India: Rajasthan in 'cars for sterilisation' drive

[Tani Coyote]

Did the population growth of the past 200 years hurt us?

What TK said.

Normal population growth doesn't hurt us provided the environment - and to an extent, economic system - can support us.

However, if we have more people than we can feed, or far more than we can manageably keep unemployed, then population growth getting curbed becomes a good idea.

 

[civ_king]

What TK said.

Normal population growth doesn't hurt us provided the environment - and to an extent, economic system - can support us.

However, if we have more people than we can feed, or far more than we can manageably keep unemployed, then population growth getting curbed becomes a good idea.

People have been whining about overpopulation and going on about variations of kill the poor, sterilize the poor, etc. for two hundred years, why is this/now any different?

 

[Tee Kay]

People have been whining about overpopulation and going on about variations of kill the poor, sterilize the poor, etc. for two hundred years, why is this/now any different?

... because if you're concerned about population growth and how the planet's limited resources can support that population, you are a heartless monster who want to kill the poor.

 

[Tani Coyote]

People have been whining about overpopulation and going on about variations of kill the poor, sterilize the poor, etc. for two hundred years, why is this/now any different?

When your society is dirt poor is more squealing hellspawn really a good idea?

Poverty-stricken societies need more opportunities, more education, more income, not more kids.

Fortunately, those three variables tend to decrease the number of children naturally, so we can do all at once!

---

Furthermore, you can't honestly think we'll always be able to feed everyone? Food is finite, there is logically an end to it, and there will be a day where not everyone can eat. We must prevent that day; we can grow more food, but ultimately, managing how much is needed is important.

 

[Masada]

What's the carrying capacity of India?

Kids = free labour and support for when you're older. Well, boys, anyway. You can tell people that large families aren't a good idea but you need an effective family planning program to go with that. Contraceptives, education, etc.

You seldom need to tell poor people this, poor people are quite capable of making the same choices as you or I. Whether or not they can carry through with those choices is something else entirely.

<snip>

Moderator Action: Trolling removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[civ_king]

... because if you're concerned about population growth and how the planet's limited resources can support that population, you are a heartless monster who want to kill the poor.

Did I say all people were like that to every rule there are exceptions. Most of the time people want to solve poverty by having poor people produce less

When your society is dirt poor is more squealing hellspawn really a good idea?

Poverty-stricken societies need more opportunities, more education, more income, not more kids.

Fortunately, those three variables tend to decrease the number of children naturally, so we can do all at once!

---

Furthermore, you can't honestly think we'll always be able to feed everyone? Food is finite, there is logically an end to it, and there will be a day where not everyone can eat. We must prevent that day; we can grow more food, but ultimately, managing how much is needed is important.

What is poverty? According to the World Bank poverty is "… pronounced deprivation in well-being, and comprises many dimensions. It includes low incomes and the inability to acquire the basic goods and services necessary for survival with dignity. Poverty also encompasses low levels of health and education, poor access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security, lack of voice, and insufficient capacity and opportunity to better one's life."

Population doesn't make people poor, for example Congo one of the crappiest countries in the world has 75 people/sqmi OTOH the Netherlands which has ~130x the GDP per capita is ~13.8x as dense at 1,039/sqmi

Urbanization contributes to sustained economic growth which is critical to poverty reduction

According to the World Food Program there is enough food for everyone...



We're running out of food

According to the FAO 400 million hectares of Guinea Savannah land ripe for commercial farming and it needs a strong human capital base

This has been another incomprehensible post brought to you by civ_king

pax

 

[Tee Kay]

Did I say all people were like that to every rule there are exceptions.

So the rule is people who advocate population management wants to kill the poor. Alright, enough of this rubbish.

Most of the time people want to solve poverty by having poor people produce less

What.

Population doesn't make people poor

We are discussing overpopulation.

for example Congo one of the crappiest countries in the world has 75 people/sqmi OTOH the Netherlands which has ~130x the GDP per capita is ~13.8x as dense at 1,039/sqmi

To be precise we are discussing overpopulation in India.

Population density is a terrible measure of whether a region is overpopulated.

Urbanization contributes to sustained economic growth which is critical to poverty reduction

Urbanisation =/ overpopulation.

According to the World Food Program there is enough food for everyone...

... but obviously not everyone who needs food gets enough food. Now why might that be...

According to the FAO 400 million hectares of Guinea Savannah land ripe for commercial farming and it needs a strong human capital base

It needs agricultural mechanisation.

This has been another incomprehensible post brought to you by civ_king

Indeed it was.

 

[civ_king]

So the rule is people who advocate population management wants to kill the poor. Alright, enough of this rubbish.

What.

We are discussing overpopulation.

To be precise we are discussing overpopulation in India.

Population density is a terrible measure of whether a region is overpopulated.

Urbanisation =/ overpopulation.

... but obviously not everyone who needs food gets enough food. Now why might that be...

It needs agricultural mechanisation.

Indeed it was.

I did not in fact say that the rule is killing the poor, I said that the rule is having the poor have fewer babies, some also want the middle class to have fewer, generally they don't worry about the rich.

see above

What is exactly is overpopulation? How do you reach it?

okay

Poverty, war, natural disasters and lack of infrastructure?

