Sorry Monte, but that ain't facilitation of consensus. You need to decide whether you're facilitating or controlling.
- Ed
I'm trying to do this a little differently than a conventional thread, so please bear with me. Nobody's views are being silenced here. And yes, I am trying to control the discussion topic.
Besides:
Montequest wrote:
You post here knowing full well that I will moderate/edit the off-topic/off-phase content and move the bashing to the other thread.
Monte _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Ok Monte, sorry about that ..... was too good not to post
Ok it has been quoted that the replacement rate is 2.1 kids per couple (this to keep the population constant).
Assuming no population structure and exponential growth (obviously these are oversimplifications) that 50% of the population are females, lifespan 75 years we have:
1 child per woman (during her lifetime) = 1/(2*75) = growth due to deaths
2.1/(2*75) = growth needed to keep population stable (ZGP)
The difference = -0.00630769
The Exponential (Malthus model) tells us that the Population at time X as a % of population at time 0 is given by Exp[-0.0063 * X]
To give you an answer in a Western Society with avg life span of 75 years, 50% of the population women and 1 child per woman policy we have that the population in the future as a function of time will look like this:
Population 100% 96.7% 93.8% 90% 88.1% 85.4% 82.7%
Time 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
The malthusian model overestimates the actual population (so numbers are likely to be 0.5%-1% lower than that) and ignores population structure.
The formula for all doomers (now u can practise different scenarios involving euthanasias, gerontocide etc ) is as follows:
Population(X) = Exp[ X * (Child Per Women - 2.1)/(% of females in population * average life expectance)]
_________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
If the topic is the time frame, I submit that the population could level off somewhat instantaneously (on the order of 5-10 years) if we instituted a plan to reduce food production and simultaneously distribute food equally over the world. Side effects are another discussion, but that goes without saying.
Here is the reply I recieved from the prb.org folks. Tyler, you were right. One child per women ZPG in 25 years. Now we are getting somewhere.
Quote:
I checked with our demographer Carl Haub who says that he has not seen
projections of 1-child per woman, but would guess that with such a scenario,
world population would begin to decline around year 2030.
see "World Population Projections to 2150" at
http://www.chem.brown.edu/chem12/un%20population/unPopulation.html
Population Division, 1 February 1998
says the following:
"An additional analytical scenario demonstrates the vital role of age
structure in influencing long-term population growth. Even if all couples in
the world had begun in 1995 to bear children at the replacement-fertility
level (instant replacement fertility scenario, which is roughly two children
per couple), the built-in growth momentum of the population age structure
will mean that the population of the world would continue to grow to 9.5
billion by the year 2150 -- a 67 per cent increase from 1995."
Also from the same report:
According to the medium-fertility scenario, which assumes fertility will
stabilize at replacement levels of slightly above two children per woman ,
the world population will grow from 5.7 billion persons in 1995 to 9.4
billion in 2050, 10.4 billion in 2100, and 10.8 billion by 2150, and will
stabilize at slightly under 11 billion persons around 2200.
Although the high and low fertility scenarios differ by just one child per
couple, half a child above and half a child below replacement fertility
levels, the size of the world population in 2150 would range from 3.6
billion persons to 27.0 billion.
If fertility rates were to stay constant at 1990-1995 levels for the next
155 years, the world in 2150 would need to support 296 billion persons.
If all couples of the world had begun to bear children at the
replacement-fertility level in 1995 (about 2 children per couple), the
growth momentum of the current age structure would still result in a 67 per
cent increase in the world population, to 9.5 billion by 2150.
_________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Since someone alluded to Malthus' population arguments, this essay might be helpful in examining some of our unquestioned assertions suggesting that human population is an independent variable: The Opposite of Malthus.
I think if we're going to be looking for ways to reduce population, we should be looking at all angles of this, perhaps nontraditional ones even moreso.
Since someone alluded to Malthus' population arguments, this essay might be helpful in examining some of our unquestioned assertions suggesting that human population is an independent variable: The Opposite of Malthus.
I think if we're going to be looking for ways to reduce population, we should be looking at all angles of this, perhaps nontraditional ones even moreso.
I agree. We will get to that. For now, focus on the timeframe.
I apologize for the error in my initial post that confused everyone.
This was the line:
Quote:
Since I have established the phase of discussion, I’ll let someone else start with a suggestion on how this will be achieved.
It has been deleted. Sorry.
I meant to confer that which follows in my initial post:
Quote:
But first off, we need to come to a consensus as to how soon, realistically, we wish to see a net reduction in the world population? 5 years? 25 years? 50 Years? Remember, even if we instituted a replacement policy, 2 children per couple, it would take fifty years to reach zero population growth due to demographics. This is an important first step because it makes a whole lot of difference in what our options are going forward.
