Global Depopulation.

How should we think about weird things?
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 8:55 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Scott

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

Your 'evidence'?

Do you count the deaths caused by wars as irrelevant to such potential decrease? Deaths by disease epidemics? etc...
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: 8088
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 10:32 pm

My evidence can be found on the United Nations population information page. www.un.org/popin

Deaths by war? Deaths by disease epidemic?
Certainly they have an effect, and a very powerful effect. Both have dropped dramatically over the past 70 odd years. This change has been one of the things pushing death rates down, and this reduction in death rate is one of the main reasons the population growth has not already almost stopped. Average global fertility is now 2.4 and to merely reach replacement rate, it needs to drop to 2.1. The United Nations estimates that average global fertility will reach 2.0 by the year 2050, which is less than replacement. However, since life spans will keep increasing, the population will not fully level out or start falling for another 50 odd years.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9831
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:24 pm

The population is still growing exponentially, but the exponent is getting smaller. It will be several generations before growth stops over all. If it does.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

ahhell
Poster
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:43 pm

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby ahhell » Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:05 pm

A note on the average life span. The gains have primarily been in the early years and at the bottom. There have always been rich people living into their 80s, its only recently that most people have survived childhood and poorer people have also lived into their 80s.

A note on birth control. Along with greater access to birth control, fertility has dropped due to greater access to entertainment. The developed countries are having less sex than we used to.


IIRC, the UN projects the maximum population to reach around 10 billion in about 30 years.

Kevin Levites
Poster
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:47 am
Location: West Palm Beach, Florida

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Kevin Levites » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:47 pm

I, for one, hope that the human population drops drastically (although this should not be misinterpreted as my saying that I wish for war, pandemic disease, famine, etc.). I could make up a huge list off the top of my head of animals that we've driven into extinction, and I would like see Earth's biodiversity preserved.

As a medical person, it's obvious that overcrowding leads to disease.

I would rather see a gradual drop in population from natural attrition and old age, as opposed to a drastic drop that might happen with epidemics resulting from overcrowded conditions.

Just my two cents.

Thank you for reviewing my post.

Best,
---Kevin
"I'm allergic to B.S., and I think I need some Benadryl."

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8088
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:04 am

Kevin Levites wrote:As a medical person, it's obvious that overcrowding leads to disease.



As a non medical person, but someone who takes note of real facts, it is obvious that humans break the rules and overcrowding does not necessarily lead to disease. As the world became more populous, the rates of infectious disease fell dramatically. What leads to disease is lack of medical care, not overcrowding.

OVErcrowding leads to disease if you are a rat. Humans are not rats.

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 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:13 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Kevin Levites wrote:As a medical person, it's obvious that overcrowding leads to disease.



As a non medical person, but someone who takes note of real facts, it is obvious that humans break the rules and overcrowding does not necessarily lead to disease. As the world became more populous, the rates of infectious disease fell dramatically. What leads to disease is lack of medical care, not overcrowding.

OVErcrowding leads to disease if you are a rat. Humans are not rats.

Prove how humans are somehow immune to the rat crowding problem. You simply 'trust' that since we seem logically capable of reasoning that we would be able to overcome whatever weaknesses that might exist to reality. In understand your emotional concern but disagree on the logical factor. I don't like it but accept nature with or without compassion for us.
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: 8088
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:10 am

Scott

Recent history shows that overcrowding among humans does not lead to disease. Having said that, I must also point out that poverty DOES lead to disease, and poverty is often something that causes overcrowding. However, when a lot of people live in a small area, and they are reasonably affluent, their level of infectious disease is very low. Take Hong Kong or Singapore,, or any western city, where millions live in a small area, and infectious disease is rare. In fact, the most common non trivial illnesses in those places are those of greater age, because people are living longer.

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 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:39 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Scott

Recent history shows that overcrowding among humans does not lead to disease. Having said that, I must also point out that poverty DOES lead to disease, and poverty is often something that causes overcrowding. However, when a lot of people live in a small area, and they are reasonably affluent, their level of infectious disease is very low. Take Hong Kong or Singapore,, or any western city, where millions live in a small area, and infectious disease is rare. In fact, the most common non trivial illnesses in those places are those of greater age, because people are living longer.

