Why Isn't the Population Problem on the News?

[alien pimp]

from obscure sections of their websites....

that's some innovative argument and solid criteria, i see now how everything ties up

[BLAHBLAHJAH]

Probably isn't an issue, as there's definately enough nuclear weaponary to sort it out overnight, when push comes to shoving some buttons

NUKEM! Get them before they get you!

[karmacazee]

I only said it COULD happen, not that it was definite problem. Man, did anyone read my post?

Just to make it clear: Right now, I don't believe there is a population problem. The problem I highlighted is that we have unfair distribution of food going on, backed up by damaging farming techniques, which creates an illusion of over-population, because it seems like there aren't enough resources to go around.

And don't forget, you never know when a new plague, natural disaster or war will come around and wipe a fair few of us out anyway. That is also a possibility. Overpopulation itself would be a self-correcting process, provided we don't collapse the eco-system.

Maybe, in the future, it could be cause for alarm if we don't sort ourselves out!!!

[alien pimp]

so the kant fanclub got it wrong again?
omg omg omg

[karmacazee]

Kant?

[Coppola]

Kant?

Can so.

[alien pimp]

eh, kant is from another thread, i can't be arsed to explain now how i thought that reference, just forget i mentioned him

[alien pimp]

Kant?

Can so.

heh, "kant believe that shit if it's not on the front page" is the full name... you're on it

[magma]

So this thread deviated rather wildly.

Population problems are a real enough issue and debate on it is pretty hard to come by in mainstream sources because there's no interest in covering it.

It's interesting to see if humanity can work out ways to solve these problems, given that there's no particular electoral interest for politicians to pursue it and only small interest from the media (biggest mention so far probably David Attenborough last year and he got accused of being an 'overlord' for bringing it up)... do Ninjas think that the people (perhaps largely via the internet) will be able to set some agendas well enough on their own going forward?

We've started seeing how waves of public opinion can even outstrip the media's power (citation: Jan Moir Vs The People's Twitterati), so perhaps just having the conversation is enough... maybe it doesn't need that much coverage.

Having said that, communication is good enough in a lot of the West that we're all realising having loads of kids is a pretty stupid idea anyway - except for the odd family The Sun manages to uncover, of course. Birth rates in the UK fell steadily until a few years ago (all time low in 2001) and, though we're creeping back up a bit, we're still well shy of the traditional "Two Point Four Children".

As Attenborough made example of in his film, (relatively) poor populations in India also mirror the trend that well educated women with access to contraception tend to use it. Without even contemplating the global perspective, the simple maths work - I have access to so much money, shelter, time and effort... every child eats into that, so more than 2 or 3 seems daft.

So, err, yeah... perhaps it's not a problem that needs addressing head on. What does need addressing head on is the inequality in the distribution of resources (especially Education) and income.

I think anyone would find it pretty difficult to convince people living extremely uncomfortable lives to stop fucking.

GO CAPITALIST LEFTIES.

[this rant was brought to you by Robinsons Orange Barley Water]

[hurlingdervish]

solution to population problem:

all males and only males have their tubes tied.

reproduce through cloning and or possible reversion of surgery.

no possibility of prosecuting parents for having too many kids, because there wont be any laws against it

[kay]

There isn't a population problem right now. There is a resource problem right now.

Population growth is exponential. That's just math. The question is: when does population growth outstrip the ability to keep the population alive? Theories back in the 70s predicted we'd be in a resource shortfall by now, but for the most part, we're not (and if resources were much better distributed, for example the billions of tons of crops that gets destroyed in Europe each year, instead of being sent to needy nations). This is due to improvements in technology. Will future improvements keep up with the population growth?

Well, unless humanity gets a lot smarter and wakes up, no one is going to lift a finger to do anything about it until it's too late. Because "It'll never happen". "Someone else will deal with it". "Dem scientists gonna sort us out. Then we stick dem back in the black cell where we don't have to hear from 'em again until the next crisis". "It's all the scientists fault". "It's a test". "The infidels will die". "We deserve it". "It's a fucking conspiracy, some rich people are stockpiling all the food somewhere, probably on their secret Mars colony".

