Realcent.org

theo wrote:
<snip> Is it also possible that, with the proper application of innovation/technology, our planet could actually support a population of 100 billion or more?

Back in the '70s as I remember, R. Buckminster Fuller and students made a model of the earth with population, food, energy, resources, etc. mapped out on it. With it he showed where (with total co-operation between nations) every man, woman, and child on earth at that time could have a home, clothing, shelter, and the energy, food and clean water required to maintain the human population. Certain areas away from the coast had a slight deficit in protein, and there may have been other minor needs totally unfulfilled.

One of the requirements of the model was a grid system that circled the globe. In this manner, high energy need times (morning and evening) would circle the globe hourly (think time zones) while the low energy times could supply the additional energy needed. It fairly meant the dropping of borders. If the model was correct it appears to have been possible to provide all of humanity with it's needs with the technology and populations of the 70's.

Mark Victor Hansen (Chicken Soup for the Soul) claims to have been one of his students during the time the model was created.

So the problem (at that time) doesn't seem to have been one of a lack of resources or of to many people, but of humanities inability to co-operate. Required would have been a decrease in the living standards (at least temporarily) of the industrialized nations to bring the developing populations up to a minimal par for survival. This would imply if the population growth began to strain the sustainability of the system, a cap would be needed on the standard of living for all.

This brings to light the problem. What nations of people would be willing to take a decrease or have a cap placed on their standards of living for the sake of the rest of humanity??? Does this boil the problem down to one of a cultural/belief system? A system of identity and belief called Nationalism? Or are we just greedy monkeys who like shiny things, social status and don't like to share?

I stop here as I don't care to process this any further.

theo wrote:So 90% or even a 66% reduction in population "doesn't have to be an an apocalyptic event?" Really? Europe lost about 30% of its population due to Black Death and I'm pretty sure they thought it was the end of the world. So please explain. How exactly do you see this population decrease happening?

If you read through some history books, you'll find that the value of human labor increased, as did individual freedoms due to the black death...and those freedoms lasted for over a century. When TPTB tried to put them back into oppression, it lead to the peasants revolt. As for how population declines can happen gradually, you need to look no further than Japan, where people simply don't want to have kids, or China, where government policies from decades past culled their female breeding stock. They're much more prosperous as a result, and many have no urge to return to the old ways.

Is it also possible that, with the proper application of innovation/technology, our planet could actually support a population of 100 billion or more?

It's possible, but not at our current standard of living. When you put too many fish in a tank, they never grow to their full potential regardless of how much food they receive.

I think we'll have agree to disagree on our view of people. I see them as a potential source of innovation and wealth, where as you view them as simply more mouths to feed or backs to clothe; a view which is shared by most progressive socialists.

Actually, no. I view them as our heritage rather than a source of wealth. I want my heirs to have enough earning power to retire comfortably...and they'll stand a much better chance of that happening if we treat them as our legacy rather than our property.

As for the progressive socialist jab...I'll leave you with the question of how you could expect our heirs to have even a small fraction of our liberties in a world with a hundred billion people. It simply wouldn't happen in a world packed like a sardine can, and that's the future you're pushing for. With 2-3 billion, there's plenty of elbow room, which would provide a much better environment for libertarian ideals to flourish.

theo wrote:
Have you considered the unknown unknowns?


Robert Allen (Nothing Down) was fond of saying "You don't know what you don't know".

He likened our individual knowledge as a balloon, with your knowing on the inside and what you don't know is everything touching the outer skin of the balloon. As you gain more knowing, the balloon grows and stretches (sounds like a mind doesn't it?,) increasing the surface area and expanding the outer skin that touches what you don't know. The end result is, as you gain more knowledge, the more aware you become of what you don't know.

If you read through some history books, you'll find that the value of human labor increased, as did individual freedoms due to the black death...and those freedoms lasted for over a century. When TPTB tried to put them back into oppression, it lead to the peasants revolt. As for how population declines can happen gradually, you need to look no further than Japan, where people simply don't want to have kids, or China, where government policies from decades past culled their female breeding stock. They're much more prosperous as a result, and many have no urge to return to the old ways.

Sorry for the delayed response. I was away over the weekend.

Interesting. You are the first person I've heard argue that the Black Death was actually a positive thing. When I think of the the 25 million people who died (gruesomely I might ad) I wonder how many scientists, inventors, philosophers, artisans and farmers were lost. Anyway, I'm curious as to which history book actually argues that these losses led to freedom and prosperity.

