be an inevitable drift of ineptitude towards the top as each boss chose repl..."

The concept isn't entirely dead. There is always the desire to exploit those less fortunate. Apparently now Xi is being labelled a tyrant for dealing with such people. He has decreed that China will no longer tolerate employers demanding workers work for 72 hr weeks. My guess is workers' lives will improve because ignoring Xi is not a good route to living long and prospering

Ian wrote: "....He has decreed that China will no longer tolerate employers demanding workers work for 72 hr weeks. My guess is workers' lives will improve because ignoring Xi is not a good route to living long and prospering..."

Yeah, it's my impression that China's leadership decided to restrain and put a leash on their big biz to show who's the boss. Employees should benefit and even more - the party

I like your idea, Nik, of caps on super wealthy. We've talked about this before. At a certain level of wealth, a person has to give back to the economy of the country that fostered that wealth, and can choose how to give back.

Scout wrote: "I like your idea, Nik, of caps on super wealthy. We've talked about this before. At a certain level of wealth, a person has to give back to the economy of the country that fostered that wealth, and..."

They already do and it is called charities and foundations. Oh by the way, they get to choose who to give to, get to write it off; as a bonus make money on the money they put into the foundation.