Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: The Freedom to Breed
The Freedom to Breed
The total population of the world has remained essentially constant for most of the history of mankind. World population fluctuated between 10 million and 300 million for most of the last 10,000 years, never reaching 1 billion until about 1850. The biggest single factor in preventing sustained population growth has been infectious diseases. They were our human predators, and they helped to keep our population in check.
Prior to the discovery of the germ theory of disease in the mid-1800’s, 50% of the people born into the world died before reaching the age of five, with infectious disease being the number one cause of death. An even more significant problem was infectious plague. Any time population became really dense, it was just a matter of time until an infectious plague exploded in the dense population and quickly returned the population to previous low levels. This was a Darwinian world.
In a society in which many children do not live to adulthood, the fastest way to increase life expectancy is by decreasing the number of childhood deaths caused by acute illness. Germ theory demonstrated that microorganisms known as germs are the cause of contagious diseases. It ushered in the science of microbiology and led to advances in immunology, sanitation and hygiene that have done more to increase the life span of humans than any other scientific advance of the past 1,000 years.
Before germ theory, illness was treated by appeals to supernatural powers or by trying to adjust body fluids through induced vomiting, bleeding, or purging. The modern approach emphasizes sanitation, the safe handling of food and water, pasteurization, quarantine, aseptic surgical techniques, vaccinations, and antibiotics to destroy microorganisms.
However, these successes came at an ecological price. As vaccines and improved treatment insured more people survived to adulthood and their child-bearing years, the birth rate increased dramatically. After 10,000 years with no significant sustained population growth, the world population grew from about 1 billion in 1850 to 2 billion by 1930, 3 billion by 1960, 4 billion by 1974, 5 billion by the late 1980's, and 6.4 billion in 2005, changing the ecology of the entire planet in less than 200 years. And without the advent of fossil fuels, these populations could not have been sustained, and would have gone the way of Malthus.
Garret Hardin wrote in his Tradegy of the Commons: “It is fair to say that most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy.”
Yet, as long as those evils don’t come too close, we don’t seem to care. We give cigarette smokers a new heart while children starve in Africa. Those privileges come at a price, usually someone else’s life or health. Just look at the inequity in the world. We take more than our share here in the US and set it up as a standard of living, perching a misplaced sense of the sanctity of life upon it. We would like to have our cake and eat it to. But can we?
Disease can be looked upon as man’s keystone predator. “Keystone predator” is an ecological term used to describe the basic principle by which a predator may be a balancing force on an ecosystem. For this reason, special care must be taken with identified keystone predators to keep them from being hunted out of an ecosystem. Other than in some vials in a lab at the CDC, many of man’s keystone predators are extinct; others are of little consequence. Yes, we are no longer plagued with the evils of disease, but that was nature’s way of controlling our numbers and insuring a strong gene pool. Predators usually capture the old, crippled, sick, or very young animals. Very rarely are healthy adults caught and killed. In this way, only the strongest and healthiest animals are left to reproduce. Over long periods of time, predation actually improves the health of the prey population.
Had we been truly intelligent, we could have limited our numbers on the commons. Think of the world we could have had: a small healthy population, relatively free of disease and suffering with a high quality of life—almost forever. In our insistence to breed with freedom on the commons, we squandered that opportunity. And since the population went up due to the population sustainability of fossil fuels, it will go down as they decline—although there is uncertainty as to what a sustainable global population would be without them.
William Stanton wrote:
In this time of energy abundance, and the complacency it engenders, the vast majority of the general public assumes that what the future holds is “more of the same”. They argue, if pushed, that the expertise inherited by post-fossil-fuel scientists and engineers will allow a smooth transition into a new kind of energy-rich world in which renewable generators will produce as much energy as fossil fuels do now. Such a view is untenable because it ignores the fact that almost all materials essential to modern civilization will be orders of magnitude more costly, and scarce, when they have to be produced using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.
This is my first day on this site, but I have learned one thing. I have to have lots of babies NOW. In a few years I might not have the right to get pregnant. Plus, I am infertile and I am sure people will not help me get pregnant if they are actively trying to control the population. I am glad that I will start fertility treatments this month!! By the way, the treatment has a 25% increased chance of multiples. So, maybe I will get lucky and have two or three at once, that way when the world crumbles, I will already have all the children I want.
Sorry, but all this talk of limiting births is pissing me off. Like a previous poster said, by the time people try to limit birth rates, it will be too late. Sorry, run on sentence. At that point, there will be NO resources to conserve, they will be GONE. That's how I understand it anyway.