In an earlier part this thread you glibly stated "Our race would be much better off if 90% of us died off" Later you tempered and suggested that a 66% decline would be acceptable. Most recently you suggested a population target of 2 to 3 billion "would give us more elbow room." It is this attitude that I have taken issue with. When I asked how these goals could be reached, you respond with China, a country subjected to an oppressive and Misogynistic one child policy at the hands of what is still a communist government. And yet between 2000 and 2010 China population still grew by almost 6%. Although Japan might be a more apt and interesting example of a country with space issues, it has suffered a recent population decline of a mere 1% and is hardly an example of prosperity. Neither example comes close to addressing my question. Honestly it doesn't seem like you've thought the implications of your position through.

Actually, no. I view them as our heritage rather than a source of wealth. I want my heirs to have enough earning power to retire comfortably...and they'll stand a much better chance of that happening if we treat them as our legacy rather than our property. As for the progressive socialist jab...

My identifying you as a progressive socialist was no jab. It was an honest impression of your comments. I've further noted that you did not deny viewing humans as simply a drain on resources (a view held by most socialists) but then refused to acknowledge humans as a source of wealth (a view held by most market economists). You seem to think you are a libertarian, but don't most libertarians believe in the unalienable rights, life foremost among them? You don't seem to share that view for 5 billion + of your race.

When you put too many fish in a tank, they never grow to their full potential regardless of how much food they receive.

A compelling analogy, but don't you think comparing a complex and highly adaptive ecosystem that we are just beginning to understand to a tank of water is a bit of an over-simplification? Since you seem to favor clever analogies I'll leave you with another. You are in charge of stranded group of 15 people and you have limited and dwindling supplies of food and water. Don't you think that you should investigate other solutions to your dilemma, before killing off 10 of those people?

It looks like you're just here to argue, so I'll bow out and let you be the "expert" while hoping that my children's children will never have to live through your utopia of a hundred billion people on the planet.

Engineer wrote:It looks like you're just here to argue, so I'll bow out and let you be the "expert" while hoping that my children's children will never have to live through your utopia of a hundred billion people on the planet.

I never said it would be a utopia (which doesn't exist), but I also don't believe it will live up to the dystopian nightmare that you predict. And I'm no expert. Just the one calling BS on your bold pronouncements with little to no evidence to back them up. I actually enjoy arguing as I believe it sharpens the mind. Sorry you don't feel the same way.

theo wrote:
I never said it would be a utopia (which doesn't exist), but I also don't believe it will live up to the dystopian nightmare that you predict. And I'm no expert. Just the one calling BS on your bold pronouncements with little to no evidence to back them up. I actually enjoy arguing as I believe it sharpens the mind. Sorry you don't feel the same way.

A Left Jab with a strong right Cross will often finish a Discussion [Argument]

We seem currently to be creating Our own Black Plague with Antibiotic Resistant germs

At 76 I have more health problems but I'm vigorsely resisting becoming an Organ Donor

I have many more mistakes to make

Praise the Lord

Rosco wrote: <snip>
We seem currently to be creating Our own Black Plague with Antibiotic Resistant germs

<snip>

I have experienced this first hand having recently spent five weeks on a combined four different oral antibiotics with two trips (two days, and three days) to the hospital for IV antibiotics to kill a staph infection (not MRSA) in my lower leg.

I now have a great appreciation for nurses. Including the cute one about half my age who came running down the hall and into my room chanting "I need you, I need you". Made my decade.

theo wrote:I actually enjoy arguing as I believe it sharpens the mind. Sorry you don't feel the same way.

So do I, but not with people who choose to twist words or argue political labels rather than valid hypotheses. Thus far, you've only dulled my mind.

As far as good coming from the black death or bad coming from hyperpopulation, it's a simple matter of supply and demand. When there's more people than work, their value goes down...which leads to oppression. When there's more work than people, their value goes up...which leads to freedom. This has been proven time and again through history.

Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that people are resources, and that more people equals more resources. That's all well and good, but you haven't addressed how those resources could be utilized. Without that side of the equation, your argument simply creates unnecessary surpluses with associated overhead expenditures. The world economy is already struggling with underemployment, somehow the US is surviving by blowing artificial financial bubbles, creating useless government jobs, and waging wars to keep people employed...and your answer is to inflate the labor supply even further?

Engineer wrote:When there's more people than work, their value goes down...which leads to oppression. When there's more work than people, their value goes up...which leads to freedom. This has been proven time and again through history.

You are making some assumptions with this reasoning. When unfettered, people create their own work as small manufacturers, merchants, shopkeepers, restauranteurs, repairmen, beauticians, grocers, wharehousers, farmers, miners, fishermen, ranchers, house staff, etc.

So in many instances, it can be that the oppression that leads to less work, not the other way around. It can go both directions, do you see what I'm saying?