It's already known that this CAN technically have variable survival rates among different species. Ant colonies are certainly 'crowded' and they survive. Life itself evolved from cells that originally had independent existence but then evolved in colonies to become multi-cellular. But this required changes in dependencies and its whole 'form' of life.

In areas that are naturally MORE crowded have to adapt in ways that DIVIDE the essentials equitably. For places like Southern Asia, the average size of individuals is lower to make up for this. Also, biodiversity becomes more intermixed and requires changes that assimilate the future generations.

The rate of growth today regardless still grows. In only a few years our world population jumps to an extra billion, something that I don't see could be repaired without a sudden higher death rate.

Since the question here is to whether we should CONTROL birth rates or leave this to choices given easy and cheap contraceptive availability, the problem to first note is that we don't VOLUNTEER to die (or not 'normally' based on biological drives). We DO try to extend our lives if anything.

Poverty is itself an odd phenomena that makes people more competitive for limited resources; Crowding LOGICALLY demands competition too for such limited resources and one of the factors that LEAD to poverty. If you already agree that wealth is a contributing factor to enable one to find life more luxurious and require a lesser need to consider having children voluntarily, my question to you is how do you propose you assure that everyone is on par with the wealth needed to reach the point where one would not desire having children?

And even IF condoms are FREE in impoverished communities, this would not assure people to volunteer to use them. In fact, it would be interpreted that snobs on the wealthier end are trying to depopulate their communities which are often segregated into racial and cultural divides. Evolutionary theory is based on the nature of competition pressures in places where population/resources is higher. You have to show how you can extend the resources or how you expect populations to volunteer giving up children. The only other way we've done this throughout history is things like war or genocide.
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: 8088
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:30 pm

Scott

The best way to both reduce population growth, and to improve human welfare, is to increase the level of wealth for everyone. We know that wealthy nations have low birth rates. We know that within any one society, the people who are wealthier have fewer children.

However, we also know that birth rates are dropping anyway. Look up the TED talk by Hans Rosling for a very interesting account, redolent with solid data to back up what he says, showing that population growth is reduced by more money.

Globally, fertility is now 2.4 children per woman, which is not much above replacement rate (2.1 per woman), and this is down from 5.5 only 50 years ago. It is still falling, and should be less than replacement by 2050. Population growth is still kept up, but not by reproduction. Instead, it is the rapidly increasing life span world wide that keeps numbers high. Lowered death rate rather than high birth rate. All this information, and more, is on the United Nations population information web site. www.un.org/popin

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 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:08 pm

Looking at his first graph, what is missing is that the y-axis has to be limited unless we could keep getting older forever going forward. We may have contemporary successes at increasing longevity and certainly you cannot use that BIG red circle representing China as a part of the assumption when their decrease in child limits are due to laws they made, something I'm saying we will need to do at some point too. They've only recently increased their one child per family limit to two because the elder population is superseding the birth rate and so this will now attempt to shift that to the right.

The graph also still has a general slope up to the left which illustrates that only where the shift to aging population is concerned there are less people being born in contrast. How many 50 year-olds and up have a norm of bearing children? This part of the stat removes them from even being eligible to the child fertility rate.

Regardless of all of this, I'm thinking that you are taking a sort of 'positive' thinking position on the future but other than your faith in allowing people to freely choose to have children or not, do you also think this same reasoning with regards to the environment or economy? Do you think that we should take a laissez faire approach to other issues besides simply population? Wealth for instance favors imbalanced conditions. So would you still think people would naturally become more wealthy without laws that limit the extremes? And to point out the environmental factor, if that was left alone, nature itself would still find an equilibrium state there too. But it doesn't mean that less people would suffer without the same kind of positive thinking that we'll have colonies in space and other planets without end.
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: 8088
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:04 am

Most third world nations have positive economic growth. For example, Bangla Desh is growing at 7% per annum, while the average for sub Saharan Africa is 3.5%. Even this latter rate adds up to a whopping 40% increase in the amount of money earned each decade. Of course, the extra wealth has to make its way down to the poor, and the responsibility for this lies with national governments. Some do this very well, but some are not so good.

However, overall, the trend is good. This is shown by the associated fall in fertility in third world nations. The richer they get, the slower their populations grow, When they get very rich, like Singapore, population growth goes negative.
This is not 'positive thinking'. This is reality, and is happening today.

