Global Depopulation.

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:58 pm

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/populat ... c-reversal

A lot of people worry about the so-called population explosion. The truth is that the explosion is already history. We are now heading into a period of global depopulation. Already, of the roughly 200 nations that exist, fully half of them have birth rates lower than replacement levels. In many cases, much lower.

As a general rule, the more sophisticated and wealthy a nation is, the lower its rate of population growth. Singapore has the lowest, at 0.8 children per woman. Japan at 1.4 is suffering serious economic problems. They have a lot of people growing older and needing care, with very few children coming on to take up the work load.

The USA has a deceptive result. The average white woman has 1.8 children, which is way below replacement, but the population does not drop due to immigration. This is true to an extent for the whole of western Europe.

So why is the world population growing? You can give the blame/credit to Africa, where fertility runs high. If it were not for Africa, the world would already have a falling global population. But even in Africa, fertility is slowly dropping. GDP in most African nations is growing, and we know that wealth brings a drop in average fertility.

The other factor is increasing life span. If birth rates drop, but people live a lot longer, then the population is kept high (until death rates eventually catch up). This is also a major factor in third world countries, where life span has gone from less than 30 (100 years ago) to almost 70 today. It will not be long, though, before this factor disappears, and the old population starts to die off at a faster rate.

Some demographers believe that by the year 2075 the whole world will experience a drastic drop in population.

Assuming it never gets so bad that humanity goes extinct, what will be the consequences?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23888
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:10 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Some demographers believe that by the year 2075 the whole world will experience a drastic drop in population. Assuming it never gets so bad that humanity goes extinct, what will be the consequences?


I imagine population levels will reach an equilibrium with maximised efficiency commodity production levels.

I'm not kidding. For twenty years Aussie politician claimed we needed a population of 30 million to start self sustaining industries, like car production, water-desalinisation and so on. I see no reason why the same equation can't go the other way. In a funny way that's how human population has always been controlled, by the most efficient equlibrium use of resources.
:D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7050
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:37 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:In a funny way that's how human population has always been controlled, by the most efficient equlibrium use of resources. [/color] :D

I'd love to see any "good" authority for that. Seems to me hooman population exands to the maximum it can limited only by food, water, disease, war. Nothing "efficient" about it.

...............I always marvel at how modern economic theory is based on constantly expanding population..... by any other name: a Ponzi Scheme
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23888
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 25, 2016 12:00 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:In a funny way that's how human population has always been controlled, by the most efficient equilibrium use of resources. :D
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I'd love to see any "good" authority for that. Seems to me hooman population exands to the maximum it can limited only by food, water, disease, war. Nothing "efficient" about it.
OK. That's a fair call for an explanation.

Firstly, I'd argue that up until recently the humans, facing local resource shortages would move to uninhabited lands. We can't do that anymore.

Secondly, we currently do have local food surpluses, yet the hard evidence is that the same local population is reducing. I think that's because those local areas export the surplus food in exchange for other commodities. Therefore when the whole world's commodity production, including food production, reaches an efficient equilibrium without depleting renewable resources, then human population will match that equilibrium.


As for "an equilibrium of maximum efficiency of all integrated production", I am assuming technology is stable or has reached its peak.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:...............I always marvel at how modern economic theory is based on constantly expanding population..... by any other name: a Ponzi Scheme
Well that's sort of true. The USA's GDP grows at the same rate as its population, which seems too obvious compared to other economic theory inputs. So the question is how does the EEC and East Europe have the same economic GDP growth with zero population growth? That suggests that the EEC and East are raising GDP using technology and efficiency and not population. That suggests the EEC is possibly more economically prepared for future depopulation.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 25, 2016 2:16 am

Population growth is not governed by resources. It is caused by the simple fact that people want to bonk. Men and women get together and bonk, and next thing, you got a baby. However, that has now changed. With contraceptive technologies, it is now possible to bonk all you want and not have babies. In my opinion, the end of the population explosion was caused simply by the fact that bonking now does not necessarily lead to babies.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23888
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 25, 2016 2:31 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:However, that has now changed. With contraceptive technologies, it is now possible to bonk all you want and not have babies. In my opinion, the end of the population explosion was caused simply by the fact that bonking now does not necessarily lead to babies.


