Population growth is a conservation killer.

[Enough Already]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2B%22growing+demand+for+energy%22+%2Bpopulation

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2B%22growing+demand+for+water%22+%2Bpopulation

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2B%22growing+demand+for+food%22+%2Bpopulation

Without zero population growth, the best conservation efforts will be
futile in stabilizing demand for energy, water, food, land-acreage and
most major commodities. If conservation is indeed the goal, massive
efforts should be put into contraceptive usage and education. So far,
that's only occurred in a piecemeal, politically-correct way. People
are still told they have unlimited rights to crowd out their neighbors
and wipe out other species.

The standard excuse is that, if one can make enough money, one can
"afford" to be a mindless resource-taker. Money is treated as physical
resource but it's only an abstraction, especially in today's digital
form. You could paper the walls of your house with money but it
doesn't create the land the house sits on. You can't breath, eat,
drink or burn money in a gas tank. Physical matter can't be created or
destroyed, and human "production" is only a transformation of existing
matter, to which money assigns psychological value.

Given the circumstances of a finite planet, the term "population
control" is perfectly reasonable, but "planned parenthood" is as far
as it usually goes. Even that is considered unreasonable by archaic
religions, growth-addicted marketers, land developers and global
traders. People accept the hype of "no limits!" and don't discern
between personal/spiritual growth and physical consumption growth.
They sit like sheep in traffic jams and talk of urban planning, while
constant crowding renders it absurd.

The idea that it's "offensive" to suggest that people limit their
progeny (replacement-level birth control) offends common sense. The
planet is finite with a maximum sustainable population, and most
evidence shows that the population is already too large. The end of
cheap oil has finally brought this home. Claims to the contrary are an
endless list of what-ifs, centered on magic technologies and the
assumption that wilderness and free ecological "services" are
expendable.

Everything is still focused on supplying more stuff to more people
each day, with any supply shortfalls seen as economic stagnation. The
whole economy is geared toward rising consumption, even with all the
talk of going Green. Conservation is a joke on many levels. Reducing
the _rate_ of demand increase is about as good as it gets, but it took
$4/gallon gas for the average drone to really slow down. It seems that
people are genetically programmed for gluttony.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/

Nature gives you everything yet owes you nothing.

[Peter Franks]

Without zero population growth...

I've explained this to you before. The problem is not population
growth, the problem is tyrant growth.

Eliminate the tyranny, and a majority of the problems are immediately
and effectively resolved, or can be resolved through a cooperative society.

I don't know what you base your opinion on, but it is all wrong. Wrong
premise, wrong conclusion, wrong course of action -- you are just plain
wrong. Spend a second and reevaluate your position, you are serving NO
ONE except your own selfish needs. I doubt that you can see that though.

Nature gives you everything yet owes you nothing.

From your intolerant, anti-religious stance, I'll presume that you are
of the persuasion that mankind is the consequence of natural biological
evolution. Therefore, we ARE nature, and NATURE is takings its NATURAL
COURSE. Your mandated population control is ANTI-NATURE, and therefore,
under your own misguided and extremism view, YOU are the PROBLEM.

Have a nice, natural, day.

[John M.]

Post by Peter Franks

Without zero population growth...

I've explained this to you before. The problem is not population
growth, the problem is tyrant growth.
Eliminate the tyranny, and a majority of the problems are immediately
and effectively resolved, or can be resolved through a cooperative society.
I don't know what you base your opinion on, but it is all wrong. Wrong
premise, wrong conclusion, wrong course of action -- you are just plain
wrong. Spend a second and reevaluate your position, you are serving NO
ONE except your own selfish needs. I doubt that you can see that though.

Nature gives you everything yet owes you nothing.

From your intolerant, anti-religious stance, I'll presume that you are
of the persuasion that mankind is the consequence of natural biological
evolution. Therefore, we ARE nature, and NATURE is takings its NATURAL
COURSE. Your mandated population control is ANTI-NATURE, and therefore,
under your own misguided and extremism view, YOU are the PROBLEM.

I'm sure he realises that, Peter, so there is no need to shout.. Like
many of the same persuasion we would rather sidestep what Nature has
in store for us than accept it as our fate. Even some religious
nutters like the Pope believe in mankind's free will.

Consider the population dynamics of fast-breeding temperate zone
passerine birds compared to the same measures in their tropical forest
relatives. The former might typically produce ca.8 to 10 fledged young
per pair per year. For a stable population these reduce to a number
sufficient to replace lost adults. Measurements suggest around half
the adults and thus 7 out of 8 of the young are removed by "nature".
Very few adults thus live beyond 4 or 5 years in the wild.

The second group (tropical species) might produce one or two fledged
young per year only, yet the adult survival is long enough to keep the
population stable in the face of the inevitable attrition of
inexperienced juveniles. The adults can easily live for 10 + years in
the wild.

Yet in protected conditions the maximum adult lifetimes attained have
been pretty much on a par, one group with the other.

In other words, "nature" is f*cking cruel, and decent people don't
want any part of it, thank you, apart from looking at it and enjoying
its wildness. This is simple to achieve - you take charge of your own
fecundity and the rest follows.

[Pat]

Without zero population growth...

I've explained this to you before.  The problem is not population
growth, the problem is tyrant growth.
Eliminate the tyranny, and a majority of the problems are immediately
and effectively resolved, or can be resolved through a cooperative society.
I don't know what you base your opinion on, but it is all wrong.  Wrong
premise, wrong conclusion, wrong course of action -- you are just plain
wrong.  Spend a second and reevaluate your position, you are serving NO
ONE except your own selfish needs.  I doubt that you can see that though.

Nature gives you everything yet owes you nothing.