The above post was what inspired me to write this one. This woman desires to bring children into a world of chaos. Even though she is infertile by nature’s design or error, she also desires multiple births. She wants children, so she benefits as an individual from her ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which she is a part, suffers.
Garret Hardin wrote:
Ruin is the destination towards which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
William Stanton wrote:
Probably the greatest obstacle to the scenario with the best chance of success (in my opinion) is the Western world’s unintelligent devotion to political correctness, human rights and the sanctity of human life. In the Darwinian world that preceded and will follow the fossil fuel era, these concepts were and will be meaningless.
We have grown accustomed to the freedom to breed on the commons. For anyone to suggest otherwise is anathema to most people. But this unbridled growth can’t continue. We must intervene and become our own predator; a Darwinian application in all of its aspects. To many people, the mere suggestion of population control, much less reduction, is out of the question, especially if it entails addressing both the birth rate and the death rate. But like Hardin points out; we must choose — or acquiesce in the destruction of the commons that mankind calls Earth. Not the Earth itself, as that would be quite presumptuous, but its’ ability to support us.
You want freedom from disease and suffering? You want the freedom to save as many human lives as possible? You want the freedom to preserve your moral ideals and embracement of the sanctity of life? Fine, then you are going to have to give up the freedom to breed without restraint. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. _________________ 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 Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:47 pm; edited 3 times in total
ZPG failed for two reasons:
1) They tried to influence through reason, and therefore only influenced the fertility of reasonable civic minded people. Stupid, selfish, unreasonable, and antisocial people have bred without restraint, creating a meltdown in the quality of civilization.
2) The ZPGers were nice comfortable people and unwilling to use armed force to coerce pronatalists from overbreeding while resources were still abundant. Even if ZPG had formed a milita, they would have been defeated by the pronatalist forces of Evangelicals, Mormons, and Catholics, who have always ruled America. Of note Matt Simmons has five daughters, so peak oilers haven't done much better than the average person in restraint of their reproductive urges.
Reason has failed for 37 years since "The Population Bomb". No rational expectation for that to change. Are ZPGers ready to firebomb preschools as pronatalists have firebombed abortion clinics? _________________ "The world is changed... I feel it in the water... I feel it in the earth... I smell it in the air... Much that once was, is lost..." - Galadriel
Joined: Jun 14, 2005 Posts: 38 Location: Midwest, USA
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:15 pm Post subject:
Long-term, even with unlimited energy supplies, population growth is self-limiting.
As society becomes wealthier, and as knowledge of and access to birth control increases, a larger and larger portion of the population decides it has better things to do with its time than raise children. There will always be families that choose to have a dozen children - but in first-world nations, these families are more than balanced by families that choose to be childfree, or to have an 'only' child. Zero amount of coercion involved.
First-world population growth (excluding immigration) has been negative for quite a while now. Third-world countries are headed in that direction: India, for example, is down to an average of three children per woman (from seven several decades ago).
Culture change takes time. And with population growth, there is alot of momentum to be lost (in the form of children already born but not yet in their reproductive years). Government population controls (a.k.a. China) certainly speed up that process. But I don't think many governments have the resources and cultural receptivity to suceed with population controls like China has. We'll just have to continue with the sex ed programs, and wait until they take effect.
As the OP pointed out, the carrying capacity of the Earth is a large unknown. Forty years ago, it was thought a population crash was imminent, even with the amount of energy available then. It would certainly be rash to say that a population crash can't happen. But I think it equally rash to say that it is inevitable.
If it's a good year for deer food, the deer population gets too big. Then the wolves have more to eat. More wolves -- fewer deer. Fewer deer -- fewer wolves. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Unless the wolves learn how to make fire. _________________ Civilization is a personal choice.
First-world population growth (excluding immigration) has been negative for quite a while now.
Well, Native American population growth was negative (excluding immigration) 1500-1900. That did not lead to a reduced population for the American continents, merely the demographic replacement of the original population by a more aggressively breeding culture. If not for peak oil and the coming dieoff, history would repeat itself as first world populations were replaced by immigrants. _________________ "The world is changed... I feel it in the water... I feel it in the earth... I smell it in the air... Much that once was, is lost..." - Galadriel
Long-term, even with unlimited energy supplies, population growth is self-limiting.
As society becomes wealthier, and as knowledge of and access to birth control increases, a larger and larger portion of the population decides it has better things to do with its time than raise children.
Yes, and this causes problems. As the population gets older, there are not enough workers to support the aging population. And without a growing population, you cannot have economic growth.