I absolutely agree.

I can now pick and choose the sort of "to end of life" lifestyle I want. I use my own saved money for that. I do not have to have ten kids, hoping half will survive, to look after me in my old age.

I guess the real trade off here is "how strong is that innate desire to have children" VS "what is my conscious plan for my quality of lifestyle to end of life".


(Remember I'm going through IVF at the moment as my partner and I did maintain "the high life" and waited too long, which is sort of relevant to the point.)

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sat Nov 26, 2016 11:31 am

"Equilibrium" exists by NATURE'S standards as a whole, not by a particular specie's capacity to favor any one set of actions over the other. What is still true is what evolution says about the nature of survival. For more to survive, more must die to compensate for it. So equilibrium comes at a cost of those on the economic bottom to do the sacrificing regardless of how you perceive it.

The less wealthy side lacks the actual optional luxuries to turn to and so have no other choice but to look more 'locally' to what they CAN do. This is whatever highs one can achieve with ease. Sex and drugs that come easier will be preferred in riskier ways when one is poorer, but the 'equilibrium' comes from death due to riskier options.

So please...., to suggest that one 'chooses' to stop having children is a local interpretation. On a large scale, it is wealth that at least provides better options for those to prefer to choose lifestyles that make having children more of a burden of responsibility that people don't want. But to think that things are hunky dory with the world as a whole is to diminish the larger quantity of people who must be skinnier to enable you more room to grow fatter in a more limiting space.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5806
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby TJrandom » Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:22 pm

Condoms are cheap and are the choice for poor people to control having too many children. Education may be the expensive component that informs them that condoms are cheap and work.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 17677
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Nov 26, 2016 7:37 pm

TJrandom wrote:Condoms are cheap and are the choice for poor people to control having too many children. Education may be the expensive component that informs them that condoms are cheap and work.

Unless you're in South Africa, where the church tells people condoms cause AIDS.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5806
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby TJrandom » Sat Nov 26, 2016 7:48 pm

Ah yes... negative education....

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3250
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby gorgeous » Sat Nov 26, 2016 7:53 pm

ahh...the bonk theory....very scientific...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Nov 26, 2016 7:53 pm

Scott

Not true.
Humanity is the exception. The 'natural' way of life for our species is to be primitive stone age tribal hunter gatherers. Humans break all the rules that you think Mother Nature laid down. We now grow our own food, using less and less "natural" methods as times passes, and we live in artificial environments. More than half the human population now live in cities, and that number grows year by year. Studies show that, on a global average, city dwellers live longer and are more healthy. Trying to suggest that the 'natural' way and the way evolution has pushed us is the way humans must live, is just totally unrealistic.

You are, however, correct in giving wealth a role in reducing population growth. It is worth noting, though, that wealth is increasing world wide. Even in sub Saharan Africa. Half the families there now have a cell phone, for example, and more and more of those are smart phones with internet access. In due course, that wealth growth will mean Africa also has a birth rate lower than replacement.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7050
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 26, 2016 9:21 pm

There is nothing more natural about mankind living the hunter gathering lifestyle than there is living in Megacities with cyborg implants. They are both the same: humans living in the environment they are presented with, with the knowledge and capabilities their culture has preserved.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Nov 26, 2016 9:37 pm

Bobbo

In one sense I agree with you. The main quality that humanity has evolved, that gives us the maximum advantage, is flexibility. I have, however, read a lot of accounts by researchers to the effect that evolution has equipped Homo sapiens for a tribal hunter gatherer life style. Can that be interpreted as our 'natural' life style?

Personally, I believe that our species can adapt to almost anything. There is talk of a colony on Mars. That would, logically, be the most indoors way of life ever invented. But people can and will adapt to it.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23888
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:08 am

Scott Mayers wrote:"Equilibrium" exists by NATURE'S standards as a whole, not by a particular specie's capacity to favor any one set of actions over the other.
Equilibrium already has a defined meaning from economics and it can reach a stabilised point crossing over thousands of different supply and demand curves, simultaneously.


