are we the u.s. over populated

[actsnoblemartin]

I hear in some circles of the childfree movement, and liberals say we are over populated.

is that true?

please give evidence

[fj1200]

please give evidence

Malthus and Ehrlich are still looking too. :laugh:

[KarlMarx]

Bad economic policy kills more people than overpopulation.

Japan, for instance, is an overpopulated country yet it has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Russia, on the other hand, is sparsely populated and has one of the lowest standards of living.

Japan has free market capitalism, Russia used to have a communist economy.

[GUBMINT Cheese]

<a href="http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b241/jjammer18/?action=view&amp;current=010112011508010204200806040b2 636-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b241/jjammer18/010112011508010204200806040b2636-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
U.S. over-populated?.....
Why would you say that?......:salute:

[Thunderknuckles]

I heard an interesting take in an op-ed piece in my local paper. Basically doing some simple math, he stated you could gather up every man, woman, and child, give them each a 2,000 square foot living space in the United States and they would only take up about 1/3 of the US leaving the rest of the world for resource gathering.

I haven't bothered doing the math myself but it puts things in an interesting perspective.

[Nukeman]

I heard an interesting take in an op-ed piece in my local paper. Basically doing some simple math, he stated you could gather up every man, woman, and child, give them each a 2,000 square foot living space in the United States and they would only take up about 1/3 of the US leaving the rest of the world for resource gathering.

I haven't bothered doing the math myself but it puts things in an interesting perspective.
Actually if you gave every man, woman, and child living in the US 1/2 acre of land you could put EVERYONE in the state of Texas alone.. that would leave the rest of the country for everything else... Of course that isnt stores or anything like that. So if you droped it down to 2000 sqft you could save even more room in Texas

Texas has
167,672,913.14 approximate total land area in acres There is actually more acres but some is under water!!

If you wanted to go sq ft you coud give ever man, woman, and child 24,000 sq ft to live on in the state of Texas alone... thats a damn big house!!

[revelarts]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30530-The-population-timebomb-is-a-myth-new-studies&highlight=malthusian



http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...h-2186968.html

Dominic Lawson: The population timebomb is a myth
The doom-sayers are becoming more fashionable just as experts are coming to the view it has all been one giant false alarm.



... The Independent buried in a few paragraphs a story with the headline "Population growth not a threat, say engineers". But at least The Independent found some space to cover the publication of a report last week by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers entitled Population: One Planet, Too Many People? – I could find nothing about it in other newspapers.

The reason for that distinct lack of column inches is that the institution answered its own question in the negative. No, there are not (and will never be) too many people for the planet to feed. As the report's lead author, Dr Tim Fox, pointed out, its verdict is not based on speculative guesses about the development of new agricultural processes as yet unknown: "We can meet the challenge of feeding a planet of 9 billion people through the application of existing technologies". For example, Dr Fox pointed out, in Africa, no less than half the food produced is destroyed before it reaches its local marketplace: with refrigeration and good roads, the developing world could avoid this horrendous waste.

Interestingly, another detailed report on "sustainability" published last week by the French national agricultural and development research agencies came up with the same answer. The French scientists set themselves the goal of discovering whether a global population of 9 billion, the likely peak according to the UN, could readily have access to 3,000 calories a day, even as farms take measures to cut down on the use of fossil fuels and refrain from cutting down more forests: their answer was, you will be thrilled to know, "yes"......

[Thunderknuckles]

Actually if you gave every man, woman, and child living in the US 1/2 acre of land you could put EVERYONE in the state of Texas alone.. that would leave the rest of the country for everything else... Of course that isnt stores or anything like that. So if you droped it down to 2000 sqft you could save even more room in Texas

Texas has
167,672,913.14 approximate total land area in acres There is actually more acres but some is under water!!

If you wanted to go sq ft you coud give ever man, woman, and child 24,000 sq ft to live on in the state of Texas alone... thats a damn big house!!
A quick note. The guy in the article I read was talking about the entire population of the planet, not just the U.S.

[logroller]

I heard an interesting take in an op-ed piece in my local paper. Basically doing some simple math, he stated you could gather up every man, woman, and child, give them each a 2,000 square foot living space in the United States and they would only take up about 1/3 of the US leaving the rest of the world for resource gathering.