AGgressive Metal wrote:it can be that the oppression that leads to less work, not the other way around. It can go both directions, do you see what I'm saying?

Very true. I'd be running a business today if the government wasn't out to bankrupt the industry I'd like to work in. Still, though...the tendency to create that sort of oppression is greatly reduced when labor is in short supply. I'm not saying it can't happen, but if labor was really needed in WV, the politicians in the surrounding states would think twice before they voted in some bonehead law which would destroy their tax base. If labor was plentiful throughout the region, they wouldn't have that worry.

Our country was founded on pilgrims fleeing oppression to a sparsely populated land, and while that yoke of oppression tried to follow, it was eventually defeated.

Engineer wrote:

theo wrote:I actually enjoy arguing as I believe it sharpens the mind. Sorry you don't feel the same way.

So do I, but not with people who choose to twist words or argue political labels rather than valid hypotheses. Thus far, you've only dulled my mind.

As far as good coming from the black death or bad coming from hyperpopulation, it's a simple matter of supply and demand. When there's more people than work, their value goes down...which leads to oppression. When there's more work than people, their value goes up...which leads to freedom. This has been proven time and again through history.

Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that people are resources, and that more people equals more resources. That's all well and good, but you haven't addressed how those resources could be utilized. Without that side of the equation, your argument simply creates unnecessary surpluses with associated overhead expenditures. The world economy is already struggling with underemployment, somehow the US is surviving by blowing artificial financial bubbles, creating useless government jobs, and waging wars to keep people employed...and your answer is to inflate the labor supply even further?

You are attempting to understand my position so I will give you credit there. This is how these types of discussions can become productive. Your points might be correct if the human resource was limited to labor, but fortunately humans are more than just draft animals. The other human resource is "entrepreneurial ability;" the ability for humans to innovate and solve problems.

Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that people are resources, and that more people equals more resources. That's all well and good, but you haven't addressed how those resources could be utilized.

Simple. Entrepreneurs marshal and adapt the other resources (Land, Capital and Labor) to meet the demand as they perceive it. The demand will always be present because, according to economic theory, these wants and needs are insatiable. Labor is also adaptable as it is guided by the price function in that individual laborers will be attracted to jobs that pay the highest wages for their particular skill set. This is how the free market operates. . . when it is allowed to. This is why (as Aggressive Metal said) supply creates its own demand.

The world economy is already struggling with underemployment, somehow the US is surviving by blowing artificial financial bubbles, creating useless government jobs, and waging wars to keep people employed...and your answer is to inflate the labor supply even further?

It is the bubbles that you mention which distort the market, creating surpluses of some resources (like labor) and shortages of others (like silver) along with plenty of mal-investment. By your own admission, your difficulty in finding work in your chosen industry was caused by government interference. If the free market is allowed to operate it will automatically correct for any shortages or surpluses.

So do I, but not with people who choose to twist words or argue political labels rather than valid hypotheses. Thus far, you've only dulled my mind.

It is my belief that hypothesis need to be backed up by facts and supported by logic to be considered valid and frankly I haven't seen much of either from you in this thread. Therefore in the spirit of understanding I have some questions for you.

1. Is it your belief that advances in technology (such as automated production machinery for example) add to the over-supply of labor? After all many such innovations have reduced the need for labor.

2. Do you see any solutions to the problem of surplus labor aside from a 66% decline in population? About 5 billion of us hope you do.

3. Your present position seems to be, "I could certainly live with a 66% reduction, which would put us at late 1940's population levels." Are saying that such a decline would happen naturally or should it be managed by some central authority? I understand this question might upset you, but I believe that you should either explain these statements or recant them.

theo wrote:I believe that you should either explain these statements or recant them.

When did this forum turn into your personal little dictatorship?

If you'd like some alternative viewpoints rather than just grilling me to get your jollies, I'd be a bit more receptive if you got started by answering your questions from your perspective (the changes you'd like to see in our population) before telling me to bow to your demands or STFU.

To get you started, I'll assert that our population is already managed (informally) by the government, and people are being paid to breed. I'd rather have the government stay out it completely, but if we're going to pay people to influence their sex lives, perhaps we'd be better off paying incentives to maintain small families rather than giving out thousand dollar tax credits for every kid your local welfare queen can pop out of her hole.

As for how our population could decline to 1940's levels, who knows? It could be anything from not subsidizing births in order to encourage monetary inflation to an asteroid strike or global pandemic. All I know is that our heirs stand a much better chance of happiness/success/retirement competing against a global population of 1-2 billion than a hundred billion...and some of the greatest scientific minds in history flourished during that all-too-brief period in time.

I'd love to hear your version of how a hundred billion people will make things better. All I can picture is a house built for 7 with a hundred people camped out in every available corner...and it doesn't sound like the kind of place Nicola Tesla could concentrate on his work.