Scott Mayers wrote: For more to survive, more must die to compensate for it. So equilibrium comes at a cost of those on the economic bottom to do the sacrificing regardless of how you perceive it.
Nope. Give one example of your claim.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Nov 27, 2016 5:10 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Scott

Not true.
Humanity is the exception. The 'natural' way of life for our species is to be primitive stone age tribal hunter gatherers. Humans break all the rules that you think Mother Nature laid down. We now grow our own food, using less and less "natural" methods as times passes, and we live in artificial environments. More than half the human population now live in cities, and that number grows year by year. Studies show that, on a global average, city dwellers live longer and are more healthy. Trying to suggest that the 'natural' way and the way evolution has pushed us is the way humans must live, is just totally unrealistic.

You are, however, correct in giving wealth a role in reducing population growth. It is worth noting, though, that wealth is increasing world wide. Even in sub Saharan Africa. Half the families there now have a cell phone, for example, and more and more of those are smart phones with internet access. In due course, that wealth growth will mean Africa also has a birth rate lower than replacement.

Evolutionary theory is founded in part on Malthus' population studies AND to the comparisons Darwin made about species that die off MORE than those that survive. Evolution 'weeds' out selectively MORE population that creates that stability. That means if we narrow this down to a species, like humans, the pressure of population creates competition for more resources. That competition defaults to favoring those who already have regardless. But to remain stable AND satisfied requires we have an equality of economic reality with each person living as long as the other IN FACT, not merely by statistical averages.

Just like monetary wealth that creates a pyramidal effect to require fewer winners at the top, it requires fewer people who reap the rewards of both a longer and more prosperous lifestyle. If you take the years longer those more comfortable live PLUS the pressure of new populations being born, this stability will exist only by being sure the larger quantity of poorer people off sooner.

As long as the population still grows on a global level, there is no justification to assert population stability. Even the fact of the environmental problems are more supportive of just the opposite: both an increase in population AND a decrease in the health of the Earth to support this growing population will preferentially favor the FEWER at the top at the expense of the MANY at the bottom. To think that this should not matter in the equation of 'equilibrium' is to disrespect all those who must sacrifice for your/our own perceptual comfort. What WE might perceive comfortable cannot be extended to the greater population. And the pressure of all the immigration problems in Europe are even more proof of this.

Giving one condoms with 'education' presumes the poor are poor simply because they are dumb. Our population here chooses contraceptives voluntarily because of a better lifestyle that has more options than those in other parts of the world.

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:"Equilibrium" exists by NATURE'S standards as a whole, not by a particular specie's capacity to favor any one set of actions over the other.
Equilibrium already has a defined meaning from economics and it can reach a stabilised point crossing over thousands of different supply and demand curves, simultaneously.
Economics? That is a joke. Today we have a state of increasing SUPPLY control that forces us to accept what is provided by limited what others actually DEMAND. You may have MORE options where you are, but where I am, even given a fairly wealthy place, the options are actually being more and more limited. Economics itself is troubled with different interpretations so there isn't even a universal agreement to which truths stand.


Scott Mayers wrote: For more to survive, more must die to compensate for it. So equilibrium comes at a cost of those on the economic bottom to do the sacrificing regardless of how you perceive it.
Nope. Give one example of your claim. [/quote]
You mean my challenge of the claim of the OPs assumption that we DO have equilibrium? Why is it my onus to argue the negative. My own is a counter to the assumption we will or are coming to some 'equilibrium' state when I pointed out WHAT this implies. Nature WILL create equilibrium. But to state that we are satisfactory as a whole for some future assurance of that equilibrium requires the proof. I'm saying that we cannot bias 'choice' as something that individuals have everywhere. And unless you can provide proof of economic equilibrium that shows we all get what we want and need, not some average worth of some falsely imagined distribution of cell phones to everyone, you don't have proof of even an economic equilibrium.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23888
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 27, 2016 6:16 am

Scott Mayers wrote:"Equilibrium" exists by NATURE'S standards as a whole, not by a particular specie's capacity to favor any one set of actions over the other.
Matthew Ellard wrote: Equilibrium already has a defined meaning from economics and it can reach a stabilised point crossing over thousands of different supply and demand curves, simultaneously.
Scott Mayers wrote: Economics? That is a joke.
No Scott. It is the same term used in anthropology (human evolutionary studies) as economics when it comes to resource usage.


