Eyeing retirement to Tasmania in an energy-self-sufficient house with space for a vegetable garden.

My dear departed father was actually a world-renowned professor of gynaecology and obstetrics, and was seconded to the WHO in Geneva, where he worked on the programs to introduce contraception on a large scale. He had read all of the infamous Club of Rome reports and was extremely pessimistic about the future (he died in the early 1990s). He spent some time working on Indian population control initiatives, but I think he and his peers made practically zero headway with it.

As it happens, of course, the Green Revolution, and also the rapid industrialisation of India, postponed the inevitable reckoning that he thought would arrive last century. But - only postponed, not cancelled. I agree that ultimately Malthus' predictions will prove to be accurate. I am often possessed by the thought whilst doing the shopping that 'the world can't afford your lifestyle', and that we are going to discover this through some catastrophic occurrences which can't be too far away.

But as my dear father learned, persuading populations not to increase is basically an impossible task. The urge to reproduce is an unstoppable force.

or the actions that might be required to sharply reduce population growth, or worse, or to reduce population already born, are to many people unthinkable. — Bitter Crank

I think this is a big part of the problem. With each passing day, painless solutions are less likely. And it seems difficult to ethically justify the Thanos solution (a random lottery to decide who dies), not to mention that people will fight to save themselves and their loved ones.

I think once it is too late, and famines, etc. are killing many millions or billions of people, then people may approve of harsh (like killing people) measures. But not until we are sitting on the precipice of total annihilation.

Due to my natural disposition, I don't want kids. Is that enough for me to say it is everyone else's problem because I did my part? I don't think so. But is there any other "painless" approach other than convincing the vast majority of people to have less kids, with a large portion needing to have zero? In my mind, if the misery of raising children does not deter people, why would some logic about saving the world convince them?

Should we all start donating money to @schopenhauer1 and maybe he can convince the rest of the world?

What say you? — Bitter Crank

From that jumbled response, I think you can see that I am not sure :grimace:

Definitely a big problem though.

On the one hand, it seems fairly clear that the situation is hopeless: GO @Schopenhauer1!!! On the other hand, I hate that -- "There ought to be a way around the problem". But I don't see one. It's extremely unlikely that the share of 7.5 billion people who are young reproductives are going to decide that they should reproduce at less than the population replacement rate of 2.1 children per couple. Holding the population steady isn't enough -- we have to shrink it.

People in stable, prosperous industrialized nations tend to have low birth rates - often below the replacement level. That may be good for population alone, but prosperous industrialized nations use up a lot of resources, and immigrants to nations with shrinking populations tend to scale up their standards of living in the destination country. Every individual who becomes resident in the U.S., for instance, consumes much more than they would in Guatemala, Mexico, or Somalia.

Population is one aspect of the global crisis, global warming, pollution, and resource exhaustion being other aspects. At some point (not all that distant) the supply of oil and natural gas will start to diminish, and with it, the basis of the whole industrial agricultural complex of food production.

There are some things that could be done... We [the world] could back off on child survival and maternal health programs. We could cut back on vaccination programs. We could stop food assistance programs. We could not rescue immigrants in the deserts or on the oceans. We could stop life-lengthening treatment for people once they are 75 years old (frees up resources). We could lower the standards of care for illnesses and injuries--letting more people die, in essence.

We [the world] may need to decide that when famine strikes, aid will not be forthcoming, unless progress in the famine area has previously been made in reducing population--not just slowing growth.

First-world countries will have to abandon their high standards of living (which are extremely costly in terms of food, fiber, metals, energy, etc.) and revert to reduced (poorer) lifestyles. This in itself need not be a miserable experience, but it would require some tough adjustments.

We've been living in a fantasy world of continual growth and ever-rising standards of living. The fantasy is becoming downright indecent.

Should we all start donating money to schopenhauer1 and maybe he can convince the rest of the world? — ZhouBoTong

Any donations to the Schopenhauer1 Fund are appreciated :grin: .

GO Schopenhauer1!!! — Bitter Crank

No problem. Thanks for the shout out :grin: .

All of Erlich's predictions were wrong. He lost all his resource price bets. I'd say the same will happen in the future. Human ingenuity will defeat doom and gloom as it has for thousands of years.

We all will have to cut our growth rates. — Bitter Crank

Morality is about self-discipline, i.e. about what you feel that you should be doing. It is never about what other people should be doing. That is not morality. On the contrary, that is a mere delusion.

Morality is about self-discipline, i.e. about what you feel that you should be doing. It is never about what other people should be doing. — alcontali

This is in diametical opposition to Kant's Categorical Imperative. The CI of Kant is precisely what one should do must be acceptable to one if all did the same. So K is INSTRUCTING US what to do.

You are saying instruction in morality is not morality.

You may retort that that's not what you said; you may retort that instruction is up for the student of morality to internalize or not, according to the student's own choice.