Quote:
We'll just have to continue with the sex ed programs, and wait until they take effect.
You obviously don't grasp the Tragedy of the Commons. There is no technological solution.
Quote:
It would certainly be rash to say that a population crash can't happen. But I think it equally rash to say that it is inevitable.
So, there are no limits? Did you not read the inescapable logic of my post and Hardin's? _________________ 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.
First-world population growth (excluding immigration) has been negative for quite a while now.
Wrong. The only two major 1st world countries with negative growth rate are Russia and Germany. Look in the population reduction thread. The stats are posted. _________________ 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.
It would also be more accurate to say that the non-immigrant populations of these countries have a negative replacement rate when you kill immigration. That doesn't mean they are yet declining in population, but they may in the near future if the trend stays accurate. The replacement fertility rate is about 2.1, while much of Europe, eastern and western, is well below 2 on their fertility rate.
If poverty is adressed, the fertility rate will drop due to a lowered need for children, shifting children from being assets to care for parents in old age when they can no longer work to being economic burdensin need of education and medial care.
It's hard to say what total population the world can currently support, especially when you factor in the amount of oil that will be available in the future and look at our current reliance on it to maintain our living standard(mostly forced reliance via politicians and industry), but I've seen estimates ranging from 1 billion to 12 billion. Personally, *with* cheap oil, I lean toward 9 billion, even that guess is sketchy at best, without cheap oil, my guess will range anywhere from 1 billion to 7 billion depending on how things are adresed(7 billion being short term over 40 years or so with immenent need for decline).
This population crash can be relatively painless or it can be painful with a massive dieoff. How will it be adressed, if adressed at all? There is often presented the anology of two worlds:
1) Desired alternative: A partnership-based powerdown scenario. To make it as painless as possible will require a drastic reduction in consumption of natural resoures and oil(not necessarily a reduction in living standards), but that will also entail a shift to a much less profitable closed system economy that doesn't rely on unlimited growth. The execs and top wealthiest 1% cry very foul of this, but they also write our laws and have control. This will require adressing poverty worldwide, immediately, while cutting oil use and resource consumption at home through perhaps mandating that products be made to last longer(computers and televisions 20-30 years instead of 5-10 through reduced use of components and increases in part longevity, perhaps modifications to Underwriters Laboratory Standards), not be reliant on oil for things such as automobiles(We can switch to electric with today's technology!), in America drastically cutting use of automobiles to levels similar to Europe or Japan and removing their need from American society with increases in construction light rail and construction of bike lanes, removing the government bullshit surrounding hemp to restore soil and protect from further erosion and make biofuels/fertilizers/plastics/petrochemical replacemetns on the side(How about make it so no permits, which the government refuses to grant, are needed to grow it!?), cutting electricity use through more efficient appliances, making industries PAY compensation for the damages ther pollution causes others so they have no choice but to raise prices and lower sales or emit less of it, ending ALL corporate subsidies and using that money for more productive purposes, ending wasteful military spending to free up needed resources, lowering consumption of meat products by about 1/3 so people fed per acre becomes drastically more efficient, ect.
The above simply will not fly with our current economic system in which the wealthiest seek to maximize their living standards and profits with the requirement of unlimited growth. The power elite will need to be targeted for removal from bureaucracy combined with a shift from national and corporate bureaucratic control to local and individual control for the above to have a chance. Such the above power down scenario could work, but has been fought against for decades and labelled 'communism' among other things. The public is not educated enough yet for such a system to work, even if it's possible. The time to implement it may have run out, but it should be pushed and tried until we are completely, utterly, and irreversably screwed. The alternatives are quite bad.
2) Status Quo: fascism. This is the route we are going. Oil wars, massive starvation perpetuated by politics and driven by profit, erosion of civil liberties so that the bureaucracies, both government and corporate can maintain control over the population. Fearing a powerdown scenario as it will mean decreased profits, the power elite prefer this route. It wil keep them making money until the end, and by that time they'll have all they need to survive, be damned the consequences to everyone else and the culturally encourage overconsumptive habits of the currently shrinking middle class. Continue on this path, assuming peak's effects are still a few years away, and dieoff could be inevitable. The Earth cannot sustain current consumption(regardless of cheap oil or no cheap oil), and scientists are already ridiculed(or even murdered) for daring to speak of the problems we face. As crisis emerges, the government and corporations that control it will impose even greater abuses upon individual liberties to maintain their status quo. They will resort to conscription in an effort to secure more oil to keep consumption going, and wars will break out among nations with the poor fighting them and the rich pushing the buttons. Greater taxes will be imposed upon the middle classes who see their lifestyle being wittled away bit by bit, rationing will come about, and an economic depression will occur. Perhaps limits to child bearing will be legislated, of which the wealthy can work around. Until finally the system collapses. When that happens, the dieoff comes, with the power elite having sealed themselves off in hard to reach places, much like the barricaded suburbs of today patrolled with armed gaurds only much harder to penetrate. Possible nuclear war. Eventually, civilization as we know it today ceases to be and humanity takes a step backwards, realizes what it has done, and either decides to act upon that knowledge or repeat the error all over again due to greed.