Welfare Queen IQ = 85, kids = 8
Me IQ 135, kids = 0

This is a good example why humanity is headed downhill. Paying Morons to breed so they will re-elect Idiots.

Perhaps "recant" was too strong a word. I'm sorry if it made you feel oppressed. In retrospect "reconsider" might have been more appropriate.

I don't have time now, but I will respond to your "100 billion people" question. In the mean time, perhaps you could consider a response to my first two questions.

This is a great article on the overpopulation myth.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns ... nial-myth/

For those expecting a horrible future, I would also recommend
"The Improving State of the World.
Why we're living longer, healthier, more comfortable lives on a cleaner planet"
by Indur M Goklany

We may experience some ups and downs, currency collapses, healthcare glitches, but the overall trend is for things to just keep getting better.
We live in interesting times.

cupronickel wrote:This is a great article on the overpopulation myth.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns ... nial-myth/

For those expecting a horrible future, I would also recommend
"The Improving State of the World.
Why we're living longer, healthier, more comfortable lives on a cleaner planet"
by Indur M Goklany

We may experience some ups and downs, currency collapses, healthcare glitches, but the overall trend is for things to just keep getting better.
We live in interesting times.

While that author makes some pertinent points with compelling reasoning... much of that reasoning is sophistic in nature. His point that all the people in the world could easily live in the state of Alaska, for instance, is pointless. Sure... they could fit, but they wouldn't survive! The habitable regions of the Earth are limited in that they must be immediately adjacent to fresh water sources, for the most part. There is a reason why great populations are massed in particular regions. The article was also written in 1993. Alot has changed since then, and the present global state would likely not prove his thesis. Finally, the poorest regions most incapable of sustaining growth are the same areas demonstrating the highest birth rates. The same could be stated about the demographics of the US (alluding to entitlement programs and the structure of the tax system).

"all the economic trends are in the right direction. Things are getting better" - yeah, right. lol

IdahoCopper wrote:If you time your play right you would covert silver and gold into real estate that pays monthly rentals. Productive farm land is much better than rental houses.

Productive farm land has out-performed silver and gold in the last 12 years.

Go figure, right after I finish writing this I notice Ray has already done so and I am now close to 2 weeks later. Oh well, here it is anyway.

cupronickel wrote:This is a great article on the overpopulation myth.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns ... nial-myth/

The above article is now 20+ years old. Sorry out of date and no longer valid because and I quote from the article

"But the point that cannot be ignored is that all of the major economic trends are in the right direction. Things are getting better".

Sorry, this guy may have been right when he wrote it but he is now TOTALLY WRONG! All of the major economic trends are not in the right direction. My God, it sounds like it could be the summary of the latest governmental state of the nation/economic report.

cupronickel wrote:For those expecting a horrible future, I would also recommend "The Improving State of the World. Why we're living longer, healthier, more comfortable lives on a cleaner planet"
by Indur M Goklany

Goklany's book was written in very early 2007, the year before the world went to shat. He says
"we live longer and healthier lives". Further, Goklany’s research demonstrates that global agricultural productivity is up, food prices are down, hunger and malnutrition have dropped worldwide, public health has improved, mortality rates are down, and life expectancies are up.

Poverty facts and stats http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ ... -and-stats
last updated 01/07/13 gives the current state of the world regarding the above. Forgive my pesimism but when his research demonstrates "food prices are down, hunger and malnutrition have dropped" he to is now WRONG!

For the "comfortable lives on a cleaner planet" I suggest reading Plan B 4.0 by Brown written in 2009 the year after. It can be found online here:

http://www.earthpolicy.org/images/uploa ... b4book.pdf

cupronickel wrote:We may experience some ups and downs, currency collapses, healthcare glitches, but the overall trend is for things to just keep getting better.
We live in interesting times.

I can agree we live in interesting times but when everyday I see people living lives of quiet desperation and the degradations of our culture and lives of our children (our future hope,) I cannot agree "the overall trend is for things to just keep getting better". If this is better, I don't want to see what worse is.

The article is outdated and somewhat Pollyannish (even for 1993) but it made some excellent points. Especially the one about Malthus. . .

"It’s been said of Thomas Malthus, for example, that he underestimated everyone’s intelligence but his own. Whenever catastrophists confront a problem for which they cannot imagine a solution, the catastrophists conclude that no one else in the world will be able to think of one either."

It is true, our problems are legion. Many of us (myself included) don't see any way to avoid a total financial system collapse. That being said; I don't want to fall into the "Malthus trap" and assume that, just because I can't come up with a solution, one does not exist.