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 Dec 10, 2016 1:53 am

I say it is 'positive' in that you are assuming the best of all possible worlds for our future without any apparent limit. To me this is fine but is less realistic without merely speaking of some local reality. A comet could hit tomorrow and make all of this meaningless. But then add the fact that you are assuming the population as a whole without respecting the quantity of suffering that has to increase AT even some imagined limit at equilibrium. If you weren't being 'positive' you appear to think we'll always successfully get ourselves out of any hole and be always reasonably (on average) 'happy'.

There is also a 'curse' of such equilibrium and what happens in communistic communities because of the point I made earlier. You can technically LIVE long an relatively healthy. But if you have not real struggle en mass, people tend to lose the incentive to progress and become more static to routine without a need to even think. This would devolve our need for a brain if true. So I think reality favors that imbalance AS a "natural" law of equilibrium. I see it as lacking compassion for us uniquely. No ideal could be met to satisfy perpetual happiness to all and will eventually cycle to new times that contradict the old. That's my "realism" on this and how I was interpreting your take on this.
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: 8088
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:21 am

I am not looking at 'happiness' which is really, really difficult to measure. Just at material wealth, and population growth, which are much easier to measure.

The USA has an economy which grows at roughly 2% per annum. Third world nations in the main have economies growing at a much greater rate. This is logical since they are starting from a much lower base, and have more scope to grow. As wealth grows, population growth slows. When any nations gets to a certain point in development, with wealth, education, sophistication, then population growth reverses and goes backwards.

The relationship between wealth and population growth is not even in question. It is proven to be correct, and there are reams of data to show it to be correct.

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 Dec 10, 2016 11:22 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I am not looking at 'happiness' which is really, really difficult to measure. Just at material wealth, and population growth, which are much easier to measure.

The USA has an economy which grows at roughly 2% per annum. Third world nations in the main have economies growing at a much greater rate. This is logical since they are starting from a much lower base, and have more scope to grow. As wealth grows, population growth slows. When any nations gets to a certain point in development, with wealth, education, sophistication, then population growth reverses and goes backwards.

The relationship between wealth and population growth is not even in question. It is proven to be correct, and there are reams of data to show it to be correct.

I can't contest anything you say. I find the nature of this about non-emotional data and so unless you are suggesting some concern to what is 'better', it is this that I'm questioning only. I already understand that nature will somehow find equilibrium regardless. I'm just a bit confused at your stance on whether more or less people will end up suffering at that point. I'm more confused only about whether you are supporting a 'fact' of nature without regards to our emotional concern OR to some faith that we'll still be alright on average emotionally about such conditions. (?)
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: 8088
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:09 pm

Scott

As I have pointed out before, humans have this funny habit of breaking the 'laws of nature'. This is because we are not slaves to instinct, and use our brains to find ways to get around limits. When you try to apply ecological laws to people, you are running the risk of doing a prat fall. Your idea of nature finding an equilibrium is pretty shaky if applied to humans.

Instead, I look at trends. The trend is to humans living in a way that is more and more removed from nature. For example, the current trend is to a larger and larger part of our species living in cities, in apartments. Within 100 years, we can expect more than half to be living in that way, and in an internal environment which is utterly artificial, with conditioned air, and surrounded by electronic gadgets. At the same time as this trend towards removal from nature, the human species is extending its life span and eliminating more and more diseases. Even human on human acts of violence are reducing. Does this reduce human suffering? If it does not, then I do not know what will.

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 Dec 11, 2016 9:37 am

But Lance,

Aren't HUMANS subject to NATURE and not the other way around? Just because we 'think' our actions are superior to nature, this ignores that our own evolution makes our capacity to think valid. And nature will only KEEP our use of a brain where we still require it in an UNPREDICTABLE environment. As such, if we reach even some 'equilibrium' by human positivity, we'd sleep mentally because we'd have all we need without a brain to supply it, like plants. So IF we reach equilibrium AND survive it, we'd have to still evolve to adjust to those conditions at a real COST in some way.

I'm accepting that WE have power to act in some way. This to me is by creating LAWS that limit our 'freedom' to certain excesses. One such 'freedom' is to those who will opt to have children when this imposes increased distribution of limited resources. You are 'positing' a non-limit in some hopeful way as many do. We think that in the future science will save us to enable us to 'conserve' our unlimited wants/needs. A new colony on the Moon or Mars still doesn't repair these problems, they just expand it to new environments.