 From your intolerant, anti-religious stance, I'll presume that you are
of the persuasion that mankind is the consequence of natural biological
evolution.  Therefore, we ARE nature, and NATURE is takings its NATURAL
COURSE.  Your mandated population control is ANTI-NATURE, and therefore,
under your own misguided and extremism view, YOU are the PROBLEM.
Have a nice, natural, day.

Yes, a voice in the wilderness !!!

The problem with EA (other than he's insane) is that he assumes that
people will expand expondenially with no limits while food/shelter/
energy expands linearly (if at all). He sees no room for alternative
fuels, increases in efficiencies or anything else. He is, in a word,
Malthus. Both are/were wrong for all the same reasons.

[John M.]

Post by Pat

Post by Peter Franks

Without zero population growth...

I've explained this to you before. The problem is not population
growth, the problem is tyrant growth.
Eliminate the tyranny, and a majority of the problems are immediately
and effectively resolved, or can be resolved through a cooperative society.
I don't know what you base your opinion on, but it is all wrong. Wrong
premise, wrong conclusion, wrong course of action -- you are just plain
wrong. Spend a second and reevaluate your position, you are serving NO
ONE except your own selfish needs. I doubt that you can see that though.

Nature gives you everything yet owes you nothing.

From your intolerant, anti-religious stance, I'll presume that you are
of the persuasion that mankind is the consequence of natural biological
evolution. Therefore, we ARE nature, and NATURE is takings its NATURAL
COURSE. Your mandated population control is ANTI-NATURE, and therefore,
under your own misguided and extremism view, YOU are the PROBLEM.
Have a nice, natural, day.

Yes, a voice in the wilderness !!!
The problem with EA (other than he's insane) is that he assumes that
people will expand expondenially with no limits while food/shelter/
energy expands linearly (if at all). He sees no room for alternative
fuels, increases in efficiencies or anything else. He is, in a word,
Malthus. Both are/were wrong for all the same reasons.

Malthus did not set a time limit for the realisation of his idea,
probably because he knew that such a simplistic mathematical model
could not be expected to yield any. It was simply an observation that
was seminal at the time, but fairly obvious now. Kind of like Marx and
his remark about "seeds of destruction"

Malthus also couldn't know about technological advance just around the
corner, and neither can we. What we can do is look at resource
consumption resulting from technology and weigh those resources
against population size. This has been done a number of times in
recent years. Results are not encouraging for those who believe we can
keep 7 billion people alive simultaneously.

[Bhanwara]

Post by John M.
Malthus did not set a time limit for the realisation of his idea,

Obviously, he was writing for his own times, because he fought against
the "Pool Laws" of the time.

If he was writing for the 21st century and not for his own times, he
would not have felt any need to do so.

Post by John M.
Malthus also couldn't know about technological advance just around the
corner, and neither can we. What we can do is look at resource
consumption resulting from technology and weigh those resources
against population size. This has been done a number of times in

Uh, this is the _exact_ kind of computation Malthus did. Arithmetic
Progression versus Geometric Progression. You can add another factor
for technology, but you still don't know what other factors you know
nothing about, just like Malthus didn't.

Malthus did excellent computations given the level of understanding of
his time. So did the Population Bomb, or the Limits of Growth. So
can anybody. If somebody has reason to believe there is a level of
understanding that transcends all of that and that can be used to make
absolutely correct computations this time, there would have to be some
proof of that reason.

[Bhanwara]

Post by Bhanwara
Obviously, he was writing for his own times, because he fought against
the "Pool Laws" of the time.

Oops, "Poor Laws".

[John M.]

Post by Bhanwara

Post by John M.
Malthus did not set a time limit for the realisation of his idea,

Obviously, he was writing for his own times, because he fought against
the "Poor Laws" of the time.
If he was writing for the 21st century and not for his own times, he
would not have felt any need to do so.

Post by John M.
Malthus also couldn't know about technological advance just around the
corner, and neither can we. What we can do is look at resource
consumption resulting from technology and weigh those resources
against population size. This has been done a number of times in

Uh, this is the _exact_ kind of computation Malthus did.

Mathematically, it is nothing like it. Technology does not grow
arithmetically, food production goes in fits and starts these days.
Population size is beginning to look like a logistic function though
it may not level off and stay at the ca. 8 - 9 billion being pointed
to.

Post by Bhanwara
Arithmetic
Progression versus Geometric Progression. You can add another factor
for technology, but you still don't know what other factors you know
nothing about, just like Malthus didn't.

One can still go to limiting cases however, for example the population
size that limits human numbers by per capita oxygen consumption or
individual space requirements ie. limits so extreme that even F&SF
writers can't dream up believable scenarios.

Post by Bhanwara
Malthus did excellent computations given the level of understanding of
his time. So did the Population Bomb, or the Limits of Growth. So
can anybody. If somebody has reason to believe there is a level of
understanding that transcends all of that and that can be used to make
absolutely correct computations this time, there would have to be some
proof of that reason.

The computations are subjected to the sophistication, or lack of it in
the model. My personal view is that gut feelings are just as good,
perhaps better. Just now I am an eternal optimist (never once slashed
my wrists) who has a pretty jaundiced view of the future.

[George Conklin]

Post by Peter Franks

Without zero population growth...

I've explained this to you before. The problem is not population
growth, the problem is tyrant growth.
Eliminate the tyranny, and a majority of the problems are immediately
and effectively resolved, or can be resolved through a cooperative society.

If you look at the US Census projections, virtually every country in the
world is projected to go through the demographic transition in the next 40
years. Already in Europe TFRs are 1.1 in Catholic nations such as Spain and
Italy. In the USA, whites are at 1.7, and every native-born group is at or
below no-growth rates. We in the USA are importing babies and keeping our
age-sex pyramids basically at a long-term no-growth level.

[b***@yahoo.com]

Post by Peter Franks

Without zero population growth...

I've explained this to you before.  The problem is not population
growth, the problem is tyrant growth.
Eliminate the tyranny, and a majority of the problems are immediately
and effectively resolved, or can be resolved through a cooperative

society.
  If you look at the US Census projections, virtually every country in the
world is projected to go through the demographic transition in the next 40
years.  Already in Europe TFRs are 1.1 in Catholic nations such as Spain and
Italy.  In the USA, whites are at 1.7, and every native-born group is at or
below no-growth rates.  We in the USA are importing babies and keeping our
age-sex pyramids basically at a long-term no-growth level.

Five moritorium on all immgration. Deport all illegal aliens.

bill

http://www.numbersusa.com/ NumbersUSA

[George Conklin]

Post by Peter Franks

Without zero population growth...

I've explained this to you before. The problem is not population
growth, the problem is tyrant growth.
Eliminate the tyranny, and a majority of the problems are immediately
and effectively resolved, or can be resolved through a cooperative

society.
If you look at the US Census projections, virtually every country in the
world is projected to go through the demographic transition in the next 40
years. Already in Europe TFRs are 1.1 in Catholic nations such as Spain

and

Post by Peter Franks
Italy. In the USA, whites are at 1.7, and every native-born group is at or
below no-growth rates. We in the USA are importing babies and keeping our
age-sex pyramids basically at a long-term no-growth level.

Five moritorium on all immgration. Deport all illegal aliens.

bill

You foget that we NEED those workers or they would simply go home by
themselves.

[Jonathan Kirwan]

<snip>
we ARE nature, and NATURE is takings its NATURAL
COURSE. Your mandated population control is ANTI-NATURE, and therefore,
under your own misguided and extremism view, YOU are the PROBLEM.

In 1944 the US Coast Guard introduced 29 reindeer onto the remote St.
Matthew Island in the Bering Sea, in order to serve as the backup food
source for the 19 men stationed there. When World War II ended, the
base closed and the men left. David Kline, a biologist from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, visited St. Matthew in 1957 and found a
thriving population of an estimated 1350 reindeer. They were feeding
on a 4" thick mat of lichen that covered the 332 km^2 island. (There
were no predators.) In 1963, he found 6000. And then, in 1966, he
discovered an island strewn with reindeer skeletons and very little
lichen. 42 reindeer survived: 41 females and 1 male in poor health.
No fawns.

The remaining reindeer had died off by 1980.

That is a natural consequence.

Nature vs antinature isn't even worth arguing about. The natural
consequences of unbridled population growth simply isn't where we want
to find ourselves.

Hopefully, we will be smarter than reindeer.

Jon

--
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled
with the entrails of the last priest. [Denis Diderot]

[George Conklin]

"Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:5ab9b39b-86ab-4cf0-bb52->

Post by Enough Already
Without zero population growth, the best conservation efforts will be
futile in stabilizing demand for energy, water, food, land-acreage and
most major commodities.

But you have never volunteered to help the overpopulation issue by
donating your life to the cause you want others to do for you. Off
yourself.

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:34:27 -0400, "George Conklin"

Post by George Conklin
news:5ab9b39b-86ab-4cf0-bb52->

Post by Enough Already
Without zero population growth, the best conservation efforts will be
futile in stabilizing demand for energy, water, food, land-acreage and
most major commodities.

But you have never volunteered to help the overpopulation issue by
donating your life to the cause you want others to do for you. Off
yourself.

But the problem there is that once those folks who have the traits to
be able to consider AND act on the idea of either not having children
or offing themselves, as you suggest, then the genes they carry will
be removed from the pool of viable genes and... well, those who remain
without those traits and have children will simply continue and the
problem remains.

It's not a solution. There is no valid purpose in suggesting it.

Jon

--
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled
with the entrails of the last priest. [Denis Diderot]

[George Conklin]

Post by Jonathan Kirwan
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:34:27 -0400, "George Conklin"

Post by George Conklin
news:5ab9b39b-86ab-4cf0-bb52->

Post by Enough Already
Without zero population growth, the best conservation efforts will be
futile in stabilizing demand for energy, water, food, land-acreage and
most major commodities.

But you have never volunteered to help the overpopulation issue by
donating your life to the cause you want others to do for you. Off
yourself.

But the problem there is that once those folks who have the traits to
be able to consider AND act on the idea of either not having children
or offing themselves, as you suggest, then the genes they carry will
be removed from the pool of viable genes and... well, those who remain
without those traits and have children will simply continue and the
problem remains.
It's not a solution. There is no valid purpose in suggesting it.
Jon

You are assuming that because someone wants population declines they are
superior to the average person. Actually they are just more stupid.

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:54:35 -0400, "George Conklin"

Post by George Conklin

Post by Jonathan Kirwan
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:34:27 -0400, "George Conklin"

Post by George Conklin
news:5ab9b39b-86ab-4cf0-bb52->

Post by Enough Already
Without zero population growth, the best conservation efforts will be
futile in stabilizing demand for energy, water, food, land-acreage and
most major commodities.

But you have never volunteered to help the overpopulation issue by
donating your life to the cause you want others to do for you. Off
yourself.

But the problem there is that once those folks who have the traits to
be able to consider AND act on the idea of either not having children
or offing themselves, as you suggest, then the genes they carry will
be removed from the pool of viable genes and... well, those who remain
without those traits and have children will simply continue and the
problem remains.
It's not a solution. There is no valid purpose in suggesting it.
Jon

You are assuming that because someone wants population declines they are
superior to the average person. Actually they are just more stupid.

I made no such assumption.

