Peat bogs and climate change

[biffvernon]

Even if all technological progress were to stop dead today, the world population would continue to gradually expand to many 10s of billions, and possibly more.

I think I'll rest my case on that happy note :roll:

 

[skier-hughes]

skier-hughes:

My point being that the unborn are tomorrows wreckers, slow down the rate of human growth and you slow down the need for extra emmissions.
Not just in the way of energy useage, but if we have less children there is then less need for extra housing, we keep the countryside and trees which negate co2 emmissions.
Also less food would need to be provided so all those cows giving off methane could be reduced.

No need to cull the living, just cut back on the growth rate.

That would mean less scientists to research the issue and find a solution,and less research money and resources with which to do so. One could make an argument that increasing population among those with the opoprtunity to solve the problem, ie those with high resource levels, would solve whatever problems exist more quickly, and reduce rather than increase the number of humans born between now and that solution date.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that POV, but that theres a case for it, and this is just one example of how the subject is not as simple as is so often portrayed.


NT

In which case it'd be better to have a selective breeding programme, rather than a gung ho approach and hope we get enough brainy people. Maybe genetically modified babies would be better.
My opinion is still, less humans, less problems.

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, I was with you on all your points, NT, until that one about breeding our way out of the problem. I guess it might work, but it seems risky to me because there is no real contingency position if all the new brains couldn't solve the problems of the extra population.

Alternatively, reduce the population and you automatically reduce the associated human-related problems, such as human-induced global warming - if it's real, of course. And if it isn't real, well I can't really see the downside of halving the global population. There would certainly be more of whatever resources there are to go around, so people would be better off (notwithstanding the political problems of dishing it all out fairly).

 

[NT]

Yes, I was with you on all your points, NT, until that one about breeding our way out of the problem. I guess it might work, but it seems risky to me because there is no real contingency position if all the new brains couldn't solve the problems of the extra population.

Both ways are risky if Biff's beliefs are right, both are nonrisk if not.

Breeding brainy or rich people need not increase population anyway. Eugenists have been arguing for the setting up of selective sperm and egg banks for a while.

I'm not saying I agree with the breeding idea, just that its perfectly arguable.

Alternatively, reduce the population and you automatically reduce the associated human-related problems, such as human-induced global warming - if it's real, of course. And if it isn't real, well I can't really see the downside of halving the global population.

How will you halve world population? The cost would make Hitler look like a nice guy.

There would certainly be more of whatever resources there are to go around, so people would be better off (notwithstanding the political problems of dishing it all out fairly).

Hmm. Currently the earth has more of everything than we need. The limiting factor is how much we can mine/harvest rather than how much there is. Halving population halves mining and harvesting yields...


NT

 

[biffvernon]

Here it is, folks:

Working Group II Contribution to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Fourth Assessment Report
Climate Change 2007:
Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Summary for Policymakers

But remember that, despite the picture being painted being dire and requiring very radical action by everyone, now, this is a conservative and cautiously worded report that has been under the influence of the government delegations from USA, China and Saudi Arabia. Left to their own devices, the scientists would have produced something even more alarming.

 

[Flyfisher]

Alternatively, reduce the population and you automatically reduce the associated human-related problems, such as human-induced global warming - if it's real, of course. And if it isn't real, well I can't really see the downside of halving the global population.

How will you halve world population? The cost would make Hitler look like a nice guy.

Well, if every couple (or every woman?) only had one child that would have a pretty dramatic effect within a generation or two (less than 50 years). I don't know the average global death rate so I don't know exactly how quickly the population would be halved, but it could certainly be done quite quickly, in theory, without resorting to Hitler-type techniques.

I say 'in theory' because coordinating/encouraging/enforcing such a thing woul probably be practically impossible - in much the same way as coordinating/encouraging/enforcing the global population to cut down on their energy consumption while at the same time increasing their living standards.

But it might be an easier thing to sell. Would it really be such a hardship for families to only have one child?

There would certainly be more of whatever resources there are to go around, so people would be better off (notwithstanding the political problems of dishing it all out fairly).

Hmm. Currently the earth has more of everything than we need. The limiting factor is how much we can mine/harvest rather than how much there is. Halving population halves mining and harvesting yields...

Currently, perhaps, but non-renewable is non-renewable and will therefore run out/become uneconomic eventually. The fewer people to consume such resources, the longer they'll last. It's basic 'wealth divided by population' - less population = more wealth per head.

Halving the population need not halve the mining and harvesting yields either. How many people are employed in modern farming these days compared with 100 years, or even 50, years ago? - yet the yields are many times higher. Halving the population doesn't mean ignoring technology advances.

Continued increase in the human population is the road to disaster - it's just a question of time. Population explosions always lead to population crashes and I don't envy future generations that might have to suffer living through that.

 

[biffvernon]

As I may have mentioned, the most effective way of reducing birth rate is to improve women's education. This seems to be even more effective than the Chinese 'one child policy'.

Now go and read
Working Group II Contribution to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Fourth Assessment Report
Climate Change 2007:
Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Summary for Policymakers

 

[Flyfisher]

Well, a quick scan suggests it's all a bit heavy on the problems but somewhat lighter on the solutions, even to the point of accepting that adaptation is going to be more important than mitigation over the next few decades.

Maybe you're right about education - a rapid 'crash course' for women on how to only have one child thereby reducing the global population and overall energy consumption. I can't see how we stand a snowball's chance in hell (maybe not an appropriate metaphor ) of reducing global energy consumption in the face of an ever-increasing population and governments around the world committed to continued economic growth. It just doesn't add up - or rather it does and the answer is not encouraging.

 

[Nemesis]

And here's a simple guide in picture form:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/greenhouse.stm

Green green green...a lovely BMW is
Green green green... just buy a new detergent and you're
Green green green green green green green green...

TR

 

[NT]

How will you halve world population? The cost would make Hitler look like a nice guy.

Well, if every couple (or every woman?) only had one child that would have a pretty dramatic effect within a generation or two (less than 50 years). I don't know the average global death rate so I don't know exactly how quickly the population would be halved, but it could certainly be done quite quickly, in theory, without resorting to Hitler-type techniques.

I say 'in theory' because coordinating/encouraging/enforcing such a thing woul probably be practically impossible - in much the same way as coordinating/encouraging/enforcing the global population to cut down on their energy consumption while at the same time increasing their living standards.

But it might be an easier thing to sell. Would it really be such a hardship for families to only have one child?

How many babies would you have to slaughter to achieve this? Or do you fondly imagine that contraception is 100% effective, that everyone is 100% resposible, and that everyone will be happy to go along with your 1 child plans?

Your plans make Hitler sound nice.

There would certainly be more of whatever resources there are to go around, so people would be better off (notwithstanding the political problems of dishing it all out fairly).

Hmm. Currently the earth has more of everything than we need. The limiting factor is how much we can mine/harvest rather than how much there is. Halving population halves mining and harvesting yields...

Currently, perhaps, but non-renewable is non-renewable and will therefore run out/become uneconomic eventually. The fewer people to consume such resources, the longer they'll last. It's basic 'wealth divided by population' - less population = more wealth per head.

I dont think thats really a problem. In terms of raw material resources, we arent consuming anything, we're digging them up, using them, and dumping them in new mineable locations, namely landfills.

In terms of energy sources, we're using oil & gas up, but the reserves will last us generations, and meanwhile alternative sources get more and more competitive, and will continue to. We won't run out of oil in a hardship sense, we'll stop using it when renewables like wind are cheaper.

Halving the population need not halve the mining and harvesting yields either. How many people are employed in modern farming these days compared with 100 years, or even 50, years ago? - yet the yields are many times higher. Halving the population doesn't mean ignoring technology advances.

I think youre mixing 2 concepts there.
a) Yields increase and labour decreases over time.
b) for any given point in time, outputs of all sorts need a given labour input per unit output, so halving labour halves output.

Continued increase in the human population is the road to disaster - it's just a question of time. Population explosions always lead to population crashes and I don't envy future generations that might have to suffer living through that.

Population crashes occur when the population exceeds its ability to feed itself. The level of technology we have today has taken us out of that situation by a very long way. We are in no risk of that.

Secondly the population can grow by 2 orders of magnitude and we'd feed ourselves just fine. I've been writing about one of the ways, suffice it to say if we needed to produce 100x the food for 100x the population, we could do so even today. When we actually have that many humans, technology will be far advanced.

Overpopulation is a problem that existed since the dawn of time... but no more. Our technology has effectively ended it.


NT

 

[Penners]

Population crashes occur when the population exceeds its ability to feed itself.

Possibly the biggest human population crash in history was actually the result of disease, rather than starvation. The Black Death is thought to have started in Asia in the 1st century AD, where it probably killed up to 100 million people in the 6th century Byzantine Empire. After spreading westward over several centuries, it killed between a third and two-thirds of the entire population of Europe.

 

[Nemesis]

While not on the same scale, the flu pandemic of the early 20th century took its toll also:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWinfluenzia.htm

 

[Moo]

My mother got it when she was at school. The girl in the next bed died. My mother lived well into her nineties.

 

[NT]

Population crashes occur when the population exceeds its ability to feed itself.

Possibly the biggest human population crash in history was actually the result of disease, rather than starvation. The Black Death is thought to have started in Asia in the 1st century AD, where it probably killed up to 100 million people in the 6th century Byzantine Empire. After spreading westward over several centuries, it killed between a third and two-thirds of the entire population of Europe.

Nasty events indeed. These happen at all population levels. Hong Kong has orders of magnitude less land per person than the US, yet the occurrence of these incidents there in modern times is no higher.

Our position today in this area is quite different to that of most of human history.


NT

 

[Lime]

Overpopulation is a problem that existed since the dawn of time... but no more. Our technology has effectively ended it.

That may be true in relation to our ability to produce something resembling food and filling stomachs.
However the reality is that we don't fill all stomachs now and Man does not live by bread alone.
The will to feed all people has to be present too which obviously it is not.

We have been fortunate to live through a period of peace in our part of the world and have had many new drugs produced since the last war that have emasculated deseases that would once have killed us.
But during this time the UK has become almost entirely dependant on foreign food, most manufactured products and technology.
Also we have lived off the past acquired glory and wealth of Empire that has almost gone and become forgotten.

No one in the world owes the UK a living and it is apparent to me that soon the world will want, need and demand what it produces for itself and we will be left with little to sustain ourselves as world prices rise.

At present overpopulation is viewed by most in the UK as a problem that is particular to poorer less-developed countries and given modern technology they will soon change.
What is not considered is that same development produced by technology requires importing vast supplies of all sorts from other countries pushing up prices further.

It may be considered by some that the problem of overpopulation is ended.
I remain unconvinced that the will exists to end it.

For me the real problem in the modern world is, not that there is not enough food, but when a person doesn't have the money or wherewithal to buy food they die.

 

[Flyfisher]

How will you halve world population? The cost would make Hitler look like a nice guy.

Well, if every couple (or every woman?) only had one child that would have a pretty dramatic effect within a generation or two (less than 50 years). I don't know the average global death rate so I don't know exactly how quickly the population would be halved, but it could certainly be done quite quickly, in theory, without resorting to Hitler-type techniques.

I say 'in theory' because coordinating/encouraging/enforcing such a thing woul probably be practically impossible - in much the same way as coordinating/encouraging/enforcing the global population to cut down on their energy consumption while at the same time increasing their living standards.

But it might be an easier thing to sell. Would it really be such a hardship for families to only have one child?

How many babies would you have to slaughter to achieve this? Or do you fondly imagine that contraception is 100% effective, that everyone is 100% resposible, and that everyone will be happy to go along with your 1 child plans?

Your plans make Hitler sound nice.

I didn't say anything about slaughtering babies, indeed I explicitly acknowledged the difficulties of enforcement. All I'm suggesting is that reducing the global population is one method of reducing humanity-led problems. I suspect it will be as difficult to achieve as encouraging people to reduce their carbon footprints in order to stave off climate change disaster, but at least that debate is happening. Why not demonise families with more than one child in the same way as 4x4 drivers are currently demonised? 'Mums on the school run' seem to attract more tabloid flak for using a 4x4 than they ever do for the fact that they've got 3, 4 maybe 5 kids in the first place - which is why they often use a 4x4 with 7-seats anyway.

Why not use the tax system to influence behaviour, just as is done (attempted?) with car usage? There are a myriad ways of applying pressure without resorting to the infanticide you envisage - we don't execute car drivers do we?

As for supporting an ever-increasing population, maybe 9bn will be OK, maybe 12bn, but it's common sense to realise it can't continue indefinitely. There will likely always be a non-equal distribution of whatever resources are available but, on average, the greater the population the poorer everyone must be, given that the resources available are finite and will not grow in line with the population.

I really can't see a downside to encouraging a reduction in population growth.

 

[NT]

I didn't say anything about slaughtering babies, indeed I explicitly acknowledged the difficulties of enforcement. All I'm suggesting is that reducing the global population is one method of reducing humanity-led problems. I suspect it will be as difficult to achieve as encouraging people to reduce their carbon footprints in order to stave off climate change disaster, but at least that debate is happening. Why not demonise families with more than one child in the same way as 4x4 drivers are currently demonised? 'Mums on the school run' seem to attract more tabloid flak for using a 4x4 than they ever do for the fact that they've got 3, 4 maybe 5 kids in the first place - which is why they often use a 4x4 with 7-seats anyway.

Why not use the tax system to influence behaviour, just as is done (attempted?) with car usage? There are a myriad ways of applying pressure without resorting to the infanticide you envisage - we don't execute car drivers do we?

Yes, you can do all those things. I dont believe theyll make any more than the slightest differece, for one simple reason. When people decide whether to have kids or not, taxes just dont come into it. Taxes are totally trivial compared to the real issues. Its one thing to control trivial behaviour with taxation, but I doubt its realistic to control the biggest decisions people ever take with such petty measures.

As for supporting an ever-increasing population, maybe 9bn will be OK, maybe 12bn, but it's common sense to realise it can't continue indefinitely. There will likely always be a non-equal distribution of whatever resources are available but, on average, the greater the population the poorer everyone must be, given that the resources available are finite and will not grow in line with the population.

The earth's resources are finite, but we use only a miniscule fraction of them. Existence of resources is thus not an issue.

I really can't see a downside to encouraging a reduction in population growth.

I cant see a way to do it, let alone upsides and downsides. Not unless you get into psychopath territory. Or you really do have a way to change peoples minds on the biggest decision they'll ever make.


NT

 

[Flyfisher]

Why not use the tax system to influence behaviour, just as is done (attempted?) with car usage? There are a myriad ways of applying pressure without resorting to the infanticide you envisage - we don't execute car drivers do we?

Yes, you can do all those things. I dont believe theyll make any more than the slightest differece, for one simple reason. When people decide whether to have kids or not, taxes just dont come into it. Taxes are totally trivial compared to the real issues. Its one thing to control trivial behaviour with taxation, but I doubt its realistic to control the biggest decisions people ever take with such petty measures.

You may well be right, but it seems a rum old do, to me, to encourage people to reduce their energy consumption and other general 'environmental footprints' on the one hand while not trying to encourage them to reduce their family sizes on the other.

I really can't see a downside to encouraging a reduction in population growth.

I cant see a way to do it, . . .

is that a reason not to try though?

 

[Penners]

Why not use the tax system to influence [family planning] behaviour?

The French have done this for many decades, since WWII - but from the opposite direction. They have a system called famille nombreuse, which gives special government-financed discounts on children's goods (clothes, etc.) to larger families. To the best of my knowledge, this still applies today (unless anyone else knows otherwise). So they're actually encouraging population growth.

To a much smaller extent, I believe we have the same thing. There's no VAT on children's clothes (is there?).

 

[Nemesis]

Don't people get child benefit? Tax credits etc?

But it's all about child poverty and lifting families out of that.