I once tried to 'posit' in mind what it would be like if we ALL could be perfectly 'successful'. But even then, it would be like the Biblical lesson of Genesis's Paradise where we'd still demand more. The solution to the 'curse' is DEATH, the 'curse' is not DEATH itself and why I think my own 'signature' about the same kind of 'hope' led me too to be cursed until I realized this. That's where I credit the Old Testament's thinking over the latter 'savior' version of Christianity that re-instates paradise for us all. To me, eternal life would be worse than death because at some point, we'd have experienced it all and so need some way to UN-experience things if only to find what was funny before funny once again. The cost of population 'equilibrium' still conserves the suffering regardless of what we think we could do to make things better. I prefer controls on one's right to birth. And even in OUR society, the very AGE limits to legal sexual behavior is just one example of how and why the Western world has less children, NOT because we 'volunteer' to have less children. But if kids lack interest in what toys don't exist to distract them, as in poorer communities, they are served better to opt to have sex WITH more risks!! Those 'poor' people will rationally think it just wiser to HAVE more children in hopes that their kids can hopefully succeed where they failed....especially where populations of poor often simultaneously segregate certain "kinds" of people by some standard (race, ethnicity, etc).
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: 8088
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 11, 2016 7:15 pm

Scott

Humans are subject to limits, of course. But not always the way we predict. Humans are smart and figure out ways around limits.

On problems.
There will always be problems, but they will change. Hopefully, the problems of the future will be lesser problems. Famine, war and disease are serious problems. For much of the world, they have been overcome, and for the approximately one billion people who lack food security, the signs are that this problem will be reduced in the decades to come. I suspect that in 100 years, famine, war and disease will essentially be relegated to history.

What will be the problem then? I do not know. But if we look at the things seen as problems in our current western consumer society, I doubt those problems will be terribly serious.

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 Dec 11, 2016 10:23 pm

I'd say I hope you're right. But I won't be there to see it anyways. Oddly enough though, I've always preferred 'today' than yesterday. I'd definitely be better off being born today where I live than it was years ago. But this too is subject to fluctuate and may not be 'fair' to trust.

Imagine time traveling. Some might think it would be 'fun' to go back in time. But we don't realize that even only a hundred and fifty years ago, we didn't have toilette paper, flushing toilettes, or clean streets. We complain about ruts and potholes. But they had to deal with the sewage and garbage in the same streets we walked every day. Even today no one remembers the fact that we used to have to scrap the dog {!#%@} off our shoes when coming indoors often because no grass was safe to walk on let alone lie on. Wasn't THAT the reason we actually had picnic blankets? ....or, the old fashioned courtesy of throwing down one's coat for a lady to cross the road? Because it was literally showing SACRIFICE of one's coat to the street sewage for one to walk across? Even the nature of walking an old person across the street was also because of this too.
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: 8088
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:33 pm

Scott

Well said.
I wish everyone realised how things have improved. The other one you did not mention is horse crap. There were serious fears towards the end of the 19th Century that cities would become non viable due to the inability to transport enough fodder for horses, and the inability to remove thousands of tonnes of horse crap.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 17682
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:35 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Scott

Well said.
I wish everyone realised how things have improved. The other one you did not mention is horse crap. There were serious fears towards the end of the 19th Century that cities would become non viable due to the inability to transport enough fodder for horses, and the inability to remove thousands of tonnes of horse crap.

Don't forget that when a horse died "in the traces" they just cut it free and left it where it lay.
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
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8088
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:46 pm

That reinforces how much better it is to live today!

Mentally Unstable
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:32 pm

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Mentally Unstable » Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:39 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:Imagine time traveling. Some might think it would be 'fun' to go back in time. But we don't realize that even only a hundred and fifty years ago, we didn't have toilette paper, flushing toilettes, or clean streets. We complain about ruts and potholes. But they had to deal with the sewage and garbage in the same streets we walked every day. Even today no one remembers the fact that we used to have to scrap the dog {!#%@} off our shoes when coming indoors often because no grass was safe to walk on let alone lie on. Wasn't THAT the reason we actually had picnic blankets? ....or, the old fashioned courtesy of throwing down one's coat for a lady to cross the road? Because it was literally showing SACRIFICE of one's coat to the street sewage for one to walk across? Even the nature of walking an old person across the street was also because of this too.


