Population Control Solves Alot of Problems

[Shubedobedubopbopbedo]

So, what you're saying is, it's quite acceptable to issue a certain number of bear hunting licenses each year to prevent an overpopulation of bears, but it's not acceptable to issue a certain number of childbirth licenses to prevent human overpopulation.

Regardless of the so-called morality of it, I do not see how the two processes are dissimilar. They have the same purpose, similar process, same goal.

It's been argued that population is self-limiting. Maybe that's true once people have substantial wealth and don't want to squander it by raising children. However, when people are poor, they have little else to do with their time. Wouldn't we be poorer if energy cost 3 or 4 times what it does now? If we spent $4000 per year on gasoline, instead of $1000, we would have $3000 less per year to spend on other things. It would take longer to save up to buy a new car, house, or even clothes, rent & food.

When energy supplies falter, energy prices will skyrocket with an inflationary effect on all goods & services. People will be able to afford less, and may feel impoverished as a result.

If existing renewable energy sources can only support 1/5th of the current population at the current standard of living, then the collapse of non-renewable energy supplies will reduce GDP per capita to 1/5th of current levels without also reducing population.

It's simple math. Morality can shift wherever the wind blows. But energy cannot be created from nothing.

What if oil supplies drop by 2/3rds globally in the next 80 years (one human lifetime = 4 generations). If demand doesn't also drop, then the price will triple, to say $240 per barrel. This is simple inverse relationship, the real price fluctuation is undoubtable more complex and unpredictable.

If people decide that, in fact, $145 per barrel is too expensive, then generally many people will stop driving at that point. A roller coaster price may average out over several years to slightly lower than $145 per barrel, but if supplies cannot be increased, or continue to decrease, then fewer and fewer people will have the luxury of transportation.

Suppose we go with coal liquefaction to prop up petrofuel supplies. At the vast consumption rate needed to sustain our standard of living, coal supplies might be depleted within 50-100 years.

Suppose we decide to build more nuclear plants to supply energy to electric cars, in order to maintain our standard of living. The vast increase in consumption of uranium supplies might deplete them also within 50-100 years, instead of the 1000 years that they would last at current consumption.

So, cumulatively, within 100-150 years, all major non-renewable sources of energy could easily be depleted. What remains will be renewable sources that might sustain 1/5th of the world population at our current standard of living.

Suppose it happened sooner rather than later - What do we do?

[MSimon]

by 100%?!!
Actually if the one child policy was really working it would be 200%
Nope, the one child policy in china simply is not working.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

Wikipedia also seems to agree.

Even with the one-child policy in place, however, "China still has one million more births than deaths every five weeks."

If people are living longer that will happen until the population gets old enough where they balance.

China is getting older at the rate of .8 or .9 years per year. In 10 or 20 years there will be a balance.

[Skipjack]

Suppose it happened sooner rather than later - What do we do?

Use our intellect, our technical skills and ingenuity to find a solution for the problem.
The other possibility is to fight wars and kill each other until there is few enough people for the available resources. Fighting wars over resources never gets out of season, it seems
I do prefer the former solution. How about you?

If people are living longer that will happen until the population gets old enough where they balance.

So in the past 40 years, their life expectancy has increased by 40 years?
I seriously doubt that.

[TallDave]

Thats why I said "in China you will get lied at".
The official numbers China provides are all not true. Of course according to chinese propaganda, the one child family works and their numbers are stable. This is however not true!
Otherwise how do you explain a 600 million population increase in the last 40 years?

You're a little incoherent here. If there are no reliable numbers for Chinese population, where does your 600M come from?

There are a lot of misconceptions about the one child policy. It only covers about 1/3 of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

It's popular, and population growth was MUCH higher before.

Since the introduction of the one-child policy, the fertility rate in China has fallen from over three births per woman in 1980 (already a sharp reduction from more than five births per woman in the early 1970s) to approximately 1.8 births in 2008.

This fascist policy (fascist in the general meaning of illegitimate use of state force) is of course a direct result of Communist policy.

