06-26-2006, 04:25 PM
Hi,
By the way, a 10% adjustment would be insignificant. What my numbers call for is a 90 to 99% adjustment to a sub billion world population. That would still makes us the most populous land dwelling species in our size range and would permit renewable resources (and recyclable ones, too) to be readily available for all. It's not how many people the Earth can support that matters, it's how many it can support at a good standard of living. If the whole world had the life style of the (rapidly vanishing) American middle class, we'd run out of raw materials in about a generation. Already we're substituting trash for applications where our parents and grandparents used decent materials. Look at furniture for example. No exposed wood, since the good wood has been harvested faster than it could regrow. So now everything is overstuffed (to hide the cheap pine frame) or plastic coated fiberboard. And that is just one of the many examples that you can observe on a Saturday 'shopping' trip (why do they call it 'shopping' when there's nothing on the list and nothing (other than impulse purchases) is bought; shouldn't it be a 'gawking trip? :wacko:)
Once when asked who we should kill to get down to the number (by a manager, of course. Typically, he could not understand a long term solution that took more than a week.) I replied, "Ask for volunteers, then kill everybody too selfish to contribute to the common good, that is, those who didn't volunteer. That would probably overshoot the necessary reduction, but that will take care of itself in a couple of generations."
By the way, to get to 10% of the present population in 100 years, we simply need an annual replacement rate of about -2.3%, something already being accomplished by the population of many industrial countries when the immigration from the third world breeders is adjusted for. Selling this idea to the breeder nations (usually the poorest and least able to support their high birth rate) would be the hardest part of the program. In nations where women use birth control pill containers as a calendar but do not actually take the pills, that might be a hard sell. As is so often the case, ignorance is the root problem and education is the only viable long term solution. So instead of wasting your money sponsoring some kid in Nicaragua who will only grow up to contribute to the problem, give your money to a group like Planned Parenthood which is actually trying to solve the problem.
The 1% figure is probably not doable in 100 years since it would require a rate of about -4.5%. However, that is probably close to the max, and a reduction to between 1 and 10% of the present population *is* reasonable, and to the advantage of all but the religious and political demagogues.
--Pete
Quote:Another reason to endorse Iran's bid for nuclear weapons. Load shedding. Nothing like the Four Horsemen to act as damper on Malthusian infestations of our fair planet. So, which 10% of the Earth's population do we need to downsize? <_<Though I'll take population readjustment any way I can get it (after all, nature is not subtle; her usual ways involve floods, meteors, plagues, and other cataclysmic methods), I'd much prefer if we used our much vaunted intelligence to solve the problem in a controlled fashion. Less painful for all involved and the windfall for the undertakers would be spread out better:)
Occhi
By the way, a 10% adjustment would be insignificant. What my numbers call for is a 90 to 99% adjustment to a sub billion world population. That would still makes us the most populous land dwelling species in our size range and would permit renewable resources (and recyclable ones, too) to be readily available for all. It's not how many people the Earth can support that matters, it's how many it can support at a good standard of living. If the whole world had the life style of the (rapidly vanishing) American middle class, we'd run out of raw materials in about a generation. Already we're substituting trash for applications where our parents and grandparents used decent materials. Look at furniture for example. No exposed wood, since the good wood has been harvested faster than it could regrow. So now everything is overstuffed (to hide the cheap pine frame) or plastic coated fiberboard. And that is just one of the many examples that you can observe on a Saturday 'shopping' trip (why do they call it 'shopping' when there's nothing on the list and nothing (other than impulse purchases) is bought; shouldn't it be a 'gawking trip? :wacko:)
Once when asked who we should kill to get down to the number (by a manager, of course. Typically, he could not understand a long term solution that took more than a week.) I replied, "Ask for volunteers, then kill everybody too selfish to contribute to the common good, that is, those who didn't volunteer. That would probably overshoot the necessary reduction, but that will take care of itself in a couple of generations."
By the way, to get to 10% of the present population in 100 years, we simply need an annual replacement rate of about -2.3%, something already being accomplished by the population of many industrial countries when the immigration from the third world breeders is adjusted for. Selling this idea to the breeder nations (usually the poorest and least able to support their high birth rate) would be the hardest part of the program. In nations where women use birth control pill containers as a calendar but do not actually take the pills, that might be a hard sell. As is so often the case, ignorance is the root problem and education is the only viable long term solution. So instead of wasting your money sponsoring some kid in Nicaragua who will only grow up to contribute to the problem, give your money to a group like Planned Parenthood which is actually trying to solve the problem.
The 1% figure is probably not doable in 100 years since it would require a rate of about -4.5%. However, that is probably close to the max, and a reduction to between 1 and 10% of the present population *is* reasonable, and to the advantage of all but the religious and political demagogues.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?