Actually you don't have to imagine anything. Just go to one of the many poor countries where things today are pretty much like you described. But what really bugs me is why do they still have a dozen children each? And please don't tell me because they can't afford birth control. That's the stupidest reasoning ever!

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8088
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:44 pm

MU

There is a clear cut, and unambiguous relationship between wealth and fewer children. This happens even in our own society, where the poorer people have more children. Access to contraception is definitely a factor, although possibly not the only one.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7219
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Poodle » Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:55 pm

Mentally Unstable wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:Imagine time traveling. Some might think it would be 'fun' to go back in time. But we don't realize that even only a hundred and fifty years ago, we didn't have toilette paper, flushing toilettes, or clean streets. We complain about ruts and potholes. But they had to deal with the sewage and garbage in the same streets we walked every day. Even today no one remembers the fact that we used to have to scrap the dog {!#%@} off our shoes when coming indoors often because no grass was safe to walk on let alone lie on. Wasn't THAT the reason we actually had picnic blankets? ....or, the old fashioned courtesy of throwing down one's coat for a lady to cross the road? Because it was literally showing SACRIFICE of one's coat to the street sewage for one to walk across? Even the nature of walking an old person across the street was also because of this too.


Actually you don't have to imagine anything. Just go to one of the many poor countries where things today are pretty much like you described. But what really bugs me is why do they still have a dozen children each? And please don't tell me because they can't afford birth control. That's the stupidest reasoning ever!


Look to medieval Europe. Poorer people had large families to increase the chances of at least some of those children surviving to support them when they were too decrepit to do it themselves. Exactly the same reasoning applies today in countries with no social safety net.

Mentally Unstable
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:32 pm

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Mentally Unstable » Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:32 pm

Poodle wrote:Look to medieval Europe. Poorer people had large families to increase the chances of at least some of those children surviving to support them when they were too decrepit to do it themselves. Exactly the same reasoning applies today in countries with no social safety net.

But how and who is going to provide for those many kids until, and if ever, they are able to support their families? If you are poor, having more poor people around doesn't help, it only makes things worse. Basic logic!

What do you call this logic: I am a hard-working young man. I can barely provide for myself and my parents. I am going to get married because that's what everyone else is doing, then I'm having 10 kids in 10 years, then it's not my problem...

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7219
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Poodle » Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:39 pm

I don't call it any kind of logic - it was (is) basic practicality. Most of those kids will die, and most likely in infancy or, if not that, before they reach their teens. People who are dirt poor who live in societies which provide zero social security place their bets in the only place they can - kids who MIGHT survive. There won't be too many of those.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8088
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:44 pm

Poodle is correct in saying it is not based on logic. Most of these things are based on emotion. Or more likely, simply a result of an unfettered sex drive. Both males and females love to bonk, and that bonking, without contraception, results in children. No contraception at all means lots of children.

It is worth noting, though, that the average number of children per couple dropped twice in the west. The first drop was a few years after the invention of the condom, and the second drop was a few years after the invention of the contraceptive pill. Access to contraception is definitely a big part of the reduced number of children.

Nobrot
Poster
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Nobrot » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:56 pm

Mentally Unstable wrote:Actually you don't have to imagine anything. Just go to one of the many poor countries where things today are pretty much like you described. But what really bugs me is why do they still have a dozen children each? And please don't tell me because they can't afford birth control. That's the stupidest reasoning ever!

Which numpty brought up that argument? certainly no one in this thread.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2141
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:38 pm

Poor people with large families do not expect to pay for a frist class college for all of them: traditionally, they've expected to provide very little more than food and shelter for them until they are old enough to get a small job.
"As private parts to the gods are we! They play with us for their sport. "
- Lord Melchett, Blackadder II

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5822
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby TJrandom » Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:23 am

Kids also contribute to family finances - working at whatever they can from as early as age 4 or 5. Whatever meagre income they produce goes into the family pot.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7219
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Global Depopulation.

Postby Poodle » Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:55 am

I give you an example from the very village in which I live - from the 13th century. I may have used this before ...

Mr and Mrs Person ( I kid you not) had a son and they called him William. They may or may not have had others who died, but their expectations are betrayed by the fact that they had another son and he, too, was called William. Both sons survived.

With the best will in the world, this story can only mean that the first William was not expected to survive for long.


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest