Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!agate!eris.berkeley.edu!doug From: doug@eris.berkeley.edu (Doug Merritt) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: Human Population Growth/Decline Message-ID: <1991Apr23.165606.10689@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 23 Apr 91 16:56:06 GMT References: <1991Mar29.112327.3031@desire.wright.edu> <21472@crg5.UUCP> <1991Apr4.153035.13052@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 84 In article <1991Apr4.153035.13052@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> vamg6792@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Vincent A Mazzarella) writes: >szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: > >>population growth, the World Bank, show world population "leveling off" >>at less than 10 billion people. > >Yeah, right. Malthus also envisioned the world population levelling off. Malthus is completely discredited, you know. Simplistic model. That's not to say that the planet can support an infinite population, of course! Just that mentioning Malthus is unhelpful. Same with Club of Rome's "The Limits to Growth". Nick was completely correct in everything he said explicitly, although you seemed to read some "politically incorrect thought" into his posting. In particular, it's been observed empirically for fifteen to twenty years that the rate of approach to zero population growth in countries is directly proportional to the level of industrialization of the country. This trend has continued in countries that have begun industrialization since the observation was made, so it does not appear to be a coincidence of statistics. The standard explanation is that, in preindustrial societies, it is beneficial to have many children. The kids help with farming or milking or hunting and gathering etc, and when the parents are old, the kids take care of them. When the society is industrialized, the economics change, and it is no longer necessary to have kids for economic reasons, and so people tend to have fewer. I am aware that many people find this economic reasoning unintuitive, and for all I know it may be wrong. But it is a fairly widely held view, and the empirical facts remain even if the explanation is wrong. Bottom line: empirically, it has been observed that the world is approaching zero population growth, and the rate of approach is increasing. Figures of a stable population near 10 billion have been accepted for a decade or two. Don't substitute "common sense" for research. >You've got to be kidding. World starvation almost ended ? What planet are >you from? Take a junket travelling -- it will do you some good. Since you both agree that the problem is one of food distribution, not production, quibbling over his hope that this will be fixed soon seems like a minor nitpick. Prior to the end of the Cold War, we all had reason for general cynicism. Now there seems to be reason to hope for progress in previously insoluble social problems, which is what food distribution is/was. >By cultivating the few species that "green revolution" farmers are comfortable >with at the expense of indiginous species, species loss occurs rapidly. This >makes the world food supply more fragile, not more robust. Agreed. This could be solved, though. >I think that the world is underpopulated by clones of me. But that doesn't >mean there aren't too many other people in the world. The small-minded, >parochial view that one segment of society is more worthwhile than another >segment leads to all the racial, sexist, age-discriminatory, etc. problems >of our society. It also contributes to the overpopulation problem as a whole. His claim that *underpopulation* is a problem does not warrant this attack on his views as "small-minded" and "parochial". He's probably right, but you'll never find out why he thinks so by replying with that sort of knee- jerk emotional reaction! >And there is no question that the disappearance of non-human life on this >planet is directly related to the overpopulation of human life. The >disappearance of the great apes, rhino, elephant, and other species daily >is the direct result of overpopulation of humans. > >Many species can co-exist, but not with an attitude that the world is under- >populated. The facts are otherwise. Incorrect. This is an assumption, or if you prefer, a theory. The "facts" are that human activities are causing despeciation of the planet. Claiming that the necessary and sufficient cause of such activities is "overpopulation" is taking far too wild a leap. You would have to demonstrate that it is impossible for the current world population to cease despeciation to establish such a link, and I, for one, believe it's possible to maintain our current population without causing further despeciation. It would simply be very expensive (but worthwhile, IMO). Doug -- -- Doug Merritt doug@eris.berkeley.edu (ucbvax!eris!doug) or uunet.uu.net!crossck!dougm