I haven't bothered doing the math myself but it puts things in an interesting perspective.

Resources define a population's growth rate and carrying capacity. In America we consume massive amounts of resources, far greater than most other cultures. The question, IMO, is rather our consumpton is a manifestation of the inefficient use of resources or wholly necessarily to support our standard of living? If you favor the latter, then we are overpopulated.

[Little-Acorn]

Malthus and Ehrlich are still looking too. :laugh:

No, they're not. They never did.

They just assumed it was so WITHOUT actually looking for evidence, and started telling everybody we had to change everything.

[fj1200]

Resources define a population's growth rate and carrying capacity. In America we consume massive amounts of resources, far greater than most other cultures. The question, IMO, is rather our consumpton is a manifestation of the inefficient use of resources or wholly necessarily to support our standard of living? If you favor the latter, then we are overpopulated.

No they don't, level of economic development is the determining factor of population growth, the more advanced economies have lower growth rates, negative in some cases, than the developing world.

You are definitely on this overconsumption kick though.


No, they're not. They never did.

They just assumed it was so WITHOUT actually looking for evidence, and started telling everybody we had to change everything.

Noted. ;)

[logroller]

No they don't, level of economic development is the determining factor of population growth, the more advanced economies have lower growth rates, negative in some cases, than the developing world.

You are definitely on this overconsumption kick though.

I should have said MAXIMUM growth rate, though economic growth, in its real sense, is dependent upon available resources, is it not? Our growth rate as a population is defined by birthrate and death rate; through our actions, both technical and cultural, we can manipulate these numbers to best fit our preference as to how much of the available resources each individual enjoys.
Developed countries have less children, live longer and enjoy higher standards of living-- all made possible through technological development and economies of scale. Though economies benefit greatly from the increase in technical efficiency, the bounds of such growth are nonetheless defined by available resources-- there exists a maximum population which can can be supported.
So far as my overconsumption kick, Sorry if I dwell upon it but I believe it is the single largest threat to the survival of our great society and I know my actions alone cannot make any significant impact; so I'm compelled to share. Odds are the changes I rally for, even if they were implemented today, wouldn't be valued during my lifetime; but I believe in leaving a legacy which will be admired among future generations not for what it took, but for what it gave.

[Trigg]

I hear in some circles of the childfree movement, and liberals say we are over populated.

is that true?

please give evidence

The population in the US is going up, but not because of too many births. We aren't even at replacement, which is 2.1 children per woman.

Here are worldwide fertility rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories _by_fertility_rate

Out of 195 countries/73 are at or below replacement rate.

[country]

Actually if you gave every man, woman, and child living in the US 1/2 acre of land you could put EVERYONE in the state of Texas alone.. that would leave the rest of the country for everything else... Of course that isnt stores or anything like that. So if you droped it down to 2000 sqft you could save even more room in Texas

Texas has
167,672,913.14 approximate total land area in acres There is actually more acres but some is under water!!

If you wanted to go sq ft you coud give ever man, woman, and child 24,000 sq ft to live on in the state of Texas alone... thats a damn big house!!

I know some texans who would object to that. lol, I mean REALLY object!

[logroller]

here's a graph of the logistic growth rate of a population. Over simplified, but similar across all populations

The fact we have little to no growth of population indicates we are in a lag phase or a stationary phase-- most likely the latter.

http://image.wistatutor.com/content/feed/u851/kk_1.GIF

[fj1200]

here's a graph of the logistic growth rate of a population. Over simplified, but similar across all populations

The fact we have little to no growth of population indicates we are in a lag phase or a stationary phase-- most likely the latter.

http://image.wistatutor.com/content/feed/u851/kk_1.GIF

That's a snappy little graph you got there but how about you put some meat on it. What are the assumptions underlying the graph? Why does it lag? Why does it accelerate? Why does it level off?

And "most likely" the latter? It pretty much looks like any population graph you might find.


I should have said MAXIMUM growth rate, though economic growth, in its real sense, is dependent upon available resources, is it not? Our growth rate as a population is defined by birthrate and death rate; through our actions, both technical and cultural, we can manipulate these numbers to best fit our preference as to how much of the available resources each individual enjoys.

I'd say your economic growth rate assumption is a bit limiting. Growth doesn't need to rely on digging more Widgetonium out of the ground, it could be better use of the resources we have. The current Economist has an article on 3D printers that could completely overhaul current manufacturing processes; now pieces can be made specifically for design purposes and not have superfluous material added on solely for manufacturing reasons.

I'm not sure what you're getting at on "manipulating" population numbers.


Developed countries have less children, live longer and enjoy higher standards of living-- all made possible through technological development and economies of scale. Though economies benefit greatly from the increase in technical efficiency, the bounds of such growth are nonetheless defined by available resources-- there exists a maximum population which can can be supported.

Yet, we have not reached that limit even though many have proclaimed that it's right around the corner. And even without the limiting factors the population numbers are showing a peak and possible decline around 2050-2100, what say you?


So far as my overconsumption kick, Sorry if I dwell upon it but I believe it is the single largest threat to the survival of our great society and I know my actions alone cannot make any significant impact; so I'm compelled to share. Odds are the changes I rally for, even if they were implemented today, wouldn't be valued during my lifetime; but I believe in leaving a legacy which will be admired among future generations not for what it took, but for what it gave.

I wonder if Malthus was going for that too?

[logroller]

Lots to say, better grab a drink.


I'd say your economic growth rate assumption is a bit limiting. Growth doesn't need to rely on digging more Widgetonium out of the ground, it could be better use of the resources we have. The current Economist has an article on 3D printers that could completely overhaul current manufacturing processes; now pieces can be made specifically for design purposes and not have superfluous material added on solely for manufacturing reasons.

I'm not sure what you're getting at on "manipulating" population numbers.

There is always variance, from things like wars, disease and even 3-d printers( although wouldn't this fall into computer tech et al); but I doubt this overhaul will have an effect as great as the advent of agriculture or industry-- but only time will tell. We may be moving past the lag phase for the informational "revolution" (as may be indicated by a decrease in papergoods) http://earthtrends.wri.org/images/consumption_trends.jpg
Source: EarthTrends, 2007. while many developing countries have yet to fully implement previous revolution, that of industry, fueled by oil to which we see china has increased their consumption, which has had profound impact on the efficiency of agriculture; thus exhibiting growth of global pop numbers from several distinct and mutually related technical improvements. But all the while competing for universal resources like water and oil.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41421000/gif/_41421084_national_water2_map416.gif

Though we may make better use of widgetonium, we still need it.
Interestingly, last week in the WSJ I read China is stockpiling certain heavy metals (widgetonium, i believe:laugh:) essential to new generation batteries and other hightech applications; as new technology often requires previously underutilized resources, consumption shifts.


By manipulation, I mean we can move through our growth curve faster as population relative to other populations using technological practices which increase our per capita production and consumption, thus limiting the pop numbers which can be supported. Not to infer we've grown faster, but rather we reached our carrying capacity sooner because the sustainable population is less. Does efficency of resource use matter, of course, but due to the relative speed of the industrial growth mankind has experienced, efficiency doesn't garner much favor until growth incurs significant decline.

http://alanmccrindle.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/human-enegy-use-over-time1.jpg?w=450&h=340
http://www.sustainablescale.org/images/uploaded/Population/World%20Population%20Growth%20to%202050.JPG
image credit www.sustainablescale.org




Yet, we have not reached that limit even though many have proclaimed that it's right around the corner. And even without the limiting factors the population numbers are showing a peak and possible decline around 2050-2100, what say you?

When you say "we" haven't reached our peak, I assume you mean globally. Truth is most "peaks" aren't confirmed until well after growth levels off (in the western world, I believe we have), indicating the pop has reached its carrying capacity at current consumption rates. This is not to assume it never goes over it, because it can and does, which is why it isn't stated to be a max pop. However, longterm pop numbers are relatively constant about this carrying capacity-- with the underlying assumption that no major resource or technology is discovered (ie agriculture and animal husbandry, industry and fossil fuels) or that the population doesn't choose to do with less. In consideration of pop growth models it becomes necessary to determine what quality of life can be enjoyed by all. China and India support massive pop numbers(and growing), but does everyone want to live in their conditions; I know I don't and given how many from these countries wish to emigrate elsewhere, neither do many of them. From a survival standpoint, the greater the number, the better your chances; from a quality of life standpoint, the inverse is true. Two millenia of social adaption in the western world has resulted in great triumphs over the world we live in; all made possible through the resource consumption of smaller population numbers with greater productivity. The problem is that innovative technology has been utilized by other populations which has increased their numbers without the implementation of the small pop is better social construct which allowed such developments to occur in the first place-- and this is an unsustainable combination.


That's a snappy little graph you got there but how about you put some meat on it. What are the assumptions underlying the graph? Why does it lag? Why does it accelerate? Why does it level off?

And "most likely" the latter? It pretty much looks like any population graph you might find.

Meat huh? Better grab a fork and knife

Indeed it is overtly simple, and you're absolutely right-- all populations, including subpopulations, exhibit this growth pattern, but I thought it relevant to show how pop growth isn't purely exponential as Mathesian graphs would indicate. So far as the assumptions made, the shape of the graph isn't merely an assumption, as it has been demonstrated statistically for humans and experimentally on a variety of lifeforms-- to which all demonstrate similar behavior, albeit with different scales, but nonetheless similar.

Lag- it takes time for a population to exhibit the effects of a new population growth. This lag varies between populations based on density of resources and the population's interaction with other subpopulations. ie Due to slow repro. rate of humans and smaller mating populations inherent with hunter/gatherer, agriculture took a while to "catch on", likewise the technology of water pumps for irrigation brought agriculture to areas which previously didn't enjoy all the benfits of ag technology.

Positive Acceleration: As a new resource, or more efficient use, "catches on" the growth rate of the population increases, as does it's gross pop. As the the pop grows, combined with the now higher growth rate, a positive feedback results which is described as exponential growth. During this phase a maximum growth rate will occur at half the sustainable population, or carrying capacity (global growth rate reached its max in 1962/1963 @ 2.2, with a population of just over 3B- source: uscensus). After this point the growth rate declines (negative accel phase), though the population continues to grow.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/World_population_increase_history.svg/800px-World_population_increase_history.svg.png

As the growth rate approaches zero, the population numbers become stationary. Again, this isn't to assume there is no change, but the overall trend of growth will level off as carrying capacity is acheived. Bear in mind, carrying capacity is what is sustainable; generations may exceed carrying capacity, thus overusing available resources. When this happens, a downward spike below the carrying cap would likely follow.
Below are graphs from wiki, #s are %growth
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Population_growth_rate_world.PNG/800px-Population_growth_rate_world.PNG
Sorry this so long- thx for indulging me on the soapbox.

[fj1200]

Oy vey. Nothing done at work today eh? :laugh: I'll need some time for that to digest.


Lots to say, better grab a drink.

There is always variance, from things like wars, disease and even 3-d printers( although wouldn't this fall into computer tech et al); but I doubt this overhaul will have an effect as great as the advent of agriculture or industry-- but only time will tell. We may be moving past the lag phase for the informational "revolution" (as may be indicated by a decrease in papergoods) http://earthtrends.wri.org/images/consumption_trends.jpg
Source: EarthTrends, 2007. while many developing countries have yet to fully implement previous revolution, that of industry, fueled by oil to which we see china has increased their consumption, which has had profound impact on the efficiency of agriculture; thus exhibiting growth of global pop numbers from several distinct and mutually related technical improvements. But all the while competing for universal resources like water and oil.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41421000/gif/_41421084_national_water2_map416.gif

I'd call 3D printing more evolution, it's not revolution because it's still making stuff, because it is the ongoing evolution of utilizing resources more efficiently.

I also think it's possible that some emerging countries may completely leapfrog some of the intermediate steps that advanced countries went through; for example no need to run a phone line to every hut when a few cell towers will provide phone and internet. They have massive potential IMO to build up electrical grids that are more efficient than what has evolved in our country. If we lose at least half of the energy created just in the transport of that energy that would be huge savings on their part. Of course they need the right incentive and infrastructure to make that leap but we have no right to retard their development so we can feel better about energy usage. Advanced economies use energy and resources more efficiently, Haiti IIRC has hardly any trees compared to the Dominican Republic because they have to burn logs to cook, etc., I'd say it's pretty clear that some development would have positive benefits for their environment.

I wouldn't call water a universal resource, it's local because it does not have the economic benefit of being transported long distances like oil. I think water usage will fit the efficiency level that is required for the local market. Water in an oasis will be used more efficiently because it has a higher value in the desert than it does in a rain forest.


Though we may make better use of widgetonium, we still need it.
Interestingly, last week in the WSJ I read China is stockpiling certain heavy metals (widgetonium, i believe:laugh:) essential to new generation batteries and other hightech applications; as new technology often requires previously underutilized resources, consumption shifts.

I didn't realize that the ChiComs were now beating us in widgetonium. :mad: Interesting question though, what do free-market participants do when a non free-market entity engages in this type of action? Look for substitutes I suppose.


By manipulation, I mean we can move through our growth curve faster as population relative to other populations using technological practices which increase our per capita production and consumption, thus limiting the pop numbers which can be supported. Not to infer we've grown faster, but rather we reached our carrying capacity sooner because the sustainable population is less. Does efficency of resource use matter, of course, but due to the relative speed of the industrial growth mankind has experienced, efficiency doesn't garner much favor until growth incurs significant decline.

http://alanmccrindle.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/human-enegy-use-over-time1.jpg?w=450&h=340
http://www.sustainablescale.org/images/uploaded/Population/World%20Population%20Growth%20to%202050.JPG
image credit www.sustainablescale.org

I'm still missing your point. Are you surmising that agricultural, for example, improvements allowed rapid population growth rather than efficiencies reacting to population growth?


When you say "we" haven't reached our peak, I assume you mean globally. Truth is most "peaks" aren't confirmed until well after growth levels off (in the western world, I believe we have), indicating the pop has reached its carrying capacity at current consumption rates. This is not to assume it never goes over it, because it can and does, which is why it isn't stated to be a max pop. However, longterm pop numbers are relatively constant about this carrying capacity-- with the underlying assumption that no major resource or technology is discovered (ie agriculture and animal husbandry, industry and fossil fuels) or that the population doesn't choose to do with less. In consideration of pop growth models it becomes necessary to determine what quality of life can be enjoyed by all. China and India support massive pop numbers(and growing), but does everyone want to live in their conditions; I know I don't and given how many from these countries wish to emigrate elsewhere, neither do many of them. From a survival standpoint, the greater the number, the better your chances; from a quality of life standpoint, the inverse is true. Two millenia of social adaption in the western world has resulted in great triumphs over the world we live in; all made possible through the resource consumption of smaller population numbers with greater productivity. The problem is that innovative technology has been utilized by other populations which has increased their numbers without the implementation of the small pop is better social construct which allowed such developments to occur in the first place-- and this is an unsustainable combination.

Yes, globally. Obviously the peak can't be determined until after it occurs but I don't think carrying capacity has anything to do with it. If the US shut off immigration and relied on internal population growth, or lack in our case, we still have a huge excess carrying capacity evidenced by our agricultural exports. If you want to more quickly put a check on pop growth you need to massively accelerate global economic development; rich people have fewer kids. We have little right to demand that development be limited in other parts of the world.

How do you justify that last statement with your graph showing the developing world growing in population far faster than the developed world? Our use of innovative tech has NOT increased our numbers and has limited pop growth because of that development.


Meat huh? Better grab a fork and knife

Indeed it is overtly simple, and you're absolutely right-- all populations, including subpopulations, exhibit this growth pattern, but I thought it relevant to show how pop growth isn't purely exponential as Mathesian graphs would indicate. So far as the assumptions made, the shape of the graph isn't merely an assumption, as it has been demonstrated statistically for humans and experimentally on a variety of lifeforms-- to which all demonstrate similar behavior, albeit with different scales, but nonetheless similar.

Lag- it takes time for a population to exhibit the effects of a new population growth. This lag varies between populations based on density of resources and the population's interaction with other subpopulations. ie Due to slow repro. rate of humans and smaller mating populations inherent with hunter/gatherer, agriculture took a while to "catch on", likewise the technology of water pumps for irrigation brought agriculture to areas which previously didn't enjoy all the benfits of ag technology.

Positive Acceleration: As a new resource, or more efficient use, "catches on" the growth rate of the population increases, as does it's gross pop. As the the pop grows, combined with the now higher growth rate, a positive feedback results which is described as exponential growth. During this phase a maximum growth rate will occur at half the sustainable population, or carrying capacity (global growth rate reached its max in 1962/1963 @ 2.2, with a population of just over 3B- source: uscensus). After this point the growth rate declines (negative accel phase), though the population continues to grow.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/World_population_increase_history.svg/800px-World_population_increase_history.svg.png

As the growth rate approaches zero, the population numbers become stationary. Again, this isn't to assume there is no change, but the overall trend of growth will level off as carrying capacity is acheived. Bear in mind, carrying capacity is what is sustainable; generations may exceed carrying capacity, thus overusing available resources. When this happens, a downward spike below the carrying cap would likely follow.
Below are graphs from wiki, #s are %growth
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Population_growth_rate_world.PNG/800px-Population_growth_rate_world.PNG
Sorry this so long- thx for indulging me on the soapbox.

I think the concept of carrying capacity in that model is too static. CC will change based on technology; The US has a high CC but is only growing via immigration. Russia likely has a huge CC but is shrinking. Africa has low CC but is the fastest growing area. Like I said it's a nice graph and appears to beaccurate but my difficulty with it is WHY it's accurate. It is of no use to be right if you did the math wrong, you have to be right for the right reason.

[namvet]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v401/Wurst_Prez_Ever/alien.jpg

with the rise of Muslim births i hope we're well populated

[Noir]

It may not be overpopulated now. But it will be.

People just don't understand what exponential growth against a finite resource means, and with that ignorance comes bliss, truly misplaced bliss.

[Nukeman]

It may not be overpopulated now. But it will be.

People just don't understand what exponential growth against a finite resource means, and with that ignorance comes bliss, truly misplaced bliss.

but noir we are NOT having "exponential growth". Hell most modern countries are barely at replacement levels..

The fact that most parents in modern industrialized countries try to provide the best for their children limits the number of children they have, it is the countries with low education that continue to pop out children left and right, they also do this becasue of high mortality rates..

just look at this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg

[Noir]

but noir we are NOT having "exponential growth". Hell most modern countries are barely at replacement levels..

The fact that most parents in modern industrialized countries try to provide the best for their children limits the number of children they have, it is the countries with low education that continue to pop out children left and right, they also do this becasue of high mortality rates..

just look at this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg

You don't even understand what you are saying.
Any steadying growth over a period of time is exponential growth.

Take the US, at the minute your population is growing at just under 1% per year, that means that with some simple functional mathmatics your doubling time is around 70 years. A doubling of your population in 70 years!

This means there will come a point when we will have to have 0% population growth. That is undeniable. There are two ways to go about that, raise the death rate or lower the birth rate.

[darin]

You don't even understand what you are saying.
Any steadying growth over a period of time is exponential growth.

Take the US, at the minute your population is growing at just under 1% per year, that means that with some simple functional mathmatics your doubling time is around 70 years. A doubling of your population in 70 years!

This means there will come a point when we will have to have 0% population growth. That is undeniable. There are two ways to go about that, raise the death rate or lower the birth rate.

You are equating 'absolute population' with birth-rate.

[Noir]

You are equating 'absolute population' with birth-rate.

Well if you want to take it to a worldwide scale we can, population growth is around 1.3% that's a doubling time of around 53 years.

Totally unsustainable.

And seriously, this made me laugh so much - http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2011/02/16/south-dakota-welcomes-population-increase/
People are welcoming 8% growth, they are idiots.

[jimnyc]

The US will continue to be overpopulated until we toss out the illegals on their asses.

[Nukeman]

You don't even understand what you are saying.
Any steadying growth over a period of time is exponential growth.

Take the US, at the minute your population is growing at just under 1% per year, that means that with some simple functional mathmatics your doubling time is around 70 years. A doubling of your population in 70 years!

