Trying to bring serious science to the broad problems of human society has been surprisingly difficult. We manage specialized solutions that generate broader problems which we then run after, offering various patches but no ultimate solution. We end up where we are, with the longest life expectancy for the most people and yet standing on the brink of extinction in multiple ways. Is there a science that takes us out of this wilderness? Well Adam Smith tried it with his rationally offered free market for a free people which would somehow optimize almost everybody's life as folks arrived at their appropriate economic expression. We know how that has turned out. Marx tried it with his struggle to eliminate the exploitation of man by man following his brand of "Scientific Socialism." Folks just kept exploiting or whatever. That leaves Malthus, the fellow who offered a scientific way out of the brutal man eats man of nature. His exponential population growth was recognized by Darwin as the key to natural selection. So we finally had a tool to deal with societies problems that had well established scientific cred. End exponential pressure. Keep the average production of children to no more than 2 children per woman. From that base practically every other solution is reachable. End war over resources, end degradation of the environment etc. Without dealing with the population juggernaut no long term solution of anything is possible. Think of one country that wouldn't have its problems lessened and their prospects improved if their population went to one half of their present population. As Bucky Fuller put it so simply, the challenge of mankind is to go from you or me to you and me. Population stabilization provides the basis for meeting that challenge.
Why don't we just maximize production, and let individuals decide for themselves whether they want more children? I see no reason to believe the world is anywhere near being overpopulated.
A lot of places are at less than 2 children per couple without government regulation. For some societies that is a problem because of potential inability to fill jobs down the road while also caring for the elderly and raising the young. Malthus died before petroleum was being commercially produced. That is a game changer for so long as it exists. Unfortunately, I think that the invention of new methods and discovery of new materials have lead to the attitude that we have undepletable resource supplies, which falls somewhere between hubris and folly.
The problem is we are hitting economic limits, with overpopulation being a central reason for those limits. Our investments less and less are paying off. That is because we are degrading and using up our environment including resources. The economy is embedded in the environment. Kill the environment and you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I just don't believe that. People on the average are living longer and better. There are bumps in the road, but the tendency is upward. People are good. The more the better. We are the environment. It made us. It wanted us. We're only changing it as it has always changed.
Add to that, the hubris and folly of wrecking the environment that supports us. As to your first point, overpopulation has worldwide consequences, not just local ones. Answering the problem of dealing with too many old people by producing too many young people in order to take care for them is looking for a dog chasing its tail solution. There are too many people across the board and we need to start with that as a hard fact that needs to be dealt with.
We can always volunteer to leave. I'll just try to do whatever I can in my own small way to accomodate everyone else, and let them decide.
We have no control over what other nations do unless we cut off their access to US food, which won't happen as the left sees it as inhumane and the right would see it as anti-business.
No we are changing it in unique ways, destructive ways. Now there were 5 somewhat similar examples to what we are doing in earth's past history. They were called extinction events where most of the species were wiped out. We have accelerated extinctions of other species 100 times making us the first species that is moving us toward a massive extinction event. Put a bunch of mice in a pen with lots of food and water and they will live long and healthy mouse lives, until they eat up their food base and start intruding on each other's spaces. To mankind life didn't seem so bad until they were hit with the plague. With our exploding population and ravenous consumption we have a lot more than that coming down the pike. Either we will choose population reduction or Mother Nature will choose it for us.
Perhaps due to internal politics we can't do anything but objectively it is within our power to do something. Developing family planning clinics is an influence we can exercise if we choose to. Certainly a lot of 3rd world women are crying for that kind of support.
Ponder the evidence that extinction events came from extraterrestrial sources. Apparently, only humans can begin to understand that, and envision methods to prevent them. We might veto "mother nature".
Maybe you would like to supply the evidence. The explanations I've read seem quite consistent with earth based causation.
Among the most recent extinction events was the KT. It is correlated with a 6 mile wide meteor that struck earth at the tip of the Yucatan peninsula. Though some scientists dispute this meteor strike as the cause of the KT exctinction, the general consensus does not. Hence the extraterrestrial source is a meteor. It is well known that other meteors and comets have the struck the earth, and it is thought they too would have caused extinction events. What explanations have you read that contradict this, and why should it lead anyone to believe that malthusian population control should be practiced?
None. I thought you were talking about alien creatures from another planet. Sorry. I don't know what Malthusian population control is. I do think if we don't stop ghg pollution from continuing upwards that we will possibly emulate our predecessor extinction events. Rising ghg is the common thread and population expansion in the present case is a critical causative factor.
The atmosphere has always been changing. When plant life emerged it inhaled carbon dioxide, and exhaled oxygen. This changed the atmosphere. Animals inhale oxygen. Animals exhale carbon dioxide. While industrialization adds additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, industrialization also supports human life. I see no valid reason to be alarmed. Some scientists believe the additional carbon dioxide actually promotes plant life. Even if human activity is increasing ghg (mostly water vapor and carbox dioxide) why should that lead to the conclusion that we need to end population expansion?
All, Malthus' special pleading means is that we need to become better "Romans" and build better aqueducts and roads for modern times.
Yes, and everything dies so why worry about anything? Thanks for the biology lesson. Too much CO2 is going to wipe us out. Fossil fuel driven industrialization is central to that process. It does in some instances but only up to a limit. It also acidifies the ocean which is wiping out coral, critical to marine life. Warming in general is reducing agricultural productivity on balance. The loss is more in the southern hemisphere and gain more in the northern hemisphere. On balance it works out to a minus. Because humans are polluter and users of limited resources. The more people the more problem.
Yes, a lot of people think we can carry on as usual, leaving the technology God to come swooping in and save us. I don't subscribe to that faith. I think the evidence leads towards the necessity of less people and the elimination of fossil fuel for starters.
Upgrading infrastructure for what purpose? The design of that infrastructure should be based on a sustainable future. A sustainable future means less folks and elimination of fossil fuel for starters. Build infrastructure around that and I'm on board.
Upgrading infrastructure renders our economy more efficient by incorporating the latest in state-of-the-art technologies for practical everyday use.
One way you can help is by shutting the electricity off to your house and disabling your automobile if you own one. If you have propane, or natural gas, shut it off. Do not burn wood for heat. Woodburning releases CO2. Do not eat food or drink anything that has been produced as part of an industrial process. If it has been delivered on a ship, train or truck, do not eat it, or drink it. Then you can start a movement to convince others to do the same. However, you will have to campaign on foot, and use nothing that has a carbon footprint like shoes plastic, or paper. If you can convince everyone that already believes then I'm sure you can save us all.
Dealing in generalities is just sentiment not direction. It's like appealing to God, in this case the God of infrastructure.
Why don't you just say commit suicide - that's the standard line. Because I will be replaced and then some, probably by folks who are more clueless and more profligate in their energy use than I am. It kind of takes away the meaning of the sacrifice. You recognize powers I wasn't aware of. I'll meditate on it.
You may be right, but if you commit suicide, you won't have a chance to recruit. However, there is still another option: You can go to live in harmony with nature as you see fit. If, from your wilderness abode (where you are likely to soon die from exposure, starvation, or worse) you see the lights of civilization from afar, don't blame the meddling of man. Blame nature, because nature made man, and nature made man to meddle.