It needs infrastructure which can be built by human labour which provides enough money to mechanize.

read The Ultimate Resource II, you can find the entire book here

 

[Perfection]

Well overpopulation isn't merely about if we can feed everyone, but also stuff like environmental damage, water usage, and climate change.

 

[aw3524]

What TK said.

Normal population growth doesn't hurt us provided the environment - and to an extent, economic system - can support us.

However, if we have more people than we can feed, or far more than we can manageably keep unemployed, then population growth getting curbed becomes a good idea.

You're assuming that the world is a Cargo Cult one, where we have these neat little packages of wealth to distribute amongst the population. You say you were talking about overpopulation and not "normal population growth," but believing there could ever be meaningful overpopulation reveals the error.

read The Ultimate Resource II, you can find the entire book here

If anyone wants some optimism to moderate the humans-as-pestilence viewpoint, I second the recommendation of Simon's The Ultimate Resource. Spoiler alert: the ultimate resource is people.

 

[Tani Coyote]

You're assuming that the world is a Cargo Cult one, where we have these neat little packages of wealth to distribute amongst the population. You say you were talking about overpopulation and not "normal population growth," but believing there could ever be meaningful overpopulation reveals the error.

I think you're the one assuming things!

Where did I say wealth is infinite? That it comes in little packages? There are finite resources so logically only so many can have a better living.

Also, if overpopulation is meaningful, by definition it is not overpopulation! Overpopulation is undesirable because it is not sustainable.

I'll rephrase, because I honestly don't get what you're reading into:

-Population grows
-Economy grows
-Sometimes, the population outgrows our resource base; there aren't enough jobs, enough food, etc. this is overpopulation, which is undesirable

So long as we can feed everyone and keep unemployment from reaching insane levels, we have not become overpopulated.

Really, what else is there to say?

 

[Shaihulud]

I see nothing wrong with this, I also automatically assume that developing places like Rajasthan would automatically have a much larger population growth than a developed places.

 

[Tee Kay]

I did not in fact say that the rule is killing the poor, I said that the rule is having the poor have fewer babies, some also want the middle class to have fewer, generally they don't worry about the rich.

There's a good reason why; the rich generally don't have many children.

That said, the rich would do well to lower the environmental and other impact of their lifestyle.

What is exactly is overpopulation? How do you reach it?

I would define overpopulation as the point where the population cannot be economically or environmentally adequately supported or sustained at a certain living standard. There's no hard numerical limit on population, it's subjective to the economic, technological and environmental situation. Also, what Perfection said.

Poverty, war, natural disasters and lack of infrastructure?

Which you'll find are all linked to population and population pressure.

It needs infrastructure which can be built by human labour which provides enough money to mechanize.

You need to free up enough manpower from agricultural activities to build your infrastructure, buddy.

If anyone wants some optimism to moderate the humans-as-pestilence viewpoint, I second the recommendation of Simon's The Ultimate Resource. Spoiler alert: the ultimate resource is people.

And how about we don't pretend that the choice is between "humans are pestilence" and "growth is good", because it's not.

 

[civ_king]

I think you're the one assuming things!

Where did I say wealth is infinite? That it comes in little packages? There are finite resources so logically only so many can have a better living.

Also, if overpopulation is meaningful, by definition it is not overpopulation! Overpopulation is undesirable because it is not sustainable.

I'll rephrase, because I honestly don't get what you're reading into:

-Population grows
-Economy grows
-Sometimes, the population outgrows our resource base; there aren't enough jobs, enough food, etc. this is overpopulation, which is undesirable

So long as we can feed everyone and keep unemployment from reaching insane levels, we have not become overpopulated.

Really, what else is there to say?

?
okay resources are technically finite. Do we know how much copper there is? Tungsten? Lithium? No we don't. Why do you think the general trend for metals is down? Human ingenuity allows us to do more with less. We can also recycle metals.

More food is grow on less land (see my image which has a link) as a general trend.

There's a good reason why; the rich generally don't have many children.

That said, the rich would do well to lower the environmental and other impact of their lifestyle.

I would define overpopulation as the point where the population cannot be economically or environmentally adequately supported or sustained at a certain living standard. There's no hard numerical limit on population, it's subjective to the economic, technological and environmental situation. Also, what Perfection said.

Which you'll find are all linked to population and population pressure.

You need to free up enough manpower from agricultural activities to build your infrastructure, buddy.

And how about we don't pretend that the choice is between "humans are pestilence" and "growth is good", because it's not.

What is this "certain living standard"?

How are droughts caused by population? Hurricanes? Tornado? Hail?

If the countries stopped wars that displaced many people it would be able to free up more manpower because refugees still need to eat, but can't necessarily farm.

 

[El_Machinae]

I recall a back-of-the-envelope stating that there's enough sunlight and CHNOPS in the solar system to handle 7200 trillion humans. So I'm not really worried about an upper limit. That would require us getting out into the solar system properly. I believe this is nearly inevitable, but I am concerned about how much pain it will involve in the process.