[TallDave]

So, what you're saying is, it's quite acceptable to issue a certain number of bear hunting licenses each year to prevent an overpopulation of bears, but it's not acceptable to issue a certain number of childbirth licenses to prevent human overpopulation.

People have rights. Bears don't develop agricultural improvements.

It's a little disturbing that people ask questions like this.

When energy supplies falter

There's no reason to think they will.

What if oil supplies drop by 2/3rds globally in the next 80 years (one human lifetime = 4 generations).

Then we'll use something other than oil for energy, or find other sources of fuel. I hear algae farms are promising. We haven't even scratched the surface of the potential of biofuels. Plus, 99.9999% of the Sun's energy is being wasted right now.

The vast increase in consumption of uranium supplies might deplete them also within 50-100 years, instead of the 1000 years that they would last at current consumption

Not possible. The 1,000 year estimate is based on exponentially increasing energy usage. At current levels, we probably have closer to 250,000 years' worth.

So, cumulatively, within 100-150 years, all major non-renewable sources of energy could easily be depleted.

It's extremely unlikely.

What happens when oil prices rise? Suddenly oil shale, tar sands, deep-sea rigs become profitable.

The more energy prices rise, the bigger the incentive is for some clever person to get rich finding a new source of energy.

The average cost of energy as compared to per capita GDP has been falling for a long time. Additionally, we get a lot more work per unit of energy now.

[chrismb]

So, what you're saying is, it's quite acceptable to issue a certain number of bear hunting licenses each year to prevent an overpopulation of bears, but it's not acceptable to issue a certain number of childbirth licenses to prevent human overpopulation.

People have rights. Bears don't develop agricultural improvements.

Go tell that to a bear, of the Berrys-for-Bears Farming Cooperative, while he's farming his berries in berry season, and see if he doesn't get upset about your thoughtless remarks.

(gee, you can tell I'm in need for some fusion news!!)

When energy supplies falter

When energy supplies falter? Surely people go to bed early and mate more often when there's a power cut!? More faunication -> more human fauna. Just colder and less well illuminated fauna.

What if oil supplies drop by 2/3rds globally in the next 80 years (one human lifetime = 4 generations).

How about, walking once in every 3 trips to the shop instead of driving? How did people ever manage before cars!?!

Sigh! As life gets tough, people don't have kids. The concern should be a loss of 'critical [mass] population' that can sustain an industralised society, not too many people, if these predictions are correct. Look out for the Malthus J-curve!!!..

[Shubedobedubopbopbedo]

Use our intellect, our technical skills and ingenuity to find a solution for the problem.
The other possibility is to fight wars and kill each other until there is few enough people for the available resources. Fighting wars over resources never gets out of season, it seems
I do prefer the former solution. How about you?

There may be a technical solution. We could build gigantic solar & wind powerplants in the sunniest & windiest parts of the world. Then we could store the energy in huge superconducting capacitors, and transfer power wherever needed, anywhere in the world, using superconducting powerlines. Superconductivity has now been observed at 250 deg.K. (I vaguely recall), which is only -20 deg.C. Soon it might be possible to achieve 100% renewable power even when the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine.

In the meantime, I'm not getting my hopes up. Just like nuclear fusion, it might never be feasible. And even if it were, it might economically too expensive to implement. Any number of solutions might be preferable, including population control, which would IMO also require technical ingenuity to implement.

People have rights. Bears don't develop agricultural improvements.

This is a non-sequitur. It makes no sense.

There's no reason to think they (energy supplies) will (falter).

Where I live, there have been power outages and brownouts on occasion. They're a pain in the ass. Aside from that there are spikes in the cost of energy all the time, open your eyes! Isn't there a reason you're so interested in nuclear fusion? If there was no need, why would you be posting on this message board?

Then we'll use something other than oil for energy, or find other sources of fuel. I hear algae farms are promising. We haven't even scratched the surface of the potential of biofuels. Plus, 99.9999% of the Sun's energy is being wasted right now.

Yes, lets create an algae bloom that covers the Earth. Brilliant. Are you suggesting that we focus 100% of the sun's energy on the Earth? Let's entertain the fantasy that this is even technically possible (which it isn't). Ok. Are you planning on living here? How much power are you going to need for air conditioning?