Scott Mayers wrote:Today we have a state of increasing SUPPLY control that forces us to accept what is provided by limited what others actually DEMAND.
Complete nonsensical crap. An equilibrium on a supply curve varies by accumulated demand and can vary over thousands of supply curves simultaneously. A controlled supply output is the basis of communism and Canada isn't communist.
Scott Mayers wrote:You may have MORE options where you are, but where I am, even given a fairly wealthy place, the options are actually being more and more limited.
You are claiming you have less choice in consumer goods? Don't you have the internet? How are you posting on this forum?

Scott Mayers wrote: For more to survive, more must die to compensate for it.
No Scott. that doesn't even make sense. I asked for one example and you didn't give me one. Give me an example.
Scott Mayers wrote: Why is it my onus to argue the negative.
...because you made the claim.

Scott Mayers wrote:Nature WILL create equilibrium.
Try technology. Ever hear of the industrial revolution and mass production? What happens to the demand curve for, say ceramic mugs, when the price drops by 90% due to mass production.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Nov 27, 2016 6:43 am

Scott

I have to agree with Matthew.

You and I have had an argument before with one theme similar. You believe in 'logic', whereas I believe that looking at the real world trumps 'logic' any time. Your arguments about nature, evolution and equilibrium are all based on a kind of 'logic' that equates humans with other animals.

Take Malthus, for example. His thesis as it applies to the human population has already been disproved. What he says is quite correct if applied to lemmings, but not to humans. He claims a population will increase till it consumes available resources. But humans have this habit of discovering new resources, making our limit enormous. Despite that, the human population is not going to grow till it consumes all resources. Growth rate has already dropped to a staggering degree. Fifty years ago, the global average was 5.5 children per woman. Today it is 2.4 and still falling.

I am sure that if we were discussing how humans damage nature by doing unnatural things, you would be in full agreement. But now that we discuss how humans can escape nature's consequences by doing unnatural things, you disagree. That is not consistent.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5806
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby TJrandom » Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:05 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ... Giving one condoms with 'education' presumes the poor are poor simply because they are dumb. Our population here chooses contraceptives voluntarily because of a better lifestyle that has more options than those in other parts of the world. ...


Presumes no such thing. When you, I, and everybody else first used a condom, it was thru education that they knew how to use it. Populations that use contraceptives anywhere - use them because they are available and they know how, and the effect of their use - not because of better lifestyles with more options. Assuming `better` is simply cultural imperialism.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26906
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Golden Spiral Trump
Location: Transcona

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Gord » Sun Nov 27, 2016 3:49 pm

The first time my girlfriend and I used a condom, we faced a great deal of confusion: I thought she was supposed to swallow it like a pill, and she thought I was supposed to shove it up my butt. Luckily, we had two of them.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:21 pm

Lance is interpreting me better on the logic thing regarding nature. So please don't think I don't disagree with you guys in some way.

First off, you guys know I claim to a position of "logical nihilism", which is to emphasize that I'm only treating reality as lacking purpose and so morality is only a relative concept. So when we speak of any balance that would occur to populations, I think of the Earth as limited in kind to a container; humans are 'limited' to some minimal 'size' in the sense that if we might think of some minimum sized particle that could fit inside that container. As such, only so much can fit into some fixed size container. THIS is how I interpret our limit to population as an 'equilibrium'. This is NATURE's limit, not our selective choice.

NOW, you guys are confusingly arguing a 'moral' position in that you place a VALUE to our condition as either 'good' or 'bad' with respect to choices we can make on the virtues of the FACT that equilibrium can be achieved. But this is already defaulted to by nature regardless of opinion (choice). As such, since equilibrium will be met regardless, the point, if you respect the value of concern (to be concerned positively or negatively), you have to ask not whether equilibrium CAN be met, but as to HOW it can be met in a way that is or is not virtuous to all.

I'm saying that at equilibrium, there must always be those who 'win' in contrast to some 'loser'. To those who are confident to 'win' at equilibrium, they will not be concerned; to those who are confident to 'lose' at equilibrium, they will be concerned. For all others it is a coin toss.