Just to give my credentials. I'm not concerned about an upper limit on humanity, I'm just worried about the pain of the process.

How are droughts caused by population? Hurricanes? Tornado? Hail?

Droughts are caused by overfarming, which leads to shifting precipitation patterns as well as undermining the ability to convert rainwater into groundwater. Hurricane damage is aggravated by pollution (etc) killing coastal wildlands or oceanic ecosystems, and this causes the hurricane damage to increase due to less buffering and greater erosion from a hurricane. Tornados? I've not heard of a link. Hail ... ehn.


Regardless, and I posted this in another thread. It IS theoretically possible for a population to outstrip its ecosystem, with a resulting period of starvation. To those who pooh-pooh the concept of worrying about over-population, how would you recognise ahead of time if the over-population actually was going to be a problem?

On a petri dish, judging on the last 60 minutes of growth, all the indicators look excellent: more births, greater resource utilization, evidence of specialisation from cells more central in the petri dish. But that petri wall ends up being a mighty, mighty crash.

Previous economic results are not a guarantee of future performance.

How would you know ahead of time?

 

[civ_king]

Just to give my credentials. I'm not concerned about an upper limit on humanity, I'm just worried about the pain of the process.


Droughts are caused by overfarming, which leads to shifting precipitation patterns as well as undermining the ability to convert rainwater into groundwater. Hurricane damage is aggravated by pollution (etc) killing coastal wildlands or oceanic ecosystems, and this causes the hurricane damage to increase due to less buffering and greater erosion from a hurricane. Tornados? I've not heard of a link. Hail ... ehn.


Regardless, and I posted this in another thread. It IS theoretically possible for a population to outstrip its ecosystem, with a resulting period of starvation. To those who pooh-pooh the concept of worrying about over-population, how would you recognise ahead of time if the over-population actually was going to be a problem?

On a petri dish, judging on the last 60 minutes of growth, all the indicators look excellent: more births, greater resource utilization, evidence of specialisation from cells more central in the petri dish. But that petri wall ends up being a mighty, mighty crash.

Previous economic results are not a guarantee of future performance.

How would you know ahead of time?

Droughts aren't always caused by people, they have always happened, but they can be caused by people. The damage increasing isn't necessarily caused by a bigger population, bad management can worsen it independent of population. Tornados and hail cause serious crop damage, so can excessive rain and other factors.

Yes, it is theoretically possible for a population to outstrip its ecosystem, with a resulting period of starvation. The important thing to remember is in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but it isn't necessarily something that will happen. Can those bacteria escape the petri dish to harness other resources? Humans can. True, but in science if you run an experiment 100 times and you get the same result are the odds good that the 101 time you'll get the same result.

Population growth has already slowed significantly and will continue to slow. Before we hit 2050 it is quite possible we will drop below 1.5 children/woman.

 

[NovaKart]

If I was going to get sterilized I certainly wouldn't do it for a really cheap car or a blender.

 

[ParkCungHee]

To those who pooh-pooh the concept of worrying about over-population, how would you recognise ahead of time if the over-population actually was going to be a problem?

On a petri dish, judging on the last 60 minutes of growth, all the indicators look excellent: more births, greater resource utilization, evidence of specialisation from cells more central in the petri dish. But that petri wall ends up being a mighty, mighty crash.

Previous economic results are not a guarantee of future performance.

How would you know ahead of time?

To be fair, the issue just as much applies to people who do worry about overpopulation. Since all of these things point to an overpopulation crash being the result of far, far more then just the number of people in an area.

 

[Tee Kay]

Can those bacteria escape the petri dish to harness other resources? Humans can.

We still only have one planet.

Population growth has already slowed significantly and will continue to slow. Before we hit 2050 it is quite possible we will drop below 1.5 children/woman.

You seem to be confusing fertility and population growth.

Besides, you also need to consider how much resources those people will consume.

 

[aw3524]

Where did I say wealth is infinite? That it comes in little packages? There are finite resources so logically only so many can have a better living.

Your mistake is assuming that there are finite resources, as the most important resource (human creativity) is not meaningfully bounded. You say: "[t]here are finite resources so logically only so many can have a better living." My objection -- if I do say so myself, a fair one -- is that the material standard of living for the majority of the world is wildly better than it was 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago. If there were "finite resources" in the sense you're implying, population growth, accordingly, would have led to a declining standard of living.

However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Economies do grow, and you're probably wise enough to realize that growth isn't a zero-sum game; the limit to natural resources, then, is defined in our ability to use them. Assuming that we have a finite resource stock is assuming that we never learn anything, that everything we knew about the natural world 100 years ago is everything we know today. Obviously, that's not true. We regularly devise cleaner and more efficient methods of burning fossil fuels; oil itself was a nuisance until we knew how to use it. We find substitutes and entirely new uses for substances in use all the time. Believing we'll "hit a wall" or that the Earth has a carrying capacity is essentially believing that our potential for innovation is bounded, and I find that creates more bad arguments than good ones.

there aren't enough jobs

Production expands with labor when it is free to do so; population growth no more creates net unemployment than technology.