Which world do you think we will face? Which do you want to live in? Which would you want future generations to live in? We are likely to end up inbetween these two worlds, but to what degree?
Sadly, we haven't learned. 100 cakes were baked, they are already eaten, and we can currently bake one cake a day. It's the choices we make. Sure, we can have our cake and eat it too, just so long as we don't allow 2 or 3 people at the party to eat the cake before anyone else can share it. Otherwise, out of spite, those that don't get none bring in more unwanted guests who want cake too, but if they've had their cake, they'll leave on their own satisfied. _________________ The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 201 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:25 am Post subject:
As I said in a previous post, the world population should have been stabilized at about the level of 1900. No way that could have happened at the time given the politics of the early part of the 20th Century. Even now a voluntary reduction to that level can scarcely be hoped for.
It is certainly depressing. If we could have rationed the fossil fuels out for a few centuries, we might have achieved incredible things, perhaps even virtual immortality.
My opinion is we screwed up precisely because we are human; and our human shortcomings coupled with our increasing power over the environment magnified the consequences of our failure to respond rationally to the world as it exists -- a planet spinning in space with considerably less than inifinite resources. We live half in a dreamworld and half in the real world. I can't see us changing at this late date. The human species just did not work out well. I don't see us becoming extinct, but perhaps another species will evolve that will not have our limitations. And we will look on them -- in that possible distant future -- much as the apes now look upon us.
My opinion is we screwed up precisely because we are human; and our human shortcomings coupled with our increasing power over the environment magnified the consequences of our failure to respond rationally to the world as it exists -- a planet spinning in space with considerably less than inifinite resources. We live half in a dreamworld and half in the real world.
I don't think you can blame it on just being human. Darwin, Malthus, and many other great human thinkers of our time clearly understood the path we were on. Most just chose to ignore them, or most likely, failed to grasp the import of the tragedy of the commons, while others preyed upon the ignorance and greed of others in their squandering of the commons. After a while, it seemed like the thing to do. Get, while the getting was good. Now, the "getting" is not so good, but we still want to. _________________ 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.
Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 1647 Location: Davis, California
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:57 am Post subject:
Any species can thrive given abundant resources. A prime example is bread mold. Given the oppurtinity, it thrives.
We've just done it on a scale never seen before. _________________ Joseph Stalin "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
Joined: Dec 20, 2004 Posts: 890 Location: Scotland
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:26 am Post subject:
Quote:
But this unbridled growth can’t continue
Yes it can - please provide evidence that it cant - it appears to be continuing every day, year on year. Its continued since the dawn of man, and i dispute the idea that man was in some sort of equilibrium up until the 1800's. Man was always advancing and growing, its simply accelerated since then. before the 1800's we had some pretty cool technology.
A switch to nuclear, coal, natural gas and renewables solves peak oil, though will leave us in a recession for a good decade as we make the switch over.
We'll all be driving electric or hydrogen cars in 15 years, and petrol engines will be a rarity as they'll not be required. oil demand will slump as a result, allowing us to produce our remaining oil reserves at a more modest pace - preserving them for 100's of years to come for use in petrochemicals.
Yes it can - please provide evidence that it cant - it appears to be continuing every day, year on year. Its continued since the dawn of man, and i dispute the idea that man was in some sort of equilibrium up until the 1800's. Man was always advancing and growing, its simply accelerated since then. before the 1800's we had some pretty cool technology.
Yes you are right, it can continue until the cows come home. I don't think anyone denies that but the problem is that it can't continue without causing big resource depletion problems.
----------------------------
No constants
In 1961, the authors say in their "preliminary and exploratory assessment", humans were using 70% of the capacity of the global biosphere. By 1999, that had risen to 120%.
They say: "The calculation provides evidence that human activities have exceeded the biosphere's capacity since the 1980s.
"This 20% overshoot means that it would require 1.2 Earths, or one Earth for 1.2 years, to regenerate what humanity used in 1999.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 32, 33, 34Next
Page 1 of 34
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