NOW, if you think that at that point we would somehow be 'fair' to each, this could only occur if no differences in wealth occur. This 'economy' relates directly to whether our quantity of people to environmental needs is balanced. Thinking of the container again, we need to not only consider humans as minimal objects but environmental needs (including 'wastes', often ignored as a need). For an increase in humans, this removes an equal amount of room displaced for the environmental factors we need to survive PER person. So at equilibrium, we'd need a population that also preserves the environment in the same way. But this is like expecting ORDER in that container....and why I reference entropy. For perfect balance of humans to environmental needs, this requires an order akin to having all Earthly factors (humans AND non-human things of which some we need to survive) fit on one side of the box perfectly. Entropy rules unless we can have an external exchange. Our sun provides this OR we can opt to leave Earth to seek new places.

But the RATE of our capacity to keep the order in the system (Earth) cannot be achieved at the rate of ANY growth in population without an equal rate in death. If everyone were fixed to live at some age AND we had perfect control of birth to each person, we might be able to achieve this. But it is delusional to think that we can actually get 100% of the people to abide equally. If we could, this would be a perfect 'communistic' state. But at that state, no contrast between each other makes us lack desire and so raises the question of VALUE of comfort. You can technically live forever in a cell. But is that a quality of life any different than a plant?

On the reverse, as I believe is more 'natural' to humans AS AN ANIMAL, we'd demand that competition if only to have the contrast that derives pleasures from non-pleasures. This state though is for individuals to continue to maximize their pleasures at the necessary loss of others. This is Newton's third law in action: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. As such, we'd maximize life, BUT ONLY for at best 1/2 of the population. But that means 1/2 of the population also must necessarily suffer.

So we have a dilemma we cannot solve with regards to expecting equilibrium to be virtuous or not. If 100% are happy, we lose the meaning of happiness because there is no such thing as sadness. We'd lose a need to even be conscious and would be indistinct from being vegetables for simply surviving. That is, the equilibrium comes at the cost of ANY value; But the opposite extreme requires only 50% at best to be happy. Everything else in between is subject to indeterminacy. We might get 99% happy at some point or only 1%. But we could never be certain to get all people satisfied. It would revert to a bell curve that maximally depends upon the rate of exchange between Earth and the Sun or our capacity to find new places. I don't see this rate as possibly able to keep up with our independent 'pleasure' demands that each conscious being requires to even BE conscious.

So my position is that we cannot actually have ANY ideal by nature if we leave nature itself to control our equilibrium. To me, the only means to be sure this occurs is by forcefully limiting birth choices by individuals as China has done. They too only fail in that we've been able to extend life which makes more older people presently supersede the birth rate needed to support everyone fairly. They've thus had to increase their birth limit to 2 children per couple. We also could not, if possible, allow people to simply live longer. What good is it to have people simply live longer if they have to live in 'cells' (or as vegetables) and the rest must expend extra energy in supporting their lives at the loss of their own comfort?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:58 pm

Humans are as far as we know unique in the that they rather invest in population age than size. This is obviously some biological incentive gone awry.
Reduced but aging population will cause a slowing in innovation.

On a related note, I recommend watching the Black Mirror episode "San Junipero".
"As private parts to the gods are we! They play with us for their sport. "
- Lord Melchett, Blackadder II

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7050
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:55 pm

You need age to pass along the non-dna based knowledge. Age and size both are adaptation advantages to pushing your genes into the future.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23888
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:47 pm

ElectricMonk wrote: On a related note, I recommend watching the Black Mirror episode "San Junipero".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror
Black Mirror is a British television anthology series created by Charlie Brooker that features speculative fiction with dark and satirical themes that examine modern society, particularly with regard to the unanticipated consequences of new technologies.[1] The show was first broadcast on the British broadcaster Channel 4 in 2011. In September 2015, Netflix commissioned a third series of 12 episodes.[2] The commissioned episodes were later divided into two series of six episodes; the third series was released on Netflix worldwide on 21 October 2016.