_________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
How to go about achieving any sort population reduction is an excellent question.
However, realistically, I don't think there's any way to achieve this, short or long term. And I
have thought about this before in the past.
The world is too fragmented and there's no coherent way to implement any population
control policy across the board. Especially considering most of the growth is occuring
in 3rd world countries where anarchy and chaos are common.
Population control is also contrary to people's genetic conditioning, which is to
breed, breed and breed. Many people get very angry if you even bring up the topic.
Realistically I can see only two ways the population will be reduced.
First, we continue on the path we are currently on, and Nature takes care of things.
It will likely not be pretty.
Second, and more sinister, there may be an active 'NWO' plot to reduce the population.
Whether this be through engineered diseases, organized famines, or
limited nuclear war is hard to say. The intractable nature of the problem (at least
voluntarily) does unfortunately lend credence to this last line of thought.
100% agreement here. People WILL NOT be told what to do with their reproduction. Even assuming that they verbally agree to a request to limit procreation, how will it be enforced GLOBALLY? How will you deal with "accidental" pregnancies? How will you ensure that people who have genetic qualities the world needs reproduce, rather than those who have undesireable genetic qualities without being labeled a Nazi? It's not going to happen.
Probably the kindest thing the NWO could do would be to create a virus that causes sterility, and enough vaccine to ensure that a small percentage of the population will be able to continue to reproduce. The virus will have to be highly contagious, ensuring its global spread before independent vaccines can be developed. Let's hope they don't screw it up and wipe out the human race accidentally. This would solve a number of "ethical" problems, and take choice and accident out of the equation. Of course it is sheer speculation whether this type of virus could be engineered with the required parameters, and should not be considered as a likely nor viable solution.
The alternative to putting this kind of a brake on the birth rate is to hit the gas pedal on the death rate. The sort of solutions in this category are quite unkind and will likely encounter huge resistance. War, Famine and Pestilence (disease) are the classic agents of demand destruction. However unpopular, they are proven technology for population reduction, and may be considered viable (workable) options by the Powers That Be.
Joined: Aug 13, 2004 Posts: 1184 Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:14 pm Post subject:
Why is it assumed that dealing with birth rate is easier than dealing with both birth and death rate simultaneously.
Some logic here:
Birth-rate deals with who will exist
Death-rate deals with who won't exist
They are both equally important, and equally controversial. But per what gego said in the 'Your age' thread, I think if given all the information, they would see that sacrificing a few of their years for the sake of their children would be somewhat easier to administer politically than, say, a one child per woman policy, which is equally if not much harder to get a political consensus on.
the numbers are easy. the politics aren't. _________________ "If you are a real seeker after truth, it's necessary that at least once in your life you doubt all things as far as possible"-Rene Descartes
"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes
Last edited by turmoil on Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
This thread is not a debate of the merits of a powerdown, it is a discussion to try and find a consensus on a plan for one.
When it is done, we will post a plan, and it will be opened up to debate from all comers to bash and flame as they see fit. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4420 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:21 pm Post subject:
MonteQuest wrote:
Here is the reply I recieved from the prb.org folks. Tyler, you were right. One child per women ZPG in 25 years. Now we are getting somewhere.
I'm always right!
If we were to institute 1 child per couple (woman?) in 2030 we have ZPG.
So this is the earliest date of ZPG we have so far.
What would the effect of eliminating foreign aid be? Is population growth in the third world affected by food handouts from the first world and health care subsidies?
I think several hundred million people would either die or not be born if The West eliminated foreign aid. The missionary hospitals would shot down and immunizations would cease in many countries. Does anyone have any figures on this?
Ceylon (Sri Lanka) saw a big reduction in the death rate do to the use of pesticide. If pesticide prices went up and the use of it declined, would the increase in malaria worldwide lower population growth?
There are many factors to consider... _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4420 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:24 pm Post subject:
Maybe a child tax versus a child tax credit would change the population dynamic in the first world. But population growth in the first world has essentially stopped. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
At any rate, I agree with kochevnik. The population needs to begin decreasing NOW, if not 10 or 20 years ago.
On edit: One idea I have is that we just accept that the population needs to be reduced AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and not in any particular time frame. Given the multiple imminent catastrophes we are facing directly due to our population levels (Peak Oil, Water Wars, Global Warming, global pandemics, the Holocene extinction, and the collapse of our global ecosystems), it would be pertinent to say that we need ZPG now.
Given this, and with MonteQuest's permission, we would probably be best spending our time coming up with ways to effect this transition.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
One child per women ZPG in 25 years. Now we are getting somewhere. 