The population problem will take a lot longer to develop than global warming. And even now, 30 years later, people still aren't convinced that the world is getting warmer. What chance does am impending problem that won't materialise till probably over a hundred years from now.

And the problem with population isn't just to do with resources. It's to do with heat as well. People produce heat. Naturally through their metabolisms, but also through other means. Agriculture. Electric items. Combusting biomass and fossil fuels. Processing chemicals. The larger the number of people, the greater the heat output. Heat is not a useful form of energy, we can't transform it into a more useful form. Which means that it will build up (a tiny proportion will get radiated into space). Regardless of the current global warming situation caused by greenhouse gases, an increasing population will also result in a rise in global temperatures. Given population patterns, this change in temperature may be somewhat more localised. But, megacities could eventually literally boil themselves to death. Or give rise to very local microclimates.

So why isn't it on the news? Because it isn't sexy. It isn't a shock story. It's not a problem now. How much attention do the news items informing the public that millions of tonnes of food is wasted instead of going to feed the starving? Practically none, despite the fact that it's a big a potshot at any government as any other news item. What gets more public attention? Tiger Woods' fucking habits. Perhaps the state of the world population is the main reason why the population problem isn't on the news.

It's also an insidious problem with no obvious target, and humans are poor at shooting at targets that aren't tangible. That is, of course, until the problem gets bad enough that people start dying and rationing starts. And then the scapegoat will be found. Typically, this will be a neighbouring country. In this case though, war could take on a whole different approach. It could be a class war. Because resources are all about money. And the rich naturally have more of it than the poor. There will be more poor people than rich. The rich will be accused of letting the poor starve. Such a war would occur globally, probably fairly simultaneously. The population problem then becomes the news.

It might be odd for me to say this, but China's population control policy is probably something they got more right than most other countries have. The majority of the world is less educated than the west. You either need to educate people as to why they need to stop having 10 kids, or you need to force them to do it. And frankly, forcing people is definitely a lot easier than teaching people. And if you've run out of time...

[alien pimp]

i need a brochure on this!
payed by al gore and written by magma!

[kay]

We're all gonna dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[alien pimp]

i swear i read a study saying lack of intelligence increases risk of heart attack, so overpopulation is not a risk

and try to not be predictable with the replies on this, just for the sake of it

[don gotti]

japanese people eat dolphins, hitler also thought there was a population problem, my sack itches like a motherfucker

[alien pimp]

i eat japanese people, so that's sorted too

[kay]

i swear i read a study saying lack of intelligence increases risk of heart attack, so overpopulation is not a risk

and try to not be predictable with the replies on this, just for the sake of it

No

[ruckus49]

short resources are gonna be a bigger problem, but yeah, they wont try to fix it until its too late. governments and industry will keep spending shit tons on military and oil, and not nearly enough on R&D for serious problems like this because they are not profitable. If there is a much larger food shortage in the future, they'll probably come up with some quick fix soylent green goo or something for the starving masses. sounds like sci-fi, but its all too probable. what will make industry and government take on food shortage on a worldwide scale when it is not profitable? we are talking about major shifts in technology and government to meet this need when the population increases 50% or doubles.

[don gotti]

you can pick your nose your friends can pick your nose but you cant pick your friends nose

[nousd]

strangely
i become close to being a conspiracy theorist on this one
back in 60s ZPG (zero population growth) advocacy on the basis of resources was ignored
and in the 70s it became a racist issue because of migration

I have long thought it the biggest issue
wrt to the declining quality of life & environment
Who, personally needs more than, say,a thousand or so people in their lives
except ego-trippers and rich people becoming richer?

The Market argument has me spew
when i see more forest felled & deserted beaches crowded.
Why the fuck do we need more people?
Why can't we have a proper debate?

I backed my belief after 2 kids...got the chop.