I will have a look.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:14 am

Scott

You seem to think that every benefit is paid for by an equal and opposite deficit. That is not so. Humans are not mere acceptors of what Nature throws at us. We are intelligent, and excellent engineers. That means we manipulate the environment to give maximum benefit to humans. If the process of manipulation is done in a smart way, then benefits accrue without detrement.

I have felt for a long time that a very good measure of human welfare within any one population, is the average life span of the people in that population. Anything that diminishes human welfare also diminishes life span. Anything that increases welfare also increases life span. So we can use average life span as a very good, if indirect, measure of how well humans are doing.

Since life span has been increasing steadily, that shows that human welfare is increasing. In the last 100 years, global average life span has more than doubled. This shows serious increase in welfare without any accompanying detrement.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Scott Mayers » Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:21 am

You know the average as a statistic can be as unrepresentative as the average income of people? While it wouldn't be as broad as the extreme that wealth can demonstrate, many people in some places live three times longer but are matched to three times as many people who live only a third of the longest lives. 30 people who live 10 years = 10 people who live 30 years, for instance.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23888
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:44 am

Scott Mayers wrote:You know the average as a statistic can be as unrepresentative as the average income of people?


Definition of "Average"
......a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data, in particular the mode, median, or (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number.


Not really Scott. It has a specific meaning. I think you mean that there may be better measurements to review..

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Scott Mayers » Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:46 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:You know the average as a statistic can be as unrepresentative as the average income of people?


Definition of "Average"
......a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data, in particular the mode, median, or (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number.


Not really Scott. It has a specific meaning. I think you mean that there may be better measurements to review..

The 'mean' is the average.The median is the middle term when sorted out in increasing or decreasing order. The mode is the most popular term. These are all different. But only the MEAN is the average.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23888
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:57 am

Scott Mayers wrote: The 'mean' is the average.The median is the middle term when sorted out in increasing or decreasing order. The mode is the most popular term. These are all different. But only the MEAN is the average.


I know that Scott. I studied economics at university.

Therefore if you claim the "average" (mean) for a set of data, is not a good representation of the "average" (mean) for the same set of data......then what are you talking about?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7050
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:18 am

In those situations where the characteristic or variable or issue at hand is distributed in a bell shaped curve, then median, mode, and mean are all the same value....its actually the definition of a bell shaped curve. Then they mostly apply to "skewed" curves within limits.

You know... all averaged out.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Scott Mayers » Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: The 'mean' is the average.The median is the middle term when sorted out in increasing or decreasing order. The mode is the most popular term. These are all different. But only the MEAN is the average.


I know that Scott. I studied economics at university.

Therefore if you claim the "average" (mean) for a set of data, is not a good representation of the "average" (mean) for the same set of data......then what are you talking about?

It appears that you equated this to ALL those terms as an "average". You don't get what I'm meaning? :?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23888
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:44 am

Scott Mayers wrote: It appears that you equated this to ALL those terms as an "average". You don't get what I'm meaning?


Scott Mayers previously wrote:"You know the average as a statistic can be as unrepresentative as the average income of people?"
The average (mean) is the average (mean). How can the average not be representative of the average?

Were you mixing means and modes and medians?
:D

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Scott Mayers » Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:08 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: It appears that you equated this to ALL those terms as an "average". You don't get what I'm meaning?


Scott Mayers previously wrote:"You know the average as a statistic can be as unrepresentative as the average income of people?"
The average (mean) is the average (mean). How can the average not be representative of the average?

Were you mixing means and modes and medians?
:D

Oh, I think you may be so used to using it that it isn't as hard for you to not notice that the average person doesn't notice that (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1+ 100)/11 = 11. That one person's mortality in a wealthy country living to 100 might mistake 11 years average as thinking that all these people live to 11 years of age.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23888
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:22 am

Scott Mayers wrote: Oh, I think you may be so used to using it that it isn't as hard for you to not notice that the average person doesn't notice that (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1+ 100)/11 = 11. That one person's mortality in a wealthy country living to 100 might mistake 11 years average as thinking that all these people live to 11 years of age.


You mean you get different statistical means with different sets on data. Errr....umm.... thanks.