However, the very fact that we instruct, is a coercion; which is nothing else but trying to convince others how to behave. This coercion is successful in educating a large percentage of the population; therefore for practical purposes, people do what others tell them to do, and that is in opposition to what you are saying.

If you still insist on morality being ONLY what one feels one should be doing, and without outside influences or coercion or reasoning, then what one feels should be doing could potentially include murder, rape, theft, damaging public property, blasphemy, spitting in public places, throwing away trash, putting chewing gum under your theatre seat, pissing on toilet seats and fidgeting during sermons at church.

I would urge you to please consider that the entire history of morality in society has been based on instruction, and telling people what they must, ought, should, do, by moral consideration.

With regard to the topic: the Bible and the Koran both advocate producing children in abandon, without any restrictions.

This has been for some mysterious (but thankfully thankful) reason totally abandoned by the North American fundamentalist circles. Thank god.

But in Muslim countries this practice is alive, and done with a vehemence. They can't be stopped from making children like there was no tomorrow. This is not because they are thirld-world countries. This practice is alive in those Muslim countries as well, that have far surpassed the West in making it possible for all its individuals to attain a luxurious lifestyle. This practice of maximalizing the number of children born in Muslim countries is independent of factors of education, income and asset levels, or size of penis. This is the norm created, maintained, and enforced by the Koran.

All of Erlich's predictions were wrong. He lost all his resource price bets. I'd say the same will happen in the future. Human ingenuity will defeat doom and gloom as it has for thousands of years. — fishfry

With bumps on the road, yes. Remember the cold fusion project that was declared a success one day, and the next, debunked? Back in the eighties or nineties, I think.

Well, if someone creates cold fusion reactors, we've got it made. For another 100,000 years,then the same problems will rear their ugly rears.

One of my acquaintances in the eighties suggested that the Toronto housing crisis could be solved overnight by exploding neutron bombs in the city. Neutron bombs kill people, but leave objects and stuff intact.

You don't hear much about neutron bombs any more. These days we're into the population growth of the British royal family. Now, there is a bunch that is rabbit-like in the aspect currently under our scrutiny.

If you still insist on morality being ONLY what one feels one should be doing, and without outside influences or coercion or reasoning, then what one feels should be doing could potentially include murder, rape, theft, ... — god must be atheist

Morality does indeed also deal with conflict resolution. Making victims while breaking moral rules creates the issue of victim compensation. I don't see how a third party could claim to be a victim when someone else makes more children than he believes is suitable.

I would urge you to please consider that the entire history of morality in society has been based on instruction, and telling people what they must, ought, should, do, by moral consideration. — god must be atheist

People subscribe to these teachings or they don't. The choice is theirs.

People subscribe to these teachings or they don't. The choice is theirs. — alcontali

The choice is theirs to a point, but beyond a point the choice is no longer theirs.

The choice is theirs to a point, but beyond a point the choice is no longer theirs. — god must be atheist

The most intolerant wins.

For a plethora of reasons, the side which wants to use coercion in order to limit population growth is in a strategically bad position. Not only is the other side known to be much more intolerant, but it can also more easily replenish any losses to its head count.

If it is obvious that you will always win by arbitrarily decimating the other side, then why not do it? This outcome is also logical. It is the ones who say that there are too many people, who are the ones who will have to vacate the premises first.

There is a mistaken assumption here. Neutron bombs still explode with quite a bit of force--and resulting destruction. The "desirable" feature of the neutron bomb is that it produces a lot of excess neutrons which penetrate vehicles and protective structures of the sort the military might use.

So, setting off a neutron bomb in Toronto would wreck too much property to be useful for solving the housing problem. There are lethal alternatives, but let's not go there.

Human industry has managed to meet concerns of great importance (e.g. famine, disease) in the past, overcome them or controlled them. Pessimism says always that "this challenge is different". Either that or that human society, rather than improving, is on a long-slope, general, downward trend. I don't find support for either contention.

The risk is real. The potential for avoidance is what I am optimistic about.

Pessimistic hellscapes, like those of Erlich, just don't play out. He is more confident of his predictions than he ought to be.

Optimism oughtn't downplay the risk of the challenges we face, climate change being one large dark cloud on the horizon. That cloud comes with plenty of unknowns and we are best served when we deal with those risks rationally, scientifically, positively and in a non-partisan fashion.

As to the population curve, we are not herds of antelope. The reduction in fecundity, both in the industrialized world as well as the developing world, reflects an ability of humans to act individually and locally, in dealing with global stressors. Failing to respect the rationality of the individual, bringing top down solutions (e.g. China), rather than approaching it from bottom-up and giving families the tools to manage procreative desires against financial burdens, spells problem.

Shouting "population bomb" for the 3rd or 4th time just doesn't carry the same weight, especially in light of the birth dearth that industrialized nations like Japan are facing.

I take load-bearing measures of the Earth with respect to population, when paired with a pessimistic klaxon, with a grain of salt. The developed world may have to curb its consumption, but I'm not convinced our ability to extract efficiencies from resource usage in our environment will hit an insurmountable barrier before we dynamically adjust our population to the limits of our resources. If it were not leveling off, globally, I might be more concerned that our web of signals and responses was catastrophically misaligned as it applies to altering our behavior vis-a-vis population growth.

Well, if someone creates cold fusion reactors, we've got it made. For another 100,000 years,then the same problems will rear their ugly rears. — god must be atheist

Regular old fusion is on the 20 year horizon. It runs on seawater. No risk of meltdown or runaway chain reaction.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ten-serious-nuclear-fusion-projects-making-progress-around-the-world/

The choice is theirs to a point, but beyond a point the choice is no longer theirs. — god must be atheist

I used that argument in the side issue of morality and only for that. I did not specifically meant to apply to this case.

While you may have meant your argument to specifically apply to the case of overpopulation, I did not get your drift. Maybe one of us ought to have specified the scope of our argument.

Regular old fusion is on the 20 year horizon. — fishfry

How do people know the future? I have never been successful at it.

@Fishfry, what's the winning combination of Lotto 6/49 in five weeks? And who won the World Series in 2032?

what's the winning combination of Lotto 6/49 in five weeks? And who won the World Series in 2032? — god must be atheist

That's silly. Fusion is a technology currently getting a lot of government and private investment. Experimental fusion reactors are already generating power. If I said that AI and robotics will be important in the future would you make that same disingenuous remark? Read the article I linked.

Read the article I linked. — fishfry

I read the article you linked. I saw no date or time span predictions. Therefore as far as I can see, the 20-year prediction is yours.

How do you do it?

And of course I understand that you don't want to divulge such information as winning lottery numbers. If I knew them, I'd keep them to myself, too. No silliness is expected of you.

And "How do you do it" is something I expect you also won't answer. If I knew the secret to eternal life, I sure would keep it to myself, you can be certain of that.

Therefore as far as I can see, the 20-year prediction is yours.

How do you do it? — god must be atheist

Other sources. I've been reading up on fusion power lately. You're acting like those people in 1995 who said the Internet was a fad. Keeping up with technology news is not like picking lottery numbers.

If I said that AI and robotics will be important in the future would you make that same disingenuous remark? — fishfry

If you said "In 24 years and six months AI machines will produce enough food for 49 billion people" I would also call it silly.

You put a precise and exact 20 years to fusion reactor success. I contest your ability (if you haven't noticed that yet) that you can predict now what will happen in the ensuing 20 years.

You're acting like those people in 1995 who said the Internet was a fad. — fishfry

Wrong simile. The Internet WAS there. Fusion reaction that sustains itself and produces extra energy is NOT here. I don't contest that it's possible. I contest your ability to predict when it will happen. That's all.

I don't contest that it's possible. — god must be atheist

That I don't contest that fusion reactors are possible ought to have been obvious to you, since you replied to my post in which I brought them up.

Again, for the third time I spell it out: I only contest your ability to specifically predict they will be here in 20 years. Sorry.

Again, for the third time I spell it out: I only contest your ability to specifically predict they will be here in 20 years — god must be atheist

Slow day around here?

You did NOT talk about fusion. You mentioned cold fusion, a technology that's never been conclusively demonstrated to work at all. Of course you're right, I did not mean 20 years literally to the day, just indicating a likely or possible general time frame based on the high interest of governments and private startups, and the status of currently successful pilot projects.

The population explosion is THE problem for humanity, and the world. It is likely to get ugly long before Elon Musk's Marstown is built. Humanity will turn on itself like rats in a barrel. I doubt the effects will be homogenous. It seems more likely that problems will start where the population is already dense. Expect more whacko prophets and doomsday cults saying "I told you so," and it will get harder to refute them. Its going to be a sad spectacle from the outer provinces. No . . . it already is.

Environmental constraints/carrying capacity are much more about the population growth of consumers and our industrial support than the raw population numbers. A few more million poor Indians won't matter as much as a few more million Humvee drivers.

Slow day around here? — fishfry

Yeah...

Environmental constraints/carrying capacity are much more about the population growth of consumers and our industrial support than the raw population numbers. A few more million poor Indians won't matter as much as a few more million Humvee drivers. — fdrake

True enough, except that people usually don't exist as "raw population". The whole Humvee-style economy is a very perverse aberration.

You heard abut the 'isotope powered accident"? I understand the Russians are busy trying to build some sort of atomic powered rocket -- either a very fast high flying rocket, a low flying very fast cruise missile, or a drone torpedo armed with a large thermonuclear weapon. More nonsense. We will, of course, match them. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

We attempted this sort of technology back in the 1950s, early 1960s, at the Idaho Nuclear Laboratories. The project was abandoned as too risky.