This means there will come a point when we will have to have 0% population growth. That is undeniable. There are two ways to go about that, raise the death rate or lower the birth rate.
Please don't start with the "i don't understand" exponential growth crap.. Its the rule of 72 for figuring out the exponential growth (doubling of a known)

Your honestly going to tell me that at 1% growth currently that it will continue indefinetly!! Giive me a break. Yes 1% is "exponential" growth given ENOUGH time but the same could be said for ANY growth.

at a 70 year double rate your assuming NO catastrophe's and a continue increase in longevity. YOUR presuming a lot for the sake of argument.

When MOST industrialized countries are barely at replacement all it takes is a VERY SMALL push to put them on the decline..

If you will look at human history and growth patterns you will note, the massive explosion of the last 100 years you will also note the sudden leveling off. WE are not going to continue with the massive birthrate of the last 100 years and for you to say we are is crazy!!!

[fj1200]

You don't even understand what you are saying.
Any steadying growth over a period of time is exponential growth.

Take the US, at the minute your population is growing at just under 1% per year, that means that with some simple functional mathmatics your doubling time is around 70 years. A doubling of your population in 70 years!

This means there will come a point when we will have to have 0% population growth. That is undeniable. There are two ways to go about that, raise the death rate or lower the birth rate.

You do understand don't you that the US fertility rate is BELOW the rate of replacement? Our population growth is due to immigration.

[fj1200]

Well if you want to take it to a worldwide scale we can, population growth is around 1.3% that's a doubling time of around 53 years.

Totally unsustainable.

The global rate of growth is slowing you know, logroller had a graph or two about that as I recall.


And seriously, this made me laugh so much - http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2011/02/16/south-dakota-welcomes-population-increase/
People are welcoming 8% growth, they are idiots.

There's a difference between micro and macro. Also I think that SD of all places would be able to sustain a much higher population than 1mm people.

[Noir]

The global rate of growth is slowing you know, logroller had a graph or two about that as I recall

Yes and it MUST slow to zero, preferably as soon as possible. The problem is ofcourse, our economic models are based pretty much totally on continued growth.


There's a difference between micro and macro. Also I think that SD of all places would be able to sustain a much higher population than 1mm people.

Nowhere could sustain that kind of growth, even for a a decade or two. It is unsustainable.

[Noir]

Please don't start with the "i don't understand" exponential growth crap.. Its the rule of 72 for figuring out the exponential growth (doubling of a known)

Your honestly going to tell me that at 1% growth currently that it will continue indefinetly!! Giive me a break. Yes 1% is "exponential" growth given ENOUGH time but the same could be said for ANY growth.

We you did say "but noir we are NOT having exponential growth" when we are, just because you consider 70 years to be a long time doesn't meant you can negate it, that's well sighing my life time, never mind my children and their childrens

And no, it will not continue indefinitely, that's my point, it has to stop.


at a 70 year double rate your assuming NO catastrophe's and a continue increase in longevity. YOUR presuming a lot for the sake of argument.

I didn't predict anything about longevity. And catastrophes are already factored in to previous growth figures. Unless you're talking about some sort of epic catastrophe that will kill millions or something.


When MOST industrialized countries are barely at replacement all it takes is a VERY SMALL push to put them on the decline..

Not while other parts of the world are growing.


If you will look at human history and growth patterns you will note, the massive explosion of the last 100 years you will also note the sudden leveling off. WE are not going to continue with the massive birthrate of the last 100 years and for you to say we are is crazy!!!

Indeed factors will take effect if we dont ourselves. The main contenders will be war, dont ourselves. I find the fact that you think 1% growth is slow. =/

[pete311]

some cities are over crowded, but if you've taken a cross country road trip or plane ride you will see the vast majority of the US is open land.

[Noir]

some cities are over crowded, but if you've taken a cross country road trip or plane ride you will see the vast majority of the US is open land.

Well I'm sure a fair amount of that land is either unusable or already being used for some purpose.

I use the following wee metaphorical situation in relation to oil, but it can be used for this aswell, exponential growth vs. A finite resource (in this case, room to live)

This is demonstrate exponetail growth against a finite resourse.

Imagne ther is a bacteria living in a test tube.
The bacteria spilts into two bacterium every minute (i.e doubles every minute)
After one hour (say 11:00 to 12:00) the test tube is full.

Here is a record of the last 5 minutes in the tube.

11:55 Tube 3.125% Full
11:56 Tube 6.25% Full
11:57 Tube 12.5% full
11:58 Tube 25% Full
11:59 Tube 50% Full
12:00 Tube 100% Full

At what time would you of realized there was a problem? Having lived for 55 minutes and with 96.275% of the test tube still empty would you of realized you're minties from disaster?

[Trigg]

73 out of 195 countries are BELOW replacement rate, without immigration their populations would not be increasing.

In fact, there are several countries that LOOSE population every year because of low birthrates and little to no immigration.

Even 3rd world countries have seen a HUGE drop in their birthrate. As the populations in these countries become more educated their births are going down. Look it up.

I firmly believe that below replacement birth rates will become the norm in the not to distant future.

[fj1200]

Yes and it MUST slow to zero, preferably as soon as possible. The problem is ofcourse, our economic models are based pretty much totally on continued growth.

Uh, it is. And not because you got your panties in a bunch. So would you prefer a government go out there and start handing out procreation rights or would you like to increase development to the third world which will lower their rate faster?


Nowhere could sustain that kind of growth, even for a a decade or two. It is unsustainable.

:rolleyes: Micro vs. macro. I think SD could handle it. Besides a state of 1mm people will have zero effect on a plant of billions.

[fj1200]

Imagne ther is a bacteria living in a test tube.
The bacteria spilts into two bacterium every minute (i.e doubles every minute)...

You might consider yourself nothing more than bacteria but I happen to have a higher opinion of people. Why don't you start thinking of what's happening in the real world.

[Noir]

You might consider yourself nothing more than bacteria but I happen to have a higher opinion of people. Why don't you start thinking of what's happening in the real world.

.....
You can not be serious.
You understand the concept of the metaphor,
And chose to ignore that,
And instead pick on the literal interpretation of the description of the metaphor?
This is a first for me, and hopefully a last, what idiocy.

[logroller]

.....
You can not be serious.
You understand the concept of the metaphor,
And chose to ignore that,
And instead pick on the literal interpretation of the description of the metaphor?
This is a first for me, and hopefully a last, what idiocy.

Not sure that is a metahor. I understand bacteria to be exemplary of exponential growth, not metaphorical. People, certainly those in the developed world, enjoy a standard of living which isnt, or should I say can't, be sustained at the worldwide population levels. The modern world enjoys certain productive efficiencies which are made possible through the increased investment into each individual. So to say we cant sustain a growth is false, excepting each has America's std of living and productive rewards. With that said, put kids to work at 13, have them start having kids at 16, and exponential growth becomes feasible with the accepted premise they will work purely for survival and nothing else; recreation and innovative pursuits would be forgone. Until recently, say 100 yrs ago, this was the standard and still is throughout the populations which still expand.

Here in the US, we are opposed to any decrease in our std of living, so we choose to hold our population at current levels. But given our current economic stagnation, negative export rate and national debt, it is reasonable to conclude that our level of productivity is unable to support our current population's consumption and, thus, we are overpopulated. This can be ameliorated by two factors: one is to increase each individual's production; the other is to reduce each individual's consumption. I argue that the latter supports the former; that increased production is spawned from a decrease in consumption-- if we have more excess resources, we are able to do more, incrementally, as more resources are in surplus-- deficit investment is a failure waiting to happen.

[fj1200]

.....
You can not be serious.
You understand the concept of the metaphor,
And chose to ignore that,
And instead pick on the literal interpretation of the description of the metaphor?
This is a first for me, and hopefully a last, what idiocy.

I am serious, you keep harping that any hint of growth is unsustainable while refusing to acknowledge what is actually happening. The rate of growth is declining, the population will peak and likely decline, your metaphor of bacteria is moot.

I remember seeing a similar metaphor where our world population was doubling every minute but we all of a sudden had access to another world to save us but that world would be filled up in :eek: one more minute. The horror of it all. :rolleyes:

[pete311]

There is a real good discussion on this but scaled up to include the whole earth at a physics forums here:

Maximum Sustainable Earth Population
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=470256