Not possible. The 1,000 year estimate is based on exponentially increasing energy usage. At current levels, we probably have closer to 250,000 years' worth.

Pure bullshit. If we use known reserves at the rate we use oil, uranium will be depleted in 60 years. That's a hard number. You can look it up.

What happens when oil prices rise? Suddenly oil shale, tar sands, deep-sea rigs become profitable. The more energy prices rise, the bigger the incentive is for some clever person to get rich finding a new source of energy.

Fail! Epic fail! If I can't afford oil at $145 per barrel, how could I afford oil shale, tar sand, deep-sea rigs, or anything else at the same price point?!?! Hello?!?!

The average cost of energy as compared to per capita GDP has been falling for a long time.

What does the average cost of energy have to do with per capita GDP?

Additionally, we get a lot more work per unit of energy now.

That's a result of conservation efforts. Not entirely successful either. It takes longer and longer to breakeven on the cost of higher efficiency equipment. In fact, some high efficiency systems never pay for themselves in energy cost savings. The only alternative is to reduce consumption.

That's what people do when the cost of gasoline rises too high.

That's what happens when there are too many people buying a limited supply of gasoline.

[Skipjack]

Since the introduction of the one-child policy, the fertility rate in China has fallen from over three births per woman in 1980 (already a sharp reduction from more than five births per woman in the early 1970s) to approximately 1.8 births in 2008.

These are the official numbes, yes.
I actually quoted that article before. The growth numbers are the official ones. I am sure that the actual population is higher.
Also 1.8 children per woman is still waaaaay more than 1 child per woman, isnt it?
Personally I think the real number is more in the 2.5 area.
That is simply judgeing by the population growth.

This fascist policy (fascist in the general meaning of illegitimate use of state force) is of course a direct result of Communist policy.

Not quite the definition of fascism, sorry:

Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led "armed party" which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence.[30]

Generally I believe that the term is way overused these days for pretty much anything that people want to politicall discredit, one way or the other.
It is just a popular swear word now, like Nazi or Naziism. The danger of this is that the true meaning and the real dangers behind said movements become watered down into meaningless catchphrases.

[TallDave]

People have rights. Bears don't develop agricultural improvements.

This is a non-sequitur. It makes no sense.

The reason bears develop an overpopulation problem is that bears don't develop new and better sources of food. Humans do.

The reason you can shoot bears is that bears don't have the same rights as people.

Where I live, there have been power outages and brownouts on occasion.

That's because your local officials are morons. You should fire them and get some who build more power plants.

Isn't there a reason you're so interested in nuclear fusion?

It's not because I think every other form of energy is going to run out anytime soon. It's because I hope fusion can be so cheap and plentiful it makes most other energy obsolete.

Yes, lets create an algae bloom that covers the Earth. Brilliant.

It obviously doesn't have to cover the Earth.

Are you suggesting that we focus 100% of the sun's energy on the Earth?

Of course not. We don't need more than a tiny, tiny fraction of it. But it's out there. Someday, we may build Dyson rings and capture a large percentage of it.

Not possible. The 1,000 year estimate is based on exponentially increasing energy usage. At current levels, we probably have closer to 250,000 years' worth.
...
Pure bullshit. If we use known reserves at the rate we use oil, uranium will be depleted in 60 years

No, pure fact. This is from a gov't study. I've linked it here before. Proven reserves of fissionable material are known to be a tiny fraction of actual reserves. Most people don't realize that falling uranium prices have actually closed several mines in the last few decades. There's been no reason to prove out new reserves, and lower-quality ore is more abundant than the current high-quality ore which is the only thing currently profitable to process.

And we haven't even touched thorium, which is more abundant than uranium.

Fail! Epic fail! If I can't afford oil at $145 per barrel, how could I afford oil shale, tar sand, deep-sea rigs, or anything else at the same price point?!?! Hello?!?!

I don't think you understand the basic economics here. Oil doesn't cost $145 because it suddenly costs $145 to produce it; we've reached that price point because demand currently outstrips supply. Most of those sources become profitable at around $70/bbl. The more oil is produced, the farther prices fall at a given level of demand.

One reason oil prices are high now is that producers are very leery of taking on new production projects that can take a decade to develop, because if oil falls to $50 and you're producing it for $70, your investment is worthless and you lose billions of dollars (this has happened to them before). Since the Saudis are still pumping it for a few dollars a barrel, in theory it can fall quite a ways.

What does the average cost of energy have to do with per capita GDP?

The higher GDP per capita is, the more energy a given person can afford. In practical terms, this is very important, because it means 100 years ago people spent a much larger portion of their income buying a much smaller amount of energy.

Additionally, we get a lot more work per unit of energy now.
...
That's a result of conservation efforts

It has very little to do with conservation and a lot to do with advances in technology that increase effeiciency. Conservation generally means doing without energy, efficiency means doing more with the same energy.

[Skipjack]

What does the average cost of energy have to do with per capita GDP?

That is how much you are paying for your energy compared to how much you make.

I do have to admit though, that this is not true for many European countries where gas prices have been climbing rapidly, partially though due to high taxation.

Just like nuclear fusion, it might never be feasible.

I still think that fusion is possible.

Another solution might be to actually reduce the energy needed for things.
E.g. transportation could become a lot less energy consuming if the MACH- Engines actually work.

This is a non-sequitur. It makes no sense.

It makes no sense to you that people have rights? Like human rights?
Oi!

Where I live, there have been power outages and brownouts on occasion. They're a pain in the ass.

Those might be due to a failing infrastructure and not due to energy prices. Unless you are living in the Ukraine, LOL!

Yes, lets create an algae bloom that covers the Earth. Brilliant.

Algae farming technology is still in its early stages. It will mature and have more yield per acre. There has already been tremendous progress in the last few years.

If we use known reserves at the rate we use oil, uranium will be depleted in 60 years. That's a hard number. You can look it up.

Read up in this forum. There have been previous discussions about this. Thorium fuel cycles and refurbishment of burned up uranium fuels can stretch this out for a long time. Plus, we can also get uranium from the oceans.
I cant remember all the details, but the numbers were in the thousands of years.

Generally I have heard for 30 years now, that the oil reserves will be depleated in 25 years from now. Somehow I have my doubts.

Further, there are theories that oil is not only produced by dead algae. This is still being desputed, but the recent discovery of methane bursts on Mars might be explained that way.

[TallDave]

That is simply judgeing by the population growth.

Again, I'm either not understanding your source or you're a bit incoherent here. You appear to be claiming the Chinese statistics are inconsistent with... the Chinese statistics.

Not quite the definition of fascism, sorry:

There are many definitions, hence my specification of the one I meant. The most generic is simpy the use of force, esp state force. I am told this is derived from the term fassia, which was a Roman officer's baton.

[Skipjack]

I am told this is derived from the term fassia, which was a Roman officer's baton.

Actually it was the fasces and these were the symbols of the power of a roman magistrate official.
The power of the law. You know, law and order.

Yes, I am just claiming that the official numbers are to low and incoherent themselves. One can still name them for reference, but they should be corrected upwards simply because of the evidence as it is presented.

[Jccarlton]

So, what you're saying is, it's quite acceptable to issue a certain number of bear hunting licenses each year to prevent an overpopulation of bears, but it's not acceptable to issue a certain number of childbirth licenses to prevent human overpopulation.

Regardless of the so-called morality of it, I do not see how the two processes are dissimilar. They have the same purpose, similar process, same goal.

It's been argued that population is self-limiting. Maybe that's true once people have substantial wealth and don't want to squander it by raising children. However, when people are poor, they have little else to do with their time. Wouldn't we be poorer if energy cost 3 or 4 times what it does now? If we spent $4000 per year on gasoline, instead of $1000, we would have $3000 less per year to spend on other things. It would take longer to save up to buy a new car, house, or even clothes, rent & food.

When energy supplies falter, energy prices will skyrocket with an inflationary effect on all goods & services. People will be able to afford less, and may feel impoverished as a result.

If existing renewable energy sources can only support 1/5th of the current population at the current standard of living, then the collapse of non-renewable energy supplies will reduce GDP per capita to 1/5th of current levels without also reducing population.

It's simple math. Morality can shift wherever the wind blows. But energy cannot be created from nothing.

What if oil supplies drop by 2/3rds globally in the next 80 years (one human lifetime = 4 generations). If demand doesn't also drop, then the price will triple, to say $240 per barrel. This is simple inverse relationship, the real price fluctuation is undoubtable more complex and unpredictable.

If people decide that, in fact, $145 per barrel is too expensive, then generally many people will stop driving at that point. A roller coaster price may average out over several years to slightly lower than $145 per barrel, but if supplies cannot be increased, or continue to decrease, then fewer and fewer people will have the luxury of transportation.

Suppose we go with coal liquefaction to prop up petrofuel supplies. At the vast consumption rate needed to sustain our standard of living, coal supplies might be depleted within 50-100 years.

Suppose we decide to build more nuclear plants to supply energy to electric cars, in order to maintain our standard of living. The vast increase in consumption of uranium supplies might deplete them also within 50-100 years, instead of the 1000 years that they would last at current consumption.

So, cumulatively, within 100-150 years, all major non-renewable sources of energy could easily be depleted. What remains will be renewable sources that might sustain 1/5th of the world population at our current standard of living.

Suppose it happened sooner rather than later - What do we do?

I have a solution for your personal population control. It's called "you go first." It's the solution that people like you have wanted to impose on the rest of us for the last century. Usually tied to some glorious utopian vision. Who decides who lives and who doesn't? We know where this kind of thinking leads. There are just so many bad examples. The age of monsters was wonderful for those examples, with its crazy ideas like eugenics and master races. I think that the world needs better solutions than Auschwitz, Kolyma, the rape of Nanking, The Ukraine famine, The Great Leap Forward, the killing fields and all the other horrors of the 20th century. I'm tired of the unconstrained vision and the endless horrors it produces.
I certainly don't want these people anywhere near the levers of power:
http://green-agenda.com/
The NeoMalthusian ideal is just another excuse for totaltarian rule over our basic lives and liberties. With different backgound music it's the same old song.

[Shubedobedubopbopbedo]

I have no problem "going first". A childbearing license system leaves plenty of choice. For example, if an applicant receives a license but decides it is worth more to sell it, then he/she can do that.

Biotech is going to make this happen anyway. Currently it only costs $5000 to sequence the human genome. When enough data is available and tools are there, people may want to trade their genomes to people looking to acquire advantagous traits for their kids. I'm going to guess this will be commonplace worldwide in 100 years. Probably available in less than 20 years to people who want to tinker with their genes.

Childbearing licenses may come about anyway, for reasons that have nothing to do with population control. That may simply be a side-benefit. And a darn good one at that IMO.

[taniwha]

And with childbearing licenses will come (major increases in) child related crimes (kidnapping, black-market sales, etc). It's already happening in China (saw it on the news recently here in Japan).

Yes, I want there to be a world for my children to live in, but I also want that to be a world worth living in. One where they're free to have as many children as the want (that is the purpose of life, after all), free to chase their dreams, free to struggle to survive if need be. But being banned (for any reason) from having children? No point in living.

Food is not a big problem, considering the amount that just rots away, and ways of making even more are being worked on. Energy is looking rosy except for the political issues surrounding it. Water's not a big deal: plenty in the oceans and all that's needed is several desalination plants (and energy to drive them). Space isn't a big deal yet (and there's still the crust to dig into and the sky to build up to). We have the technology now to support several times the current population on this rock. By the time things begin getting problematic, we'll have the technology to look at other rocks*, and then it will be cowboys and indians all over again (though this time it will be hufalump-boys and aliens). We've already got most of the pieces for that (yeah, that last 5% will probably take 95% of the effort).

Failing all that, we do what every other overpopulated species has done: die off until our numbers fall below the supportable limit and then start growing again. This is where the freedom to struggle to survive comes in.

* (FTL or STL is irrelevant: that affects only trip time)

[edit: unnecessary comment removed] Forget childbearing licenses. They aren't necessary, never will be, and will cause too much grief.