Jon

--
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled
with the entrails of the last priest. [Denis Diderot]

[(David P.)]

Without z.p.g., the best conservation efforts
will be futile in stabilizing demand for energy,
water, food, land & most major commodities.

you've never volunteered to help the
overpopulation issue by donating your life
to the cause you want others to do for you.
Off yourself.

Public policy is about EVERYONE!
Always has been & always will be!
.
.
--

[Bhanwara]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2B%22growing+demand+fo...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2B%22growing+demand+fo...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2B%22growing+demand+fo...
Without zero population growth, the best conservation efforts will be
futile in stabilizing demand for energy, water, food, land-acreage and
most major commodities. If conservation is indeed the goal, massive
efforts should be put into contraceptive usage and education. So far,
that's only occurred in a piecemeal, politically-correct way. People
are still told they have unlimited rights to crowd out their neighbors
and wipe out other species.
The standard excuse is that, if one can make enough money, one can
"afford" to be a mindless resource-taker. Money is treated as physical
resource but it's only an abstraction, especially in today's digital
form. You could paper the walls of your house with money but it
doesn't create the land the house sits on. You can't breath, eat,
drink or burn money in a gas tank. Physical matter can't be created or
destroyed, and human "production" is only a transformation of existing
matter, to which money assigns psychological value.
Given the circumstances of a finite planet, the term "population
control" is perfectly reasonable, but "planned parenthood" is as far
as it usually goes. Even that is considered unreasonable by archaic
religions, growth-addicted marketers, land developers and global
traders. People accept the hype of "no limits!" and don't discern
between personal/spiritual growth and physical consumption growth.
They sit like sheep in traffic jams and talk of urban planning, while
constant crowding renders it absurd.
The idea that it's "offensive" to suggest that people limit their
progeny (replacement-level birth control) offends common sense. The
planet is finite with a maximum sustainable population, and most
evidence shows that the population is already too large. The end of
cheap oil has finally brought this home. Claims to the contrary are an
endless list of what-ifs, centered on magic technologies and the
assumption that wilderness and free ecological "services" are
expendable.
Everything is still focused on supplying more stuff to more people
each day, with any supply shortfalls seen as economic stagnation. The
whole economy is geared toward rising consumption, even with all the
talk of going Green. Conservation is a joke on many levels. Reducing
the _rate_ of demand increase is about as good as it gets, but it took
$4/gallon gas for the average drone to really slow down. It seems that
people are genetically programmed for gluttony.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Nature gives you everything yet owes you nothing.

I am a little curious -- historically, a lot of cultures have risen
and fallen. Which are the cultures that destroyed themselves due to
over-population?

[Bhanwara]

Yes, but in the current context -- i.e. they just grew so populous
that they couldn't feed themselves (as opposed to some actual enemies
that wanted some resources they had etc.)

Where did the Anasazi of the American southwest  go?
How about the people of Easter Island?-

I have no idea. Did they have so many people that they couldn't feed
themselves?

I was actually thinking more about the peoples whose history is well
known. For instance, is there any theory that the Roman Empire
declined and fell because they had just too many Romans?

(Of course, if there are less well known cases, that would answer the
question as well.)

[Bhanwara]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 16:02:41 -0700 (PDT), Bhanwara

Yes, but in the current context -- i.e. they just grew so populous
that they couldn't feed themselves (as opposed to some actual enemies
that wanted some resources they had etc.)

Where did the Anasazi of the American southwest  go?
How about the people of Easter Island?-

I have no idea.  Did they have so many people that they couldn't feed
themselves?
I was actually thinking more about the peoples whose history is well
known.  For instance, is there any theory that the Roman Empire
declined and fell because they had just too many Romans?

IRRC, the Roman Empire fell because they bred too many liberals
unwilling to fight for their country.

Er, instead of "fight for their country", I think you meant "invade
other countries unquestioningly because their leaders said so..."

In any case, I don't think there is any evidence that the Roman Empire
declined and fell because they had just too many Romans. Same for
other empires. (Probably, I am not an expert on all ancient
civilizations.)

So if the US declines and falls because of overpopulation, it will at
least have earned a place in the various books of records -- as the
first and only successful civilization in the history of mankind that
failed because of overpopulation.

[f. barnes]

Post by Bhanwara

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2B%22growing+demand+fo...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2B%22growing+demand+fo...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2B%22growing+demand+fo...
Without zero population growth, the best conservation efforts will be
futile in stabilizing demand for energy, water, food, land-acreage and
most major commodities. If conservation is indeed the goal, massive
efforts should be put into contraceptive usage and education. So far,
that's only occurred in a piecemeal, politically-correct way. People
are still told they have unlimited rights to crowd out their neighbors
and wipe out other species.
The standard excuse is that, if one can make enough money, one can
"afford" to be a mindless resource-taker. Money is treated as physical
resource but it's only an abstraction, especially in today's digital
form. You could paper the walls of your house with money but it
doesn't create the land the house sits on. You can't breath, eat,
drink or burn money in a gas tank. Physical matter can't be created or
destroyed, and human "production" is only a transformation of existing
matter, to which money assigns psychological value.
Given the circumstances of a finite planet, the term "population
control" is perfectly reasonable, but "planned parenthood" is as far
as it usually goes. Even that is considered unreasonable by archaic
religions, growth-addicted marketers, land developers and global
traders. People accept the hype of "no limits!" and don't discern
between personal/spiritual growth and physical consumption growth.
They sit like sheep in traffic jams and talk of urban planning, while
constant crowding renders it absurd.
The idea that it's "offensive" to suggest that people limit their
progeny (replacement-level birth control) offends common sense. The
planet is finite with a maximum sustainable population, and most
evidence shows that the population is already too large. The end of
cheap oil has finally brought this home. Claims to the contrary are an
endless list of what-ifs, centered on magic technologies and the
assumption that wilderness and free ecological "services" are
expendable.
Everything is still focused on supplying more stuff to more people
each day, with any supply shortfalls seen as economic stagnation. The
whole economy is geared toward rising consumption, even with all the
talk of going Green. Conservation is a joke on many levels. Reducing
the _rate_ of demand increase is about as good as it gets, but it took
$4/gallon gas for the average drone to really slow down. It seems that
people are genetically programmed for gluttony.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Nature gives you everything yet owes you nothing.

I am a little curious -- historically, a lot of cultures have risen
and fallen.  Which are the cultures that destroyed themselves due to
over-population?- Hide quoted text -

Until the advent of modern medicine, because of disease, there was
little chance of extreme overpopulation. The problem nowadays is that
so many people in the world are still having children as if, just as
in the past, most of them would die of disease before their first
birthday.

In the past, until about the 1700s, and even with most people having
as many children as possible, world population remained somewhat
stable or grew very slowly. And even when populations grew, there
were usually relatively unpopulated areas for excess people to spread
into, even if it meant first slaughtering any previous occupants.

Post by Bhanwara
- Show quoted text -

[(David P.)]

The problem nowadays is that so many people
in the world are still having children as if
most of them would die of disease before
their first birthday.

No, the problem is that 3rd world nations
received advanced medical tech, but not the
other technologies necessary to support
the increased populations!
.
.
--

[George Conklin]

Post by (David P.)

The problem nowadays is that so many people
in the world are still having children as if
most of them would die of disease before
their first birthday.

No, the problem is that 3rd world nations
received advanced medical tech, but not the
other technologies necessary to support
the increased populations!
.
.
--

Take a look at the US census projections for the nations of the world
Nearly all are expected to have much lower birth rates in the future than
they do now. Only a few will keep high birth rates.

[(David P.)]

Post by (David P.)
the problem is that 3rd world nations
received advanced medical tech, but not
other technologies necessary to support
the increased populations!

Take a look at projections for the nations
of the world. Nearly all are expected to
have much lower birth rates in the future than
they do now. Only a few'll keep high rates.

More retirees & fewer workers to support 'em?!?
.
.
--

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by (David P.)

Post by (David P.)
the problem is that 3rd world nations
received advanced medical tech, but not
other technologies necessary to support
the increased populations!

Take a look at projections for the nations
of the world. Nearly all are expected to
have much lower birth rates in the future than
they do now. Only a few'll keep high rates.

More retirees & fewer workers to support 'em?!?

I think it's been obvious for a while now that retirement ages should be
raised. Many people are vital and healthy until they are in their 80's. My
retirement strategy is to do all the "post retirement" stuff now, while I am
still young enough to enjoy it, and just plan to work longer.

[RicodJour]

On Jul 7, 8:44 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
I think it's been obvious for a while now that retirement ages should be
raised.  Many people are vital and healthy until they are in their 80's.  My
retirement strategy is to do all the "post retirement" stuff now, while I am
still young enough to enjoy it, and just plan to work longer.

You're playing shuffleboard and bingo? ;)

R

[George Conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by (David P.)

Post by (David P.)
the problem is that 3rd world nations
received advanced medical tech, but not
other technologies necessary to support
the increased populations!

Take a look at projections for the nations
of the world. Nearly all are expected to
have much lower birth rates in the future than
they do now. Only a few'll keep high rates.

More retirees & fewer workers to support 'em?!?

I think it's been obvious for a while now that retirement ages should be
raised. Many people are vital and healthy until they are in their 80's.

My

Post by Amy Blankenship
retirement strategy is to do all the "post retirement" stuff now, while I am
still young enough to enjoy it, and just plan to work longer.

I think that your comment is common until people begin to age out at about
60. Yes, a few continue on, but having observed people over 70 who stay
working their whole attitude becomes one of just hanging on, not doing much.
And there are days when you are just plain tired and it is not clear why.
When my father hit 65, he was great until about noon and after that, really
could not get much done.

[RicodJour]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by (David P.)

Post by (David P.)
the problem is that 3rd world nations
received advanced medical tech, but not
other technologies necessary to support
the increased populations!

Take a look at projections for the nations
of the world.  Nearly all are expected to
have much lower birth rates in the future than
they do now.  Only a few'll keep high rates.

More retirees & fewer workers to support 'em?!?

I think it's been obvious for a while now that retirement ages should be
raised.  Many people are vital and healthy until they are in their 80's.

My

Post by Amy Blankenship
retirement strategy is to do all the "post retirement" stuff now, while I

am

Post by Amy Blankenship
still young enough to enjoy it, and just plan to work longer.

  I think that your comment is common until people begin to age out at about
60.  Yes, a few continue on, but having observed people over 70 who stay
working their whole attitude becomes one of just hanging on, not doing much.
And there are days when you are just plain tired and it is not clear why.
When my father hit 65, he was great until about noon and after that, really
could not get much done.

That would depend on whether the person liked their job, found it
interesting and how much physical activity it required. My
grandfather only stopped driving to housecalls* when he was 88.

R

* Housecalls were those things doctors did which they don't do anymore.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by (David P.)

Post by (David P.)
the problem is that 3rd world nations
received advanced medical tech, but not
other technologies necessary to support
the increased populations!

Take a look at projections for the nations
of the world. Nearly all are expected to
have much lower birth rates in the future than
they do now. Only a few'll keep high rates.

More retirees & fewer workers to support 'em?!?

I think it's been obvious for a while now that retirement ages should be
raised. Many people are vital and healthy until they are in their 80's.

My

Post by Amy Blankenship
retirement strategy is to do all the "post retirement" stuff now, while I

am

Post by Amy Blankenship
still young enough to enjoy it, and just plan to work longer.

I think that your comment is common until people begin to age out at about
60. Yes, a few continue on, but having observed people over 70 who stay
working their whole attitude becomes one of just hanging on, not doing much.
And there are days when you are just plain tired and it is not clear why.
When my father hit 65, he was great until about noon and after that, really
could not get much done.

If that's the case, I'd rather be at a computer at 70 than trying to run all
over different cities in other countries. I remember my mother whisking us
all over Paris and London, but at 70 she had a hard time with us in
Edinburgh. Yet she still manages to maintain her 1 acre yard and teach ESL
classes. My father was vital well up into his 70's, when he just dropped
dead one day. That's how I'd like to go.

[(David P.)]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by (David P.)
More retirees & fewer workers to support 'em?!?

it's been obvious for a while now that retirement
ages should be raised.

It's been obvious for a while now that we're
living in luxury compared to the rest of history!
Why do we have to squeeze out as many years of
life as possible, with no regard for its effects?
That's how alcoholics think...drink until you drop,
and damn the consequences!
.
.
--

[Whata Fool]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by (David P.)

Post by (David P.)
the problem is that 3rd world nations
received advanced medical tech, but not
other technologies necessary to support
the increased populations!

Take a look at projections for the nations
of the world. Nearly all are expected to
have much lower birth rates in the future than
they do now. Only a few'll keep high rates.

More retirees & fewer workers to support 'em?!?

I think it's been obvious for a while now that retirement ages should be
raised. Many people are vital and healthy until they are in their 80's. My
retirement strategy is to do all the "post retirement" stuff now, while I am
still young enough to enjoy it, and just plan to work longer.

It has already been raised in the US, those born beginning in
1944 retire at 66, and it goes up again and again in a few years.

[George Conklin]

Post by (David P.)

Post by (David P.)
the problem is that 3rd world nations
received advanced medical tech, but not
other technologies necessary to support
the increased populations!

Take a look at projections for the nations
of the world. Nearly all are expected to
have much lower birth rates in the future than
they do now. Only a few'll keep high rates.

More retirees & fewer workers to support 'em?!?

Well, if you are not going to have a growing population, you will in fact
have a much higher dependency ratio of OLD people. For fast-growing
populations, the dependency ratio is high with children.

[(David P.)]

Post by (David P.)

Take a look at projections for the nations
of the world. Nearly all are expected to
have much lower birth rates in the future than
they do now. Only a few'll keep high rates.

More retirees & fewer workers to support 'em?!?

if you're not gonna have a growing population,
you'll have a higher dependency ratio of OLD people.

Not if you stop suppressing influenza!
.
.
--

[Mike]

Post by (David P.)

The problem nowadays is that so many people
in the world are still having children as if
most of them would die of disease before
their first birthday.

No, the problem is that 3rd world nations
received advanced medical tech, but not the
other technologies necessary to support
the increased populations!
.
.
--

It doesn't matter which of you is right. What does matter is that
humanity is facing an epochal problem for the first time in it's
existence. We're running out of planet.

[Bhanwara]

Post by (David P.)

The problem nowadays is that so many people
in the world are still having children as if
most of them would die of disease before
their first birthday.

No, the problem is that 3rd world nations
received advanced medical tech, but not the
other technologies necessary to support
the increased populations!
.
.
--

It doesn't matter which of you is right.  What does matter is that
humanity is facing an epochal problem for the first time in it's
existence.  We're running out of planet.

Er, not quite. It's not the first time. We have been running out of
planet (actually "resources") for a very long time. I suggest you
look up the work of Malthus, the "Population Bomb", the "Club of Rome"
etc.

If you do actual research instead of assuming "I am so smart, I can
see these truths what these stupid fools cannot even understand", you
may turn out to be very surprised at who the fool is.

[George Conklin]

Post by (David P.)

The problem nowadays is that so many people
in the world are still having children as if
most of them would die of disease before
their first birthday.

No, the problem is that 3rd world nations
received advanced medical tech, but not the
other technologies necessary to support
the increased populations!
.
.
--

It doesn't matter which of you is right. What does matter is that
humanity is facing an epochal problem for the first time in it's
existence. We're running out of planet.

-=----

When the death rates goes down, the birth rate rapidly declines too. So
humans quickly adjust.

[George Conklin]

"f. barnes" <***@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:e4ee69ba-3aff-467b-b0b8-

Until the advent of modern medicine, because of disease, there was
little chance of extreme overpopulation.

------

The demographic transition was basically over in Europe BEFORE so-called
"modern" medicine. The death rate declined due to the effects of technology
and industrialization. For example, cleaner water, transporation of food
(railroads, waterways) and the growth of bathing. Draining of swamps helped
a lot too. Cotton cloth enabled people to wash their clothes and be free of
things like fleas.

[Bhanwara]

Post by George Conklin
news:e4ee69ba-3aff-467b-b0b8-
Until the advent of modern medicine, because of disease, there was
little chance of extreme overpopulation.

That's a very narrow focus. Such narrow focus has led people (eg TR
Malthus) to make extremely wrong predictions.

If you were to draw a graph of population of humans on earth, you will
see it shows continuos growth.

To you, in your extremely narrow focus, it is because of "advent of
modern medicine".

To aother extremely narrowly focused individual at another time of
history, it would be because of "learning how to farm crops".

To aother extremely narrowly focused individual at another time of
history, it would be because of "advent of irrigation canals".

To aother extremely narrowly focused individual at another time of
history, it would be because of "development of safe huts".

To aother extremely narrowly focused individual at another time of
history, it would be because of "taming of fire".

So on and so on. Every alarmist has a different reason.

While it is true that the solar system will indeed die out one day,
the alarmists are always wrong in their timing! I think it is because
invariably they are acting out some personal psychological problem and/
or trying to gain personal profits from alarmism. Thus their (often
very powerful) intellect is subservient to this personal problem and/
or selfish motive, and therefore cannot correct itself when needed to.

[f. barnes]

Post by George Conklin
news:e4ee69ba-3aff-467b-b0b8-
Until the advent of modern medicine, because of disease, there was
little chance of extreme overpopulation.

That's a very narrow focus.  Such narrow focus has led people (eg TR
Malthus) to make extremely wrong predictions.
If you were to draw a graph of population of humans on earth, you will
see it shows continuos growth.

Look at this chart, the third one from the top.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Perhaps taken in 1000 year increments the population shows continuous
growth, but such large increments say nothing about periods of slow
growth, rapid growth, no growth, or even decline within that thousand
year period.

And from the chart we can see that between 1 AD and 1000 AD, 999
years, the population increased from 200 million to 310 million, an
increase of 55%. Yet from 1750 AD to 2000 AD, a mere 250 years,
population increased from 791 million to 6,070 million, an increase of
667%. That is, the average yearly rate of growth between 1750 and
2000 AD was approximately 48 times faster than it was between 1 and
1000 AD.

But why do I bother? There are even people living in India and
Bangladesh who don't believe that either of those countries has a
population problem. So many choose to rationalize themselves into
blindness!

To you, in your extremely narrow focus, it is because of "advent of
modern medicine".
To aother extremely narrowly focused individual at another time of
history, it would be because of "learning how to farm crops".
To aother extremely narrowly focused individual at another time of
history, it would be because of "advent of irrigation canals".
To aother extremely narrowly focused individual at another time of
history, it would be because of "development of safe huts".
To aother extremely narrowly focused individual at another time of
history, it would be because of "taming of fire".
So on and so on.  Every alarmist has a different reason.
While it is true that the solar system will indeed die out one day,
the alarmists are always wrong in their timing!  I think it is because
invariably they are acting out some personal psychological problem and/
or trying to gain personal profits from alarmism.  Thus their (often
very powerful) intellect is subservient to this personal problem and/
or selfish motive, and therefore cannot correct itself when needed to.

[Bhanwara]

But why do I bother?  There are even people living in India and
Bangladesh who don't believe that either of those countries has a
population problem.  So many choose to rationalize themselves into
blindness!

Bingo! You have hit upon the truth, even if in sarcasm. (And except
for the "rationalize" part.)

You are not qualified to comment upon people living in India and
Bangladesh unless you have taken the time and effort to spend some
time observing the actual life there.

It is true that people used to a lot of personal space may go into a
shock upon seeing the smaller per person space. But that's a personal
problem. The resident of a forest, when brought to a village, will
have trouble. So will the villager in the forest. They both will
insist they are right. The forest dweller will insist the over-
crowded village living is no life. The villager will insist that
isolated forest living is no life. But neither one has a particular
handle on the truth -- they just are creatures of their own upbringing
and situation and narrow life experiences.

[George Conklin]

But why do I bother? There are even people living in India and
Bangladesh who don't believe that either of those countries has a
population problem. So many choose to rationalize themselves into
blindness!

Bingo! You have hit upon the truth, even if in sarcasm. (And except
for the "rationalize" part.)

You are not qualified to comment upon people living in India and
Bangladesh unless you have taken the time and effort to spend some
time observing the actual life there.

It is true that people used to a lot of personal space may go into a
shock upon seeing the smaller per person space. But that's a personal
problem. The resident of a forest, when brought to a village, will
have trouble. So will the villager in the forest. They both will
insist they are right. The forest dweller will insist the over-
crowded village living is no life. The villager will insist that
isolated forest living is no life. But neither one has a particular
handle on the truth -- they just are creatures of their own upbringing
and situation and narrow life experiences.

---

Urban militants posting here imply that what the world needs is much greater
density.

[f. barnes]

But why do I bother? There are even people living in India and
Bangladesh who don't believe that either of those countries has a
population problem. So many choose to rationalize themselves into
blindness!

Bingo!  You have hit upon the truth, even if in sarcasm.  (And except
for the "rationalize" part.)
You are not qualified to comment upon people living in India and
Bangladesh unless you have taken the time and effort to spend some
time observing the actual life there.
It is true that people used to a lot of personal space may go into a
shock upon seeing the smaller per person space.  But that's a personal
problem.  The resident of a forest, when brought to a village, will
have trouble.  So will the villager in the forest.  They both will
insist they are right.  The forest dweller will insist the over-
crowded village living is no life.  The villager will insist that
isolated forest living is no life.  But neither one has a particular
handle on the truth -- they just are creatures of their own upbringing
and situation and narrow life experiences.

You may have something there. I live in a rural area but have to go
into the city a couple of times a year. I always pity the people
living there in those crowded conditions. And then there's the crime
and the lack of trust in others. Most of the people I interact with
in the city are wealthier than I am, but still I pity them. But they
don't seem to pity themselves. Probably they pity me living out in
the middle of nowhere, away from "everything".

It's always so nice to get back home where there are no crowded
freeways, and where most people never bother with locking their doors
and windows. But as population goes up and up these little paradises
are going to all disappear. And I hate cities.

Actually i think that needing space and abhorring cities is genetic
with some people; the old time mountain men are extreme examples.
What happens to such people when the whole world becomes "city", as is
happening to more and more of the world everyday. I drove through
southern California about 10 years ago, and the "city" just goes on
and on and on. I suppose it's much worse now. It's an ugly horror.

---
Urban militants posting here imply that what the world needs is much greater
density.

[George Conklin]

Post by George Conklin
news:e4ee69ba-3aff-467b-b0b8-
Until the advent of modern medicine, because of disease, there was
little chance of extreme overpopulation.

That's a very narrow focus. Such narrow focus has led people (eg TR
Malthus) to make extremely wrong predictions.

If you were to draw a graph of population of humans on earth, you will
see it shows continuos growth.

To you, in your extremely narrow focus, it is because of "advent of
modern medicine".

To aother extremely narrowly focused individual at another time of
history, it would be because of "learning how to farm crops".

To aother extremely narrowly focused individual at another time of
history, it would be because of "advent of irrigation canals".

To aother extremely narrowly focused individual at another time of
history, it would be because of "development of safe huts".

To aother extremely narrowly focused individual at another time of
history, it would be because of "taming of fire".

So on and so on. Every alarmist has a different reason.

While it is true that the solar system will indeed die out one day,
the alarmists are always wrong in their timing! I think it is because
invariably they are acting out some personal psychological problem and/
or trying to gain personal profits from alarmism. Thus their (often
very powerful) intellect is subservient to this personal problem and/
or selfish motive, and therefore cannot correct itself when needed to.

---

"Modern" medical systems had about zero to do with the demographic
transition in Europe. It was control of disease through clean water,
washable clothes and transportation of food which did the trick.

[drydem]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2B%22growing+demand+fo...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2B%22growing+demand+fo...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2B%22growing+demand+fo...
Without zero population growth, the best conservation efforts will be
futile in stabilizing demand for energy, water, food, land-acreage and
most major commodities.

Not currently true. It is not the population growth but the
current fossil fuel based economic energy usage model
that make it futile in stablizing the demand for energy.
The use of food and land acreage per capita is highly
dependent on the agricultural/dietary model being used -
a vegetarian food production is more efficient than one
based on livestock (e.g. beef production vs. soybean
production). It is not the lack of water but access to
clean water that is the problem in most cases. Having
clean water is more about politics than it is about
the population size - if people would put as much effort
into keeping the water clean as it does building weapons
and waging war - having clean water would never be
an issue.

If conservation is indeed the goal, massive efforts
should be put into contraceptive usage and education. So far,
that's only occurred in a piecemeal, politically-correct way. People
are still told they have unlimited rights to crowd out their neighbors
and wipe out other species.

Certain religious institutions consider the use of contraceptive
devices and birth control education as politically-incorrect.
Among countries where there has been or are population/birth
control policies/laws in place - some may still not
comply due to socio-economic factors, e.g. inheritance.

The standard excuse is that, if one can make enough money, one can
"afford" to be a mindless resource-taker. Money is treated as physical
resource but it's only an abstraction, especially in today's digital
form. You could paper the walls of your house with money but it
doesn't create the land the house sits on. You can't breath, eat,
drink or burn money in a gas tank. Physical matter can't be created or
destroyed, and human "production" is only a transformation of existing
matter, to which money assigns psychological value.

At some critical point with a particular economic
system -- - additional wealth provides an
individual with no physical incentive/ advantage and
so the economic incentive for additional wealth shifts
to sociological and psychological incentives,
conspicuous consumption - economic exclusivity..

Given the circumstances of a finite planet, the term "population
control" is perfectly reasonable, but "planned parenthood" is as far
as it usually goes. Even that is considered unreasonable by archaic
religions, growth-addicted marketers, land developers and global
traders. People accept the hype of "no limits!" and don't discern
between personal/spiritual growth and physical consumption growth.
They sit like sheep in traffic jams and talk ofurbanplanning, while
constant crowding renders it absurd.

With respect to urban planning - no community can ignore
the need to be economically sustainable. The question is
not whether growth will introduce problems but whether it
is sustainable economically and ecologically. One has to
ask whether the benefits are worth the cost ( aka cost
Benefit anaylsis)

The idea that it's "offensive" to suggest that people limit their
progeny (replacement-level birth control) offends common sense. The
planet is finite with a maximum sustainable population, and most
evidence shows that the population is already too large. The end of
cheap oil has finally brought this home. Claims to the contrary are an
endless list of what-ifs, centered on magic technologies and the
assumption that wilderness and free ecological "services" are
expendable.

It's not that the population is already too
large for the planet to sustain but that
the population is too large for our current
economic food production and distribution
model to sustain. Oil has never been
cheap in the developing world and its has
not been cheap in europe or japan
for some time. The USA energy policy to
increase energy conserveration is to allow
energy prices to go up until energy usage
is drops due to market forces. As energy
prices go up - the suburbs and rural residential
community cost will increase signficantly
to the point where some will lose their
economic advantage over more urban
communities.

Everything is still focused on supplying more stuff to more people
each day, with any supply shortfalls seen as economic stagnation.

Some are blaming the shortfall in food supply to the demand
for biofuel production while others blame rising energy cost
and bad weather.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1472970/food_versus_fuel_in_the_philippines/
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/09/opinion/edalbright.php

The
whole economy is geared toward rising consumption, even with all the
talk of going Green. Conservation is a joke on many levels. Reducing
the _rate_ of demand increase is about as good as it gets, but it took
$4/gallon gas for the average drone to really slow down. It seems that
people are genetically programmed for gluttony.
E.A.

As the cost of energy to rises even further, it will dampen
the general economy. It is highly likely that energy markets are
not entirely elastic - there are critcal points where market
segments for energy will just collapse rather than adjust
to increase cost. However, I don't see any evidence that
OPEC should worry about a total collapse in the fossil
fuel market. Atleast for the next twenty years - I believe
that as the general economy will slow down or contracts
due to rising energy costs - this will in turn naturally
slow down the population growth due to birth rates as
well as due to immigration.