Can you describe exactly the two sets of data that you are trying to compare? There are some tricks in econometrics that allows for this sort of comparison.


econometrics (noun)
the branch of economics concerned with the use of mathematical methods (especially statistics) in describing economic systems

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5806
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby TJrandom » Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:23 am

Scott... I believe you were trying to describe that rich people far outlive poor people - which might be true in impoverished countries - lacking sufficient food, housing, health care, etc., but would not be true in even moderately advanced economies. No?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7050
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:49 am

It makes me laugh. I think this entire kerfuffle is the fault of ignorant elementary general education teachers who love to create confusion over "average" so that they can show their expertise as the teacher.

Here is where the dictionary really helps to bring us back to what average, mode, and median means...with average meaning mean.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23888
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:39 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Here is where the dictionary really helps to bring us back to what average, mode, and median means...with average meaning mean.
It's not just dictionary definitions but also the mathematics and the matching of timing periods.

How is anyone meant to compare a current annual statistic to the varied life spans of people earning different incomes in different historical years? You can't. Economist use the expression "household" to match annual data to other annual data. If I want to infer something about the spread of incomes and life expectancy over a period of time, I look at that data separately.


All I'm trying to do here is to get people to define what they are saying and not make fuzzy general statements comparing apples today with orange production over a period of time. Econometrics is when you review a mixed bag of empirical data and sort it out into formulas, ratios and statistics and then make predictive statements about either the future or some unknown piece of data.

(The USA used econometrics to defeat Germany in WWII. The USA knew Germany's tungsten production and could assess the use of tungsten in non-military cutting tool production and from there deduce what amount of tungsten ended up on armour piercing rounds, which wasn't very much. So the USA stuck with lightly armoured "Sherman" tanks. Alternatively, the USA could assess the man hours to manufacture complex weapon that needed ball bearings and deduce that destruction of some ball bearing factories would halt the entire production cycle of those weapons. So they bombed ball bearing factories. If you can get some bits of information about the enemy then economics is a valuable weapon! )

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:03 pm

On average life span.

The average for all 200 odd countries is just over 65 years. If we look only at the 25 nations that are westernised and developed (this includes several Asian countries), then the average is 80. The thing is that each of these averages has a bit of an error factor, which is not part of the number given as average.

However, the numbers are clear enough to compare to the past. If we go back 100 years, the numbers for both are a bit less than half. Life span has increased massively. It is still increasing, with an increase of about one year in life expectancy at birth for ever five years that pass.

Material human welfare and life span are closely linked. Those things that reduce material human welfare, such as rates of violence, deaths in war, diseases, hunger and so on, also reduce life span. So the massive increase in life span over the past 100 years means a massive increase in human welfare. This applies, if anything, even more to developing nations than to westernised developed countries.

However, they are inversely proportional to population growth. The more we increase material human welfare and life span, the lower the fertility, till we get depopulation.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Scott Mayers » Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:54 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:On average life span.

The average for all 200 odd countries is just over 65 years. If we look only at the 25 nations that are westernised and developed (this includes several Asian countries), then the average is 80. The thing is that each of these averages has a bit of an error factor, which is not part of the number given as average.

However, the numbers are clear enough to compare to the past. If we go back 100 years, the numbers for both are a bit less than half. Life span has increased massively. It is still increasing, with an increase of about one year in life expectancy at birth for ever five years that pass.

Material human welfare and life span are closely linked. Those things that reduce material human welfare, such as rates of violence, deaths in war, diseases, hunger and so on, also reduce life span. So the massive increase in life span over the past 100 years means a massive increase in human welfare. This applies, if anything, even more to developing nations than to westernised developed countries.

However, they are inversely proportional to population growth. The more we increase material human welfare and life span, the lower the fertility, till we get depopulation.

This though is like what the Anti-Climate people argue in a sense. We COULD take their own word for it but the gamble is not like Pascal's wager. The posterity of others in the future are the ones who realize this. If it is alright to 'trust' that population growth will 'naturally' stabilize based on humanity's default NATURE, how is this contrast with the power of Earth's NATURE to replenish without concerning ourselves with human intervention? Humanity, if trusted, also causes global warming by the exact reasoning you claim humanity will save population problems.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:48 pm

Scott

It is not trust. It is empirical data. Population growth has dropped dramatically and is still dropping. That is